The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[Shampoo]

That which created.

A seriously powerful being.

You call God or Yahweh or something I don't know what you call it.

This being had no beginning. Nothing created it ... nothing could. It would not be possible for this being to have a beginning this would go against science and against logic. I can't know everything about it but I can know some things for certain.

It always was. Nothing can be more powerful then it.

It must have existed because there is no other scientific way for life or the universe to exist without it.

We are in a loop. Nothing can create anything in our loop. Something more powerful then the loop had to create the loop. This being can not have a start or we would be in infinite loops and that is logically a failure.

I can not guess this things motives but I can easily understand a few basics like power and time. Other than that it would be philosophy or something beyond me.

Is this all powerful being the Christian God?

 

[Shampoo]

How would I know

Do you believe that this powerful being is unknowable?

 

[Sanoy]

That's easy you want a positive way out of this ... go have fun in the multi-verse ... or some other multi-demesion theory.

that's where everyone else is turning to because we have no other answers.

That math is beyond a single "verse" ... "Universe".

I completely agree. I was just trying to describe the situation.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't follow a religion at this time but am a bit torn about that. But I do find it humorous how the religious were right about so much from the start. I think that is very instructive and should give many a pause in their hubris.

When you get to the point where you are ready to start looking into the religions let us know in the "exploring Christianity" section, or send me a PM if you have any questions along the way.

You are actually closer than you may realize as what you describe as God is what we call God's general revelation, found in Romans 1 & 2.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure it can but why follow it?

To live/survive.

Social groups that don't follow some kind of rule of conduct, don't last very long.

It is natural and amoral in nature. That being we are natural and therefore amoral.

That's utter nonsense.
We are natural entities, sure. We are also a social species with traits like empathy.
Morality, is in fact in our very nature.

The natural state of a social species like ours, is to actually care about some form of ethics and morals.

What you say makes zero sense.
You, in fact, only say it because you feel like it validates your fundamentalist religious beliefs. You NEED this nonsense to be true, or else your own religious beliefs don't make any sense.

So you will twist and turn in whatever impossible angle you can think off, just to stick to this silly proposition.

But the fact is, that morality is a human thing. Not a divine, religious thing. It is, in fact, part of the natural order of being a social animal.

Wolf packs have morals as well, you know (as in: a code of conduct in service of the group) and when they violate these rules, then the other members of the pack turn on him/her.

Wolf justice, if you will.

You like to (or need to) think that humans are so "out of place" in the animal kingdom and that we are somehow "special" and are submitted to "divine" morals of some sort. The truth however, is that there really isn't anything that special about being a human - as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure, we are unique as a species - but then again, so is very species... that's kind of what defines things as seperate species.

Lets not create group fictions which defy objective reality.

Nothing fictional about the natural order and nature of social species.

Nobody outisde would reasonable have to adhere to your group fictions.

Imagine how society would work, if nobody had any moral rules to live upto.
Imagine how your world would look like if everybody could steal, rape and murder without any repercussions. How your world would look like if nobody felt any incentive to be nice to anyone or to help anybody.

You are delusional if you think any group would survive in such circumstances.
As it stands today, you depend on literally more then 1000 people JUST to be able to buy a chicken cheese sandwich at the local store. The farms that made the cheese and all the workers there making that possible. The bank for the loans the farmer / shopkeeper required, and again all the employees there needed to make that happen. The transportation companies that got the chicken and cheese from the farmer to the shop. The traffic logistics you yourself required to get to that store. The car you used to get there, didn't fall out of the sky either.

Imagine a world where you would need to worry about the possibility that any of those people that came in contact with that cheese (the farmers, the packaging, the transport, the shopkeeper), poisoned it - just for the fun of it.

Yes, members of a society have EVERY REASON to uphold some basic moral code as well as a responsability to make sure that the others in the group do the same.

The world would not be livable otherwise. Society would not survive. Society would collapse and die, and humans along with it.




I wonder though, why I took the time to write this. I don't expect it to end up in a productive discussion. More like a dissmissal with some silly one-liner, only to then return to the same nonsense claim that I just thorougly debunked and explained.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Humanity seeks purpose.

