Future of religion

Previous page 1 2 3 4« Previous thread | Next thread »
- King Koopa
- Ex-Muslim
- Your Mom's Favorite Lover
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #90 - June 30, 2010, 08:41 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on June 30, 2010, 08:02 AM
It wouldn't make any difference, Sparky. There have been times in my life when I have had neither.

ETA: I should elaborate. The bottom line is that, as far as I can tell, there is no absolute basis for morality or ethics, nor is there any real basis for assuming that my life has any absolute value. Humans are important to humans. They are not important to (for instance) aardvarks.

Given that there is no reason for assuming that my life has any real meaning I have two choices.

1/ Start wearing black lipstick and cutting myself with razors.

2/ Give 1/ a miss and enjoy the experience as much as I can while it lasts.

Your attitude seems to be closer to 1/, in that like many theists you think life would be worthless without some sense of absolute value or meaning. I disagree. I think that life is ultimately pointless but that does not mean that it is worthless. The two are not synonymous.

Thank you my wiser and older brother. I was stuck on pointless for a while, I think I understand number 2 now.
- Homer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #91 - June 30, 2010, 08:46 AM

Quote from: Q-Man on June 30, 2010, 12:38 AM
He was lead singer for the Sex Pistols, The Clash and Black Flag?

Bad Religion, my man, who else
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaPoS9DFou0

The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
-Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

"Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags." -Ibl
- King Koopa
- Ex-Muslim
- Your Mom's Favorite Lover
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #92 - June 30, 2010, 08:55 AM

What I'm confused. Sex Pistols, The Clash, Black Flag and Bad Religion are all seperate bands.
- Homer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #93 - June 30, 2010, 09:04 AM

Quote from: sparky on June 28, 2010, 11:24 AM

If God exists, it is entirely possible that there is a true morality that is a property of the universe we live in and applies to all people.

I've already shown why this is false.
In fact, you seem to dislike before when I used the words "'absolute' and 'universal'".
God's morality (if he existed) would also be subjective, as I may disagree with it.
Because I have free will, I have the same ability to formulate morality (that darn apple).

Granted, this is all a bit of a mut point for me, since I dont believe a god exists. So that only really leaves normative ethics, which I am very happy with.
You do have another problem with Divine command theory....which is that you would have to concede you are amoral. There is not a matter of motivation, you would only be following orders. If one asks why I shouldn't rape someone, the only answer you can give is: "because God commands you not to".
To the person asking it would be meaningless if that person did not believe in your god.
To yourself it would not be your morals, as intention is important. Your intention is to follow orders. Meaning you personally have only one moral....following orders.
And I dont believe you will concede that the only reason you dont rape people is because you are ordered not to.

The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
-Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

"Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags." -Ibl
- Homer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #94 - June 30, 2010, 09:19 AM

Quote from: BlackDog on June 30, 2010, 08:55 AM
What I'm confused. Sex Pistols, The Clash, Black Flag and Bad Religion are all seperate bands.

He's making a joke

The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
-Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

"Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags." -Ibl
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #95 - July 06, 2010, 12:51 PM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
For a Christian and his 'morality', there quite simply is no evidence and he knows it.

And this is simply false. If it's your opinion, it is demonstrably wrong. I don't 'know it' and nor do most of the other Christians I know. Hence the parallel breaks down.

I wouldn't think this was true for most muslims either. They don't 'know' that there is no evidence that Islam is true. Hence all the focus on scientific miracles in the Quran, the beauty of the Quran, the preservation of the Quran, etc. They, and Christians, may be wrong about the truth of what they believe in but there is no hyprocrisy in this regard like there is for an atheist.

Of course, don't mistake me, if the atheist is right, there is nothing 'bad' about being a hypocrite.

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
Yet you were offended when I suggested that your morality has no evidence when you've been telling us all the exact same thing.

Not offended at all. You've simply been claiming something which I know for a fact that you cannot know (whether I have evidence for what I believe). You don't know me, you don't know what I believe. Your readiness to do this simply suggests to me that there would be little point in me attempting to present my reasons to you. Why present evidence to someone who has already shown that evidence is irrelevant to what they live by?

Followed by repetition...

