Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 2)

[Chriliman]

In my experience, this is one of the the biggest differences between atheists and theists.
The idea that you MUST believe something.

Withholding belief is fine, but eventually reality convinces us of what's true.

I'll believe whatever I feel justified in believing as it pertains to the evidence.
For the things I have no clue about or simply have insufficient evidence for, I'm fine withholding belief until I have enough data to take up a position.
Otherwise also known as "I don't know".

I have no problem with that.

Again, if don't agree that staying alive and healthy is preferable to dieing, then I have nothing to discuss with you concerning morality.

In a world where life and well-being doesn't matter... morality doesn't matter either.

I agree, life is preferable over death, which is why death needs to be overcome, that's what God does.

Then what are you objecting to, when I'm saying that staying alive is preferable to dieing?

I'm objecting to death and saying it's a problem that's need be overcome and I believe Jesus has and is and will overcome it.

My concern in context of morality is with the living.
I'm not sure why you insist on talking about the nature of death.
Especially not since you already agreed that life is valueable and preferable to death.

We both value life, which means I would think we both would be happy if death stopped.

 

[Chriliman]

Even if it is "ceasing to exist" death still sucks a lot. First, in the case of the Amalekites, they died a violent death at the end of a sword, and I bet that hurt a lot.

Agreed.

Second, their one and only shot at existing and experiencing anything forever was just cut short.
Those are bad things even without any afterlife being considered.

If sentient life goes on forever, then death can always be considered bad, forever. If sentient life does not go on forever, then death can't always be considered bad because there has to be a sentient living being to make the consideration.

 

[Moral Orel]

If sentient life goes on forever, then death can always be considered bad, forever. If sentient life does not go on forever, then death can't always be considered bad because there has to be a sentient living being to make the consideration.

If there actually comes a time in which all sentient life has ceased to exist, then I'll consider this point then.

Until then, there is sentient life, and we can consider it bad, so it is moot.

 

[Chriliman]

But it didn't always, and God commanded these things be done in the past, so there's no reason He can't command it in the future either. They aren't always a sin, and that's the point. If they aren't always and for everyone (past, present and future) then they aren't objectively evil.

I'm not certain that God commanded those things, nor do I know why He would have, but I'm certain I'll eventually find out if He did it and why or if it was just man being men.

 

[Chriliman]

If there actually comes a time in which all sentient life has ceased to exist, then I'll consider this point then.

Lol, you mean when you're immortal?

Until then, there is sentient life, and we can consider it bad, so it is moot.

Ok then.

 

[Hawkins]

Withholding belief is fine, but eventually reality convinces us of what's true.

For the sake of argument, if afterlife exists how can you reach this truth. What reality will be able to convince you about its existence? Or are you simply saying that because we can't get to the realm of afterlife to examine such that it doesn't exist?

That lies the flaw of your logic. Even science won't rely on 'perception of reality' to assume a truth. In reality, no one ever had perception of black hole to be convinced of its existence. 99.99% humans don't even have the evidence before they take it as fact. This is the very reality you failed to live with!

In this very reality, you don't perceive the existence of black holes. You don't acquire evidence of their existence either. You rely on putting faith in the direct contacts (eyewitnesses) we call scientists to get this piece of truth! It is so even in terms of science.

In terms of history, history mostly don't have evidence. You can't even present the evidence of what you yourself did just yesterday! That says the nature of what history is! Again, this is the reality you failed to realize.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is it really "subjective" that a society with low crime rates, low infant mortality, high literacy, low rates of domestic violence, ... has a higher well-being then a society where the opposite is true?

Of course it is.

 

[Chriliman]

Did you mean to direct these comments towards me?

For the sake of argument, if afterlife exists how can you reach this truth. What reality will be able to convince you about its existence? Or are you simply saying that because we can't get to the realm of afterlife to examine such that it doesn't exist?

I would think if someone experiences passing through death into everlasting life, they'd be able to know they're immortal.

