Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Richard Carrier is a ancient historian, but not a New Testement historian. His work on Jesus was panned by fellow athiest scholars, and disagrees with all scholars in the last 50 years in the the matter of Jesus' historicity. His arguments in his book on the matter rely on premises that were falsified in the 1950s and 1960s due to archeological finds and various troves of textual finds that corroborate a historical Jesus.
He is destroyed by an actual historical Jesus scholar William Lane Craig.
Carriers Classical history may be good, I'm unfamiliar with it, but he appears to have an axe to grind with regards to Jesus' history, and abandons the basics of historiography to misrepresent a false narrative.
In my book when an expert falsifies the record to manipulate people to his view, rather than relying on the data, superlatives like "great" go out the window!
Bart Erhman (who calls himself an atheist), did in an article in Huffington post circa 2012 and in the following videoIt might help the rest of us if you list some names of those "other" atheists who have panned Richard Carrier's work.
There is a difference between wanting to convince somebody of an idea and wanting to force it down their throat. I am talking about wanting to convince somebody of an idea.You're a humanist, supposedly. Is the concept of believing a certain viewpoint is superior without necessarily going out of your way to try to force it down everyone else's throat really so foreign to you?
In what way did my explanation for the reason that humanists have for respecting others fail as an explanation? We have an excellent reason for respecting others. We do not need to resort to making up gods, or adopting a religion we don't believe in to arrive at that.Yes, I do. It failed as an explanation.
You implied that we can be confident that the source of the universe had intellect and will. I note that you have made no attempt to justify that claim. You just make the claim, and refuse to give one tiny bit of evidence.This is why walking up to people and insisting that they give you bullet point reasons to believe is problematic.
No.Do you really want to contribute to the picture of atheists as a bunch of angry young men who irrationally hate religion?
Are you done yet?Uber Genius said: ↑
If you said, "The universe and all matter and energy just popped into existence uncaused magically out of nothing," would anyone be okay with that? You physics teacher and philosophy professors would certainly not be okay with that.
You responded:
Could you please address what I actually said? Because I have stated what I think is behind the Big Bang, and it is not""The universe and all matter and energy just popped into existence uncaused magically out of nothing." Why not deal with what I said rather than this straw man?
So my response is in no way a straw man! Please refer to the definition before attempting to misrepresent my post.
I said "If your said," so every reader knows that it is a conditional clause that represents your approach but not verbatim. I was identifying your actual method of relying on magic and rhetoric that no philosopher would except. But I will gladly spell it out for you.
You said, "If we accept a Big Bang, and some incomprehensible "eternity" beyond it, it seems it is difficult to make any definitive statements about that eternity." We are not making definitive statements but rather examining alternative explanations to see which best explains a universe coming into being from no space, no time, no matter,no energy, as the Big Bang model represents!"
You go on to say, "At a minimum it could just be that "nothing" really is impossible so there are various somethings out there, and one of those somethings is an eternally expanding "space-time" with quantum effects that creates universes."
This is not philosophy!
The fact that modern science in the last 50 years has stumbled upon a universe that came from timeless, spaceless, without energy and matter, runs into a 3500 year old religious explanation of a timeless spaceless immaterial creator God seem pretty spectacular to atheist philosophers and cosmologists alike but you conclude it is "difficult to make any definitive statements."
And then give us a much less plausible offering:
"Nothing is impossible." Eternally expanding universes with an actual infinite regress of causes. This is the "magic" portion where your suggestion destroys all scientific inferences. By punting your cause to a infinite series of causes of which we will, "definitionally," never be able to scientifically collect data about, you produce, not a scientific, or a philosophical (as actual infinites don't exist, and you have reversed one of the central maxims of philosophy, out of nothing nothing comes), but a meaningless hypothesis based on a word game that no atheist philosopher, or cosmologist would support.
Word games, word games, magic, fake philosophy, oh and let's play some more word games.
All you have done is again play a word game by saying nothing is impossible.