Sure. But that doesn't mean "cosmic" purpose exists.

This cannot be ignored. As created in the image and according to the likeness of God, we endeavor purpose and see it in creation. It's not emotional just fact.

No, that's a bare assertion wich is not in evidence.

It's about actually having physical evidence of origins from solely a materialistic worldview.

I don't subscribe a priori to any such view.
I just require evidence. I don't care what view the evidence supports.

Just don't expect me to simply "believe" claims that are indistinguishable from pure fantasy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First I was responding to the above one sided argument and incomplete narrative. I provided the evidence that yes there was then as there is now wheat and tares in the visible Church.

Secondly, no Christians did not start the African slave trade market. It was actually Arab Muslims. Colonial European powers expanded it trans Atlantic.

History is not so tidy as some wish it to be.

I just think it is immensly dishonest to try and make any kind of point that "christians" are to be thanked for ending slavery, while it's also christians that started it. Don't give me that arab muslim crap. Slavery has been a part of judeo-christian history for over 2000 years. Read your bible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It was. As you mentioned one cannot compare the servitude of ancient Israel and her neighbors to the cruelty of African slavery in the American colonies and later USA.

Nonsense.

It's slavery. Substituting the word with "servitude" is dishonest at best.
It's owning a human as your personal property. A product that can be sold, bought and inherited by your children.

Be serious. It was slavery in every sense of the word.

In ancient times one either had land to farm and cattle to raise or starved. Most servitude in ancient times was survival.

1. that is not true
2. it is irrelevant either way. It's slavery. It's treating humans as products that can be sold, bought and inherited by off spring.

Plus as you noted it was regulated in Torah, including if an indentured servant became circumcised and followed the Law he was to be treated as a brother.

Also including that you can trick an israeli slave into becoming your slave for life.
And don't forget the non-israeli slaves, which were slaves for life by default.
You could also beat them as long as they didn't die "within a day or two". If they died a horrible death a week later from internal bleeding, you were just fine.

Please................

Don't lower yourself by denying what is written plainly in that book...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why don't Atheist's Evolve?

You talk a good game about how much you believe in Evolution and yet you don't evolve?

Why not?

Why is it that you lead the way in suicide? Why is it you have the lowest birth rates? Why is that your kind is the unhappy kind? How is that evolved? You do not pass your genes! You don't even stick around long enough to do that. And you want the rest of us to follow. How does this make sense?

Riddle me this.

You buy out billboards I saw one yesterday while on the road it said "In Science we Trust" ... "Free yourself from Religion". Cool. Awesome.
Uh free yourself to do what?
To eat,drink,bathroom,sex,fun,sleep ... repeat?

Sounds like a teenager. Or maybe an animal. you are regressing. You are devolving. You are demanding we following you DOWN. You are not lifting anything up. You are not thinking or feeling on a higher level. You want everything to go down to base animal level. Which is exactly what is happening.

Your kind has been in control of the education system for generations and the kids are dumb as rocks now. Compare them to kids a hundred years ago there is a sad comparison to say the least.

Everything is dropping.
But this isn't about evolving is it?
If it was you would be having kids and you wouldn't be eating lead.

This is about changing everyone else.

ISNT IT?

You don't like atheists, do you?

Are you one of those (many) theists who responded in that infamous survey that they would rather live next to a convicted rapists then next to an atheist?

 

[theQuincunx5]

What Humanists have done to destroy the family can never be forgiven insight of anything good they ever did.

When I look to family values I NEVER look at humanists. I look to folks like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard and Donald J. Trump.

 

[bhsmte]

Why don't Atheist's Evolve?

You talk a good game about how much you believe in Evolution and yet you don't evolve?

Why not?

Why is it that you lead the way in suicide? Why is it you have the lowest birth rates? Why is that your kind is the unhappy kind? How is that evolved? You do not pass your genes! You don't even stick around long enough to do that. And you want the rest of us to follow. How does this make sense?

Riddle me this.