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
1-Do you believe your morality is "true" or "objective" ?

Yes.

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
2-If so, is there any evidence to prove the objectivity and trueness of your morality? can you present the evidence?

Yes - if 'prove' is taken to mean sufficient evidence to convince me. And Yes.

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
3-If not, how is you morality different from an atheist's morality?

It's different because there is evidence that it is true.

Cheers,
sparky
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #96 - July 06, 2010, 12:53 PM

Hey, sparkplug

Since you convinced me of the impossibility of morality without Jesus, I've reverted back to Christianity. Thanks so much for showing me the light.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #97 - July 06, 2010, 01:03 PM

Quote from: allat
So, you're saying (your idea of) God is subject to, dependent upon, or constricted by, the laws of logic? If so, then who created the logic he's subject to?

Logic (or 'reason') is again part of his character. If he could break it, you simply couldn't understand it.

Quote from: allat
Some God(s) throughout some religions are violent, contemptuous, vindictive, jealous etc. Including the God of the Bible, and Allah. So, first of all, your God is not all that moral, in terms of being just, compassionate etc.

I don't believe in 'some' Gods. I believe in a particular one. If you think he somehow contradicts his own character, you'll need to explain what your evidence is. The vague terms here don't achieve that.

Quote from: allat
And secondly, any characteristics "He" is assigned with are arbitrary as they are assigned to "Him" by "Himself" and/or by the humans who have tried to define "Him".

He is not 'assigned' characteristics. They just 'are'. Hence they are not arbitrary.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #98 - July 06, 2010, 01:13 PM

Quote from: Os
Your attitude seems to be closer to 1/, in that like many theists you think life would be worthless without some sense of absolute value or meaning. I disagree. I think that life is ultimately pointless but that does not mean that it is worthless. The two are not synonymous.

How on earth would you know what my hypothetical attitude would be if I believed what you believed. I'm simply not in your boat, Os.

The distinction between 'pointless' and 'worthless' here is only is your use of 'ultimately' for one and not the other. Of course, subjective goals and subjective values have exactly the same status as products of your own fantasy. And you are welcome to them. Let's just not be complaining about the murderer finding value in killing people or the rapist finding value in raping people. Their philosophy would really be just like yours.
- Zebedee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #99 - July 06, 2010, 01:28 PM

Quote from: sparky on July 06, 2010, 01:03 PM
Logic (or 'reason') is again part of his character. If he could break it, you simply couldn't understand it.

He is not 'assigned' characteristics. They just 'are'. Hence they are not arbitrary.

Are you saying that God is not constrained by logic?

Just because your god possesses certain characterisitics doesn't mean that those characteristics are not arbitrary. Your god's characterisitics are entirely arbitrary because there is no reason whatsoever as to why they should be one thing as opposed to another. They just are the way they are for literally no reason whatsoever, hence they are arbitrary.

Quote from: sparkylink=topic=10792.msg302566#msg302566date=1278422005
Let's just not be complaining about the murderer finding value in killing people or the rapist finding value in raping people. Their philosophy would really be just like yours.

And if your god is real then what's to stop murderers and rapists from finding value in killing and raping? If they do, even if your god is completely opposed to such things, all that they're doing is acting out of accord with the arbitrary nature of this purposeless metaphysical being. What's wrong with that?

Why, it's no more wrong that humans acting out of accord with the ways of nature. Like say, using medicine, behaving in a manner that is contrary to natural selection, flying planes, etc.

They'll go to Hell? Well, that's just an adverse consequence, isn't it? Much like the adverse consequences that would befall such criminals in a society in an atheistic universe.

What's wrong with raping and killing if your god exists?
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #100 - July 06, 2010, 01:36 PM

Quote from: sparky on July 06, 2010, 12:51 PM
And this is simply false. If it's your opinion, it is demonstrably wrong. I don't 'know it' and nor do most of the other Christians I know. Hence the parallel breaks down.

I wouldn't think this was true for most muslims either. They don't 'know' that there is no evidence that Islam is true. Hence all the focus on scientific miracles in the Quran, the beauty of the Quran, the preservation of the Quran, etc. They, and Christians, may be wrong about the truth of what they believe in but there is no hyprocrisy in this regard like there is for an atheist.