 

[Hawkins]

Did you mean to direct these comments towards me?

I would think if someone experiences passing through death into everlasting life, they'd be able to know they're immortal.

However the possible truth advocating is that by then they are dead in hell. That's the point. It means relying on one's own experience is out of option. Or are you suggesting that until we go to hell we should ignore its existence?

As in the analogy I was given, are you suggesting that we neglect the existence of black holes until we experience their existence? That's not how humans in majority do in this reality. They don't rely on their own experience to get to the truth that black holes exist.

In a nutshell, your line of logic won't work and you are completely out of this reality! No offense, this is just to point out where the flaw of your logic is. You sound as if humans should rely on own experience to determine what a truth is. However humans don't and can't! Putting faith in other humans (direct witnesses) is the fundamental and efficient way for humans to get to a truth of any kind. This is how this reality works!

 

[Chriliman]

However the possible truth advocating is that by then they are dead in hell. That's the point. It means relying on one's own experience is out of option. Or are you suggesting that until we go to hell we should ignore its existence?

Actually, I'm referring to Jesus who did suffer death and was resurrected to immortal life.

As in the analogy I was given, are you suggesting that we neglect the existence of black holes until we experience their existence? That's not how humans in majority do in this reality. They don't rely on their own experience to get to the truth that black holes exist.

I'm not suggesting that, I think we should consider other people's claims as well as reality itself in order to determine what's true.

In a nutshell, your line of logic won't work and you are completely out of this reality! No offense, this is just to point out where the flaw of your logic is. You sound as if humans should rely on own experience to determine what a truth is. However humans don't and can't! Putting faith in other humans (direct witnesses) is the fundamental and efficient way for humans to get to a truth of any kind. This is how this reality works!

I think maybe you're not understanding my logic correctly. I think we actually agree on many things

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Actually, I'm referring to Jesus who did suffer death and was resurrected to immortal life.

Or not...

 

[Chriliman]

Or not...

How would you know?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

How would you know?

Exactly. You'd need good evidence to know if something happened or not.

 

[Chriliman]

Exactly. You'd need good evidence to know if something happened or not.

I have a changed life, that's evidence enough for me.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have a changed life, that's evidence enough for me.

Ok, however, you said the statement as if it was a foregone conclusion.

Hence my response.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course it is.

Finally...someone sees the light! (?)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Finally...someone sees the light! (?)

Lol.

I listened to Harris' TED talk about the subject and was annoyed the entire time.

I mean, I get his basic desire to do things that lessen suffering, but calling it objective is just silly. Intersubjective - to a point - sure. But not objective.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lol.

I listened to Harris' TED talk about the subject and was annoyed the entire time.

I mean, I get his basic desire to do things that lessen suffering, but calling it objective is just silly. Intersubjective - to a point - sure. But not objective.

I can agree with that. I saw the TED talk by Harris...and at the moment I'm also dissecting chapter 6 of his book "The End of Faith," which he titled "A Science of Good and Evil." There's so many questionable bits in it that I've lost count, and I'm only half way through it.

I also noticed that Harris essentially dismisses Hume with a wave of the hand, barely mentioning Hume and relegating his criticism of Hume to about a 1 paragraph space, shoved into the footnote/notes section in the back of the book.

With that said, this doesn't mean I think Sam Harris is completely dismissible--I might actually agree with his essential approach to some aspects of 'realism,' for instance. Nor do I think that if, by chance, Harris can be proved wrong that I am somehow defaulted to a position of being 'right.' But, I do notice that when it comes to religion, he tends to make a number of simple, direct, and/or wide-sweeping statements that don't really dig into the many nuances we ALL have to consider.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

Lol, you mean when you're immortal?

No, the joke was that there would be no sentient life (including myself) to consider it, so I'll consider it then.

 

[Chriliman]

No, the joke was that there would be no sentient life (including myself) to consider it, so I'll consider it then.

I got it