You buy out billboards I saw one yesterday while on the road it said "In Science we Trust" ... "Free yourself from Religion". Cool. Awesome.
Uh free yourself to do what?
To eat,drink,bathroom,sex,fun,sleep ... repeat?

Sounds like a teenager. Or maybe an animal. you are regressing. You are devolving. You are demanding we following you DOWN. You are not lifting anything up. You are not thinking or feeling on a higher level. You want everything to go down to base animal level. Which is exactly what is happening.

Your kind has been in control of the education system for generations and the kids are dumb as rocks now. Compare them to kids a hundred years ago there is a sad comparison to say the least.

Everything is dropping.
But this isn't about evolving is it?
If it was you would be having kids and you wouldn't be eating lead.

This is about changing everyone else.

ISNT IT?

Some people don't believe as you do, get used to it.

 

[redleghunter]

I just think it is immensly dishonest to try and make any kind of point that "christians" are to be thanked for ending slavery

The history of the Abolitionist movement says different. Once again I was responding to a one sided argument. So take the actual evidence where it takes you.

while it's also christians that started it.

Already shown to be false.

Don't give me that arab muslim crap.

It's actually history you contend with here. The Arab Muslim conquest of Northern Africa (and parts of Southern Europe) set up the slave trade in the region. European colonial powers expanded the Arab slave trade market trans-Atlantic.

Slavery has been a part of judeo-christian history for over 2000 years. Read your bible.

In Torah servitude or slavery was regulated and cannot compare with the cruelty of African slavery in North America. Your argument would be inconsistent given the NT church did not take slaves. Also, arguing from African slavery from the Enlightenment era to slavery in the Bronze Age is the very definition of arguing from anachronism.

 

[Astrophile]

“If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.”
― Benito Mussolini

I don't understand this. If all ideologies are of equal value, why should it be right to enforce one ideology in preference to all others? Mussolini's assertion sounds self-contradictory.

 

[redleghunter]

In ancient times one either had land to farm and cattle to raise or starved. Most servitude in ancient times was survival.

1. that is not true

It's a fact. I'll even consider that if one had a skill like a blacksmith they would be able to survive. There were no minimum wage jobs back then. You either had your own means to support your family or tribe by extension, or had a skill someone needed, or you starved to death, or equally horrible you were murdered by bandits. That is one of the main reasons people were in slavery in the Bronze Age----Survival.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't understand this. If all ideologies are of equal value, why should it be right to enforce one ideology in preference to all others? Mussolini's assertion sounds self-contradictory.

Because the idea that all ideologies are of equal value doesn't entail that there's anything wrong with enforcing one over others. That would be just another ideological statement. "I should enforce my will upon others" is as valid as "I should respect the beliefs of others," because neither is objectively true. So the fascist is basically arguing that there is no reason for them to not to do as they please, since as soon as you reject the notion of universal moral truths, anything goes.

It's really the logical conclusion of rejecting moral realism. If you arbitrarily prefer following traditional humanist values, there's no reason not to, but the fascist doesn't have to agree, and is not obligated to refrain from doing everything in his power to destroy progressive society.

 

[pitabread]

To get to a functioning protein fold we would be looking at 1 in 10^77 so this is a serious problem being that we would need to do this many times over per new life form. When we are talking just say eh 2 million brand new proteins then those will need worse odds at more like well over 1 in10^120 just giving rough off the top of my head.

I'm asking you to explain the math. Quoting random probabilities doesn't mean anything.

Do you understand where the math comes from? Do you understand the premise(s) behind it?

Right now it looks like you just grabbed this figure from some random creationist/ID website and have never bothered to question if it's valid. (Spoiler alert: It's not.)

The truth is that all scientists are now bailing on this problem. Dawkins is now turning to Scy-fi Multi-verse to get around this stuff because everyone knows now the math problem is not improbable it is impossible.

What math? All you've done is quote a meaningless probability. I'm asking you to demonstrate that that probability is actually valid.