Of course, don't mistake me, if the atheist is right, there is nothing 'bad' about being a hypocrite.

Oh come on sparky. I expected better from you.
You "chose" to believe in the Bible and in Jesus. I haven't seen the "objective evidence" for either of them. Until you present the evidence, you are no different from a Muslim, Scientologist, or Bhuddist.

Quote from: sparky on July 06, 2010, 12:51 PM
Not offended at all. You've simply been claiming something which I know for a fact that you cannot know (whether I have evidence for what I believe). You don't know me, you don't know what I believe. Your readiness to do this simply suggests to me that there would be little point in me attempting to present my reasons to you.

That's a cheap cop-out sparky. Shame on you.
I've already apologized and you accepted my apology. Now all I ask is for you to present the evidence for your morality. Please.

Quote from: sparky on July 06, 2010, 12:51 PM
Why present evidence to someone who has already shown that evidence is irrelevant to what they live by?

When did I say evidence is irrelevant to what I live by? I'm offended that you're putting me in a box !
Seriously, I LOVE evidence. So please enlighten me. I'm asking you as a fellow human being.

Quote from: sparky on July 06, 2010, 12:51 PM
Yes - if 'prove' is taken to mean sufficient evidence to convince me.

Just because the evidence convinces you, doesn't mean it's objective, true, or universal. Objective means "based on facts and free of bias".

Quote from: sparky on July 06, 2010, 12:51 PM
And Yes.

Hooray ! Finally.
Please sparky, present the evidence. I literally can't wait.

Quote from: sparky on July 06, 2010, 12:51 PM
It's different because there is evidence that it is true.

We'll see. Until you present the evidence, you cannot expect us to believe it's "true".

Looking forward to it.

Take care.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #101 - July 06, 2010, 01:51 PM

Quote from: sparky on July 06, 2010, 01:03 PM
Logic (or 'reason') is again part of his character. If he could break it, you simply couldn't understand it.
I don't believe in 'some' Gods. I believe in a particular one. If you think he somehow contradicts his own character, you'll need to explain what your evidence is. The vague terms here don't achieve that.
He is not 'assigned' characteristics. They just 'are'. Hence they are not arbitrary.

So your god does not have free will? He acts according to some characteristics that he had no role in assigning to himself?
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #102 - July 15, 2010, 02:08 PM

Quote from: Zebedee
Are you saying that God is not constrained by logic?

Just because your god possesses certain characterisitics doesn't mean that those characteristics are not arbitrary. Your god's characterisitics are entirely arbitrary because there is no reason whatsoever as to why they should be one thing as opposed to another. They just are the way they are for literally no reason whatsoever, hence they are arbitrary.

No, I said that he is constrained by his character and reason is a part of his character. I was just pointing out that if he wasn't constrained by logic there would be no way to have a discussion about it.

And you seem to be working to a different definition of 'arbitrary'. Arbitrary is to be determined by individual preference. God's characteristics are not the result of his preferences, they just are. They are his 'intrinsic nature'.

Quote from: Zebedee
Quote from: sparky
Let's just not be complaining about the murderer finding value in killing people or the rapist finding value in raping people. Their philosophy would really be just like yours.

And if your god is real then what's to stop murderers and rapists from finding value in killing and raping? If they do, even if your god is completely opposed to such things, all that they're doing is acting out of accord with the arbitrary nature of this purposeless metaphysical being. What's wrong with that?

Why, it's no more wrong that humans acting out of accord with the ways of nature. Like say, using medicine, behaving in a manner that is contrary to natural selection, flying planes, etc.

They'll go to Hell? Well, that's just an adverse consequence, isn't it? Much like the adverse consequences that would befall such criminals in a society in an atheistic universe.

What's wrong with raping and killing if your god exists?

Firstly, this is tu quoque. Either its a problem for you that under your philosophy a murderer could find himself morally 'right' or it isn't. What I believe is irrelevant to that.

Secondly, if atheism is true, I would think the statement 'out of accord with nature' would be nonsensical. How could human behaviour be 'not natural'? Is it supernatural?