"One could also postulate that another something that exists is some sort of sentient god, but I see no way of knowing that."
Again here you have circularly achieved your conclusion, based on word games and your elimination of any premise that supports knowing there is a sentient God.
Christianity provides a worldview in which humans are by their nature made in God's image and therefore worthy of dignity. It provides a standard of a fully realized life in the service of others, and makes that standard absolute by declaring it God in the flesh.
Did you miss the part where you said you were agnostic about Christianity? Did you miss the part where you evade any claim any this is actually true?
I think you say there is no truth to the claim that God made us in his image. If it is not true, why even tell people that?
In your story, did God made all animals in his image, or just humans? Should we treat a man and a snake equally?
I have given you a humanistic reason for showing respect for both, but more for the human. You say my reason is no good. Fine, and what reason can you give to treat humans with respect? Can you do nothing better than make up stories without truth value, and hope people either believe them or pretend to believe them?
OK, so you think the good of humanity is not a good ground for morality.your utilitarian defense of humanism does not work. You are treating respect for other people as a means to an end, the end being the good of society. If eugenics is good for society, then eugenics is fully moral and in this context respect for other people ought to be limited... for the good of society. This is a dangerous place to ground ethics, as opinions concerning what society should be and what is good for it are variable.
How is this relevant to the question of whether there are reasons for an agnostic to embrace Christianity? My argument has never been about the truth value of the religion.
Though for the record, my starting place is Plato, not Genesis.
Ah, you are going to ignore my argument and declare victory. I have explained how humanism sees the value in humanity, and based on that, proposes a high moral standard of respect for other humans. You have not attempted to show us where that is wrong. You just pretend that I haven't said that and declare victory.You are welcome to provide an alternative defense of secular humanism, but so far you have not.
What is a good ground for morality? Following that which is "intrinsically good"? OK, but who gets to define what is intrinsically good? God? OK, but what if God defines eugenics, raping, pillaging and plundering as moral? Are we then forced to do those things because the ultimate source tells us to? Is this nothing more than "might makes right"? Is this argument nothing more than saying that, since God is the most powerful guy in the block, we all better pay homage to him?
Ah, so you are speaking for the record that your source on morality is Plato? If I read Plato, can I take him as an authority on right and wrong? How is it you know that Plato got it right?
Ah, you are going to ignore my argument and declare victory. I have explained how humanism sees the value in humanity, and based on that, proposes a high moral standard of respect for other humans. You have not attempted to show us where that is wrong. You just pretend that I haven't said that and declare victory.
I agree, this is precisely the consequence of that particular approach. There are divine command theorists on this forum, if you would like to argue with one of them. It is a view I reject.
Plato wrote some good things, yes.No, being a Platonist doesn't mean taking Plato on authority as the giver of moral truths or saying he got everything right. Reading Plato would be a good starting place, however.
You have ignored the argument where I explained to you that the human mind is the most marvelous thing I know in the universe. Since every person we meet has a human mind, that is a reason for treating all with respect.What argument have I ignored? You presented an argument, I addressed it.
Your argument seems to be an argument against democracy. Sure, democracies are neither perfect nor a panacea, but they are a great way to work for the common good. Got any better suggestions?Now you either seem to be saying ... that morality ought to be based on what the majority of people think is necessary for the common good, which is a disturbing sort of mob rule approach to morality that also defeats your humanism. Because throughout most of human history, the "common good" has relegated women to a second class status.
Ok, so you have no answer on who gets to define what is intrinsically good. All you can say is not us and not God. Fine, who does get to define it?
You refuse to answer because you have no answer, yes?
How can you claim any basis for morality if nobody or no thing can define what is moral?
You have ignored the argument where I explained to you that the human mind is the most marvelous thing I know in the universe. Since every person we meet has a human mind, that is a reason for treating all with respect.
Your argument seems to be an argument against democracy. Sure, democracies are neither perfect nor a panacea, but they are a great way to work for the common good. Got any better suggestions?
I have answered: I am a Platonist. This actually means something. .