 

[Astrophile]

Because the idea that all ideologies are of equal value doesn't entail that there's anything wrong with enforcing one over others. That would be just another ideological statement. "I should enforce my will upon others" is as valid as "I should respect the beliefs of others," because neither is objectively true. So the fascist is basically arguing that there is no reason for them to not to do as they please, since as soon as you reject the notion of universal moral truths, anything goes.

It's really the logical conclusion of rejecting moral realism. If you arbitrarily prefer following traditional humanist values, there's no reason not to, but the fascist doesn't have to agree, and is not obligated to refrain from doing everything in his power to destroy progressive society.

No, I still don't understand it. If Mussolini genuinely believed that all ideologies are of equal value, he must have thought that this equality of value was an objective fact. For example, he should have believed that democracy has the same value as Fascism or other forms of totalitarianism, and that pantheism, star-worship or Hinduism has the same value as Christianity, so that there was no reason to impose any of these ideologies in preference to the others. One can only validly claim a right to impose a particular ideology if one believes it to be superior to others.

Also, to say that there is no absolute morality or no absolute moral truths is not to say that there are no moral principles at all. I think that it is like science or grammar. Scientific theories are always changing, but some theories are objectively better than others; for example Laplace's theory of the movements of the planets was better than Ptolemy's, but that doesn't mean that Laplace's theory is entirely true or that Ptolemy's was entirely false. The grammatical rules of languages change with time, so they are not absolute, but we can't say that 'anything goes' in speech or writing. Moral principles are also subject to change, but that does not mean that 'anything goes' in morality.

 

[Silmarien]

No, I still don't understand it. If Mussolini genuinely believed that all ideologies are of equal value, he must have thought that this equality of value was an objective fact. For example, he should have believed that democracy has the same value as Fascism or other forms of totalitarianism, and that pantheism, star-worship or Hinduism has the same value as Christianity, so that there was no reason to impose any of these ideologies in preference to the others. One can only validly claim a right to impose a particular ideology if one believes it to be superior to others.

Well, when we say that all ideologies have equal value, what we really mean is that none of them have any intrinsic value at all. If democracy has no value, and freedom has no value, and dignity has no value, then all that is left is the exercise of power. Does force need to be justified, or can it just be applied? A lot of these more nihilistically inclined political theories really are just about power, and it is not very clear that any relativistic theory of morality can escape the same conclusion. Many of the subjectivists here seem to hold their values as existing outside of the realm of things that can be rationally criticized, which strikes me as very dangerous.

Also, to say that there is no absolute morality or no absolute moral truths is not to say that there are no moral principles at all. I think that it is like science or grammar. Scientific theories are always changing, but some theories are objectively better than others; for example Laplace's theory of the movements of the planets was better than Ptolemy's, but that doesn't mean that Laplace's theory is entirely true or that Ptolemy's was entirely false. The grammatical rules of languages change with time, so they are not absolute, but we can't say that 'anything goes' in speech or writing. Moral principles are also subject to change, but that does not mean that 'anything goes' in morality.

I both agree and disagree. If you believe that one moral theory can be objectively better than another one, then there is some standard against which you are measuring them (even if you cannot adequately descibe it), and you are actually in the realm of moral realism. Scientific theories work well as an analogy, but if you're going to compare it to the rules of grammar, you are still in trouble, because language is in part a matter of mutual consent. There is nothing about the past tense that means it must be conjugated in a specific way. If morality is similar, then someone like Mussolini can indeed withdraw his consent and do whatever he'd like.

There would also be consequences to viewing morality as something that can evolve over time, but that older principles were appropriate for their time. If pedophilia is wrong, what can we say about the pederasty of classical Greece? Presumably it had a deleterious effect upon young men then too, even if the culture didn't yet realize it. What about women's rights? Is the oppression of women contextually acceptable in Saudi Arabia, but not here? If our society devolves again, will it once more be acceptable here as well? It's really not very clear how we are not still in a situation where anything goes, unless we actually accept some level of absolutism over moral truths.

 

[the iconoclast]

Some people don't believe as you do, get used to it.

Hello bhsmte

What do you believe?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

By that logic, if you lost your faith and fear of god and/or eternal punishement you would start stealing/killing/living in hedonism?

Hey Hey viroptimus.