Thirdly, the existence of a God who created people means that there could be a true purpose for people and therefore a true means of determining whether their behaviour was in line with that purpose or not. So the statement 'its wrong to rape' could be a statement of truth rather than just an expression of preference (such as 'I don't like mushrooms'). The consequence for right or wrong behaviour is a separate question from whether there is any reason to call particular behaviour either right or wrong.

Cheers,
sparky
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #103 - July 15, 2010, 02:18 PM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
Oh come on sparky. I expected better from you.
You "chose" to believe in the Bible and in Jesus. I haven't seen the "objective evidence" for either of them. Until you present the evidence, you are no different from a Muslim, Scientologist, or Bhuddist.

Expected better? What could be better than pointing out your error? Repeating yourself doesn't change the fact that your comparison fails. What evidence you might or might not have seen is irrelevant to that.

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
I've already apologized and you accepted my apology. Now all I ask is for you to present the evidence for your morality. Please.

Yes, and I already said no.

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
When did I say evidence is irrelevant to what I live by? I'm offended that you're putting me in a box !
Seriously, I LOVE evidence. So please enlighten me. I'm asking you as a fellow human being.

You've shown more than once that evidence is irrelevant to you. Firstly by claiming, in the absence of any evidence, that I don't have evidence for what I believe and secondly by claiming certain behaviour as right or wrong when you had no evidence to support it.

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
Just because the evidence convinces you, doesn't mean it's objective, true, or universal. Objective means "based on facts and free of bias".

I didn't say it did. I was clarifying the meaning of 'prove'. I would make no claim that the evidence that convinces me would convince you - even though most of it is available to you as well because I have no idea how you set your own criteria for what evidence you will and won't accept.

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
Hooray ! Finally.
Please sparky, present the evidence. I literally can't wait.

Uh, again, no.

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist
We'll see. Until you present the evidence, you cannot expect us to believe it's "true".

When did I say I expected you to believe that it was true?

Cheers,
sparky
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #104 - July 15, 2010, 02:19 PM

Quote from: Prince Spinoza on July 06, 2010, 01:51 PM
So your god does not have free will? He acts according to some characteristics that he had no role in assigning to himself?

You seem to be working to a different definition of free will than I am. I also act according to characteristics that I did not assign to myself but would also think I had free will.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #105 - July 15, 2010, 02:24 PM

How about you give me your definition of free will then?
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #106 - July 15, 2010, 02:34 PM

Non-determined. Able to choose.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #107 - July 15, 2010, 02:49 PM

Why do people never give full definitions for these things. :/ Not sure if you're arguing that those two necessarily follow.... Yes, the Universe may be indeterministic but suggesting that humans have the ability to alter the course of nature is a bit of a leap. Things are either determined or random and neither is free-will. Neuroscientific experiments are showing that people's beliefs about making free choices is just an illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

In that article a proposed theory "forward model of motor control" is cited to explain how we manage to think we make concious decisions.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #108 - July 15, 2010, 02:53 PM

Coming back to the God thing, I've always believed that free-will has to be unconstrained, it has to be independent of any influencing or determining factor (not sure if you agree), so if God's will is influenced, or decided by, his character which 'just is', which he had no role in assigning to himself, he isn't truly free. He is subject to a rather strange kind of determinism. If he is omnipotent, and willing to be truly free, he would rid himself of the aforementioned characteristics.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #109 - July 15, 2010, 03:01 PM

Quote from: Prince Spinoza on July 15, 2010, 02:49 PM
Why do people never give full definitions for these things. :/ Not sure if you're arguing that those two necessarily follow.... Yes, the Universe may be indeterministic but suggesting that humans have the ability to alter the course of nature is a bit of a leap. Things are either determined or random and neither is free-will. Neuroscientific experiments are showing that people's beliefs about making free choices is just an illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

In that article a proposed theory "forward model of motor control" is cited to explain how we manage to think we make concious decisions.

No. I didn't say one followed from the other and yes, I have read about the neuroscience work before. However, it also seems to be a pretty good working assumption at present.
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #110 - July 15, 2010, 03:08 PM

Quote from: Prince Spinoza on July 15, 2010, 02:53 PM
Coming back to the God thing, I've always believed that free-will has to be unconstrained, it has to be independent of any influencing or determining factor (not sure if you agree), so if God's will is influenced, or decided by, his character which 'just is', which he had no role in assigning to himself, he isn't truly free. He is subject to a rather strange kind of determinism. If he is omnipotent, and willing to be truly free, he would rid himself of the aforementioned characteristics.

Like I said, that's a different definition. If God is able to choose then he would have 'free will' as I have defined it - even if those choices were 'constrained' by his character. Within the constraints of his character - part of the definition of what makes him God - he is able to do absolutely anything - hence omnipotent. Actions that are illogical (against reason) are simply not 'things'. It's a failure of definition, not a failure of omnipotence.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #111 - July 15, 2010, 03:35 PM

So you're basically saying everything that exists is logical and illogical things cannot exist, hence God can do anything, so long as it's logical. I would consider that a failure of omnipotence. If 'existence' is a concept independent of god, one that god himself is subject to, I don't see how he could be the first cause.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #112 - July 15, 2010, 03:38 PM

Quote from: sparky on July 15, 2010, 03:01 PM
No. I didn't say one followed from the other and yes, I have read about the neuroscience work before. However, it also seems to be a pretty good working assumption at present.

The forward model of motor control is just a theory, but the expermiental evidence suggesting we don't have concious free choice seems pretty conclusive to me. :/
- sparky
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #113 - July 15, 2010, 03:56 PM

Quote from: Prince Spinoza on July 15, 2010, 03:35 PM
So you're basically saying everything that exists is logical and illogical things cannot exist, hence God can do anything, so long as it's logical. I would consider that a failure of omnipotence. If 'existence' is a concept independent of god, one that god himself is subject to, I don't see how he could be the first cause.

Like I said, it's a failure of definition, not of omnipotence. As illogical things cannot exist, God can do anything - that's omnipotence. And I'm not sure the concept of existence is independent of God. The Christian God called himself 'I am'.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #114 - July 15, 2010, 04:01 PM

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I consider it a failure of omnipotence, that he is bound 'existence', he can only act within the bounds of existence (not that I believe omnipotence is aviable characteristic).

And if the concept of existence is not indepedent of god, then he would be able to perform illogical actions and they would 'exist'.
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Future of religion
Reply #115 - July 15, 2010, 06:08 PM

Quote from: sparky on July 15, 2010, 02:18 PM
Expected better? What could be better than pointing out your error? Repeating yourself doesn't change the fact that your comparison fails. What evidence you might or might not have seen is irrelevant to that.

It doesn't. You said: "They [Muslims], and Christians, may be wrong about the truth of what they believe in but there is no hyprocrisy in this regard like there is for an atheist."
Why are the atheists hypocrites and the Christians and Muslims are not?

Quote from: sparky on July 15, 2010, 02:18 PM
You've shown more than once that evidence is irrelevant to you. Firstly by claiming, in the absence of any evidence, that I don't have evidence for what I believe and secondly by claiming certain behaviour as right or wrong when you had no evidence to support it.

Firstly, yes I said you don't have evidence for what you believe but then I retracted it and apologized.
Secondly, I can claim something wrong or right according to my morality. There's nothing wrong with that. I never said my morality is "true". If you remember in the "right and wrong" thread I conceded to you that we chose our morality.

Quote from: sparky on July 15, 2010, 02:18 PM
I didn't say it did. I was clarifying the meaning of 'prove'. I would make no claim that the evidence that convinces me would convince you - even though most of it is available to you as well because I have no idea how you set your own criteria for what evidence you will and won't accept.

So by your logic if I go and follow a cult leader and morality, that would make me less of a hypocrite as long as I truly believe in him?

Quote from: sparky on July 15, 2010, 02:18 PM
Uh, again, no.

Quote from: sparky on July 15, 2010, 02:18 PM
When did I say I expected you to believe that it was true?

Well I asked you "how is you morality different from an atheist's morality?"
To which you answered "It's different because there is evidence that it is true.*"

True means: real or correct, conforming with reality or fact.
Previous page 1 2 3 4« Previous thread | Next thread »