Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Are You A Good Man....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    No Tass, I tie free will to the immaterial soul. Which is not subject to materialistic cause and effect.
    In short, you "tie free-will", which is logically incoherent, to the non-existent "immaterial soul".

    And again, you can not verify that philosophical naturalism is a fact. It is your faith position.
    It's the only logically coherent position.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      In short, you "tie free-will", which is logically incoherent, to the non-existent "immaterial soul".
      It is not incoherent if there is an immaterial soul that is not subjected to the laws of nature. And the soul is no more non-existent than your philosophical naturalism.

      It's the only logically coherent position.
      No it is not, you are just making that up. If you think otherwise make a deductive argument supporting your position. Don't just assert that your belief is logical - prove it.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Then demonstrate otherwise. Why is one ethical position more valid than another?
        Because it leads to the creation of a better, more just society. My guess is most people want that, and almost nobody doesn't want that, and trying to create a better, more just society doesn't harm anyone that much, so there is no reason not to do so. So long as limited harm results, doing what other people want is a good thing even for purely selfish reasons because people will notice your kind acts and reward you.

        And why is human civilization a moral good? Why is our survival a moral good? Beside most of mankind for most of history has lived under some form of totalitarian rule.
        We're the smartest ones around. As far as we know we are the only sentient creatures in the Universe. I don't know about you, but I want to keep that sentience alive and spread it throughout the Solar System (and galaxy if we ever figure out a good way to do generation ships). If there is a good and just god he/she/it'd want us to survive as we are quite possibly the most important things in his/her/its creation. And even if not, we are the only creatures with such a developed level of consciousness to create ethical philosophies. It could well be the case that humanity took a step backward socially with the development of agriculture, but ever since the Enlightenment things have been looking up for mankind. Barring the occasional upheaval, society has been progressing in a more just, fair, and democratic direction the past few centuries. The only problem is our tendency to wage war and use technological progress for evil.
        Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

        "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

        "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

        Comment


        • Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
          Because it leads to the creation of a better, more just society. My guess is most people want that, and almost nobody doesn't want that, and trying to create a better, more just society doesn't harm anyone that much, so there is no reason not to do so. So long as limited harm results, doing what other people want is a good thing even for purely selfish reasons because people will notice your kind acts and reward you.
          Yes, and all this is subjective. Which is my point. The Communist or Jihadist may have a different opinion on what is just or what constitutes a "better" society. Just as you and I are likely to disagree on some very fundamental issues when it comes to what a better society should look like.



          We're the smartest ones around. As far as we know we are the only sentient creatures in the Universe. I don't know about you, but I want to keep that sentience alive and spread it throughout the Solar System (and galaxy if we ever figure out a good way to do generation ships). If there is a good and just god he/she/it'd want us to survive as we are quite possibly the most important things in his/her/its creation. And even if not, we are the only creatures with such a developed level of consciousness to create ethical philosophies. It could well be the case that humanity took a step backward socially with the development of agriculture, but ever since the Enlightenment things have been looking up for mankind. Barring the occasional upheaval, society has been progressing in a more just, fair, and democratic direction the past few centuries. The only problem is our tendency to wage war and use technological progress for evil.
          We are back to beliefs. You believe it is a moral good that we survive. Again that is subjective. Let me put it this way. Say an advanced alien race came to earth, saw us as food, and began harvesting us - whose opinion on the matter is more valid and why?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            It is not incoherent if there is an immaterial soul that is not subjected to the laws of nature. And the soul is no more non-existent than your philosophical naturalism.
            The existence of an entity which is not subjected to the laws of nature is not supported by evidence. You need to provide a coherent argument as to how your hypothesised “immaterial soul” could interact with the material brain. Where is the point of contact between the material and immaterial? Without this you don't have a realistic, coherent argument

            No it is not, you are just making that up.
            There's considerable evidence that every state of affairs is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs. This underlies all the Laws and Constants of nature as understood by science. Conversely, there's no evidence to support your claim of an "immaterial soul that is not subjected to the laws of nature".
            Last edited by Tassman; 04-27-2017, 11:31 PM.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Yes, and all this is subjective. Which is my point. The Communist or Jihadist may have a different opinion on what is just or what constitutes a "better" society. Just as you and I are likely to disagree on some very fundamental issues when it comes to what a better society should look like.
              All totalitarian societies, including the virtual Christian theocracies of the medieval era or the modern Christian Dominionists, believe their system is the “better society”. But the majority of people nowadays accept the notion that Universal Human Rights, as laid down in the UN Declaration, is the better, most just and equitable form of society.

              We are back to beliefs. You believe it is a moral good that we survive. Again that is subjective. Let me put it this way. Say an advanced alien race came to earth, saw us as food, and began harvesting us - whose opinion on the matter is more valid and why?
              “Survival” is the innate instinct of all living creatures...as you well know given that you’re hoping for everlasting survival.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                All totalitarian societies, including the virtual Christian theocracies of the medieval era or the modern Christian Dominionists, believe their system is the “better society”. But the majority of people nowadays accept the notion that Universal Human Rights, as laid down in the UN Declaration, is the better, most just and equitable form of society.
                Where do you get this majority thing? From Muslim countries? Totalitarian countries? Communist countries? And the fact is Islam, worldwide, is gaining ground. And that does not change the fact that all this is subjective.


                “Survival” is the innate instinct of all living creatures...as you well know given that you’re hoping for