Ok, so you have no answer on who gets to define what is intrinsically good. All you can say is not us and not God. Fine, who does get to define it?
You refuse to answer because you have no answer, yes?
How can you claim any basis for morality if nobody or no thing can define what is moral?
Please answer.
Oxford dictionary.Who defines that 1+1=2?
I am a Platonist. You can look that up if you want to and try to figure out what it actually means. Or don't.
Someone could say many wrong things, yes.Someone could say that they find the female ability to bring new life into the world the most marvelous thing in all of reality, and that they therefore find women to be of more intrinsic value than men. Similarly, if the human mind is the measure of all things, we could wonder whether more intelligent or talented people are not of greater intrinsic value, and the mentally ill or intellectually disabled somehow less.
My only question is this: would you hold that the human mind is objectively good and that all people have intrinsic value by nature, or do you think that it is just your subjective impression that human minds are marvelous, that you have effectively made up the concept of "good" to apply to these things that are in and of themselves no more or less special than a bunch of rocks sitting on the side of the street?
Or so the argument goes.Yes, actually. Republics are significantly better forms of government than pure democracies, since the latter are vulnerable to tyranny of the majority, amongst other problems.
I don't view morality as something that can be democratically decided, though. I would consider slavery to have always been an evil, even when it was a socially acceptable practice.
The solution is government that is not tyrannical. And the way to achieve that is to get people to understand that, in the long run, tyranny is not in their best interests.
Government cannot decide morality, beauty, humor, etc. What it can do is decide what rules to make for the good of the people.
Ok you don't fully believe in democracy or republic with the people understanding the principles of cooperation, don't believe in communism and don't believe in anarchy? What in the carnation do you want?
....sorry, I just couldn't help myself after reading these ambiguous comments of yours. Good luck with fully believing all that! (....and no, I'm not advocating something absolutely crazy like anarchy or communism in making this rejoinder!)
It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. The birds are chirping. The flowers are vibrantly colored. "I am glad we are moving here," I inform my dog, "but it seems a little deserted this morning. Perhaps everyone went to church."
"Oh yes," you explain to me over the fence later that day. "Many of us take our faith quite seriously here".
"That's interesting", I respond. "I personally don't have much faith in any deity. Seriously, why should I adopt your faith?"
You step back, pause, and reply...
Ok you don't fully believe in democracy or republic with the people understanding the principles of cooperation, don't believe in communism and don't believe in anarchy? What in the carnation do you want?
Hmmm, well, nihilism has no mention of faith or deities but I will tell you that nihilism is the most accurate assessment of logic and mathematics. Consider the fact that logic and mathematics are purely assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow; no other notion exists in these fields. Further, consider that nothing can actually be proven from just assumptions and definitions. Finally, acknowledge that mathematics and logic are merely collections of conditional propositions which have no factual basis in and of themselves. And remember,
2+2={Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}.
To your health then! It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick, not those who consider themselves righteous who need God, but sinners.
There comes a point in any Christians life when they got It pretty much figured out. They know the bottom line in everyhomily, the punchline of every joke before the priest even says it.
Why not set back with a cool one and watch the hummingbirds flit in the back yard instead of kneeling in the stifling heat of the church then?
I suppose, the best answer for many of us is that we are not there mainly for ourselves anymore,but to show our face as believers for those who really need the assurance in their lives that there is something still worthwhile to believe in, after life has chewed them out and spat them out. They need to believe there is life after the death of their children, or a reason to carry on after their husband has traded them in for a sleeker, sportier model of wife.
We are not out there for the hale, and the hearty,and the happy,but we come to show the people who may look up to us and respect our opinions that the community as a whole, smart and dumb, rich and poor, leaders and the shakers, and the clingers on too,see in God something worth while to believe in.
In the end, it is not a totally selfless act either, to forgo the cool one and spend time among the sinners and the ailing. No man is an island. A community filled with spiritually healthy people is in every one’s greater interest, I think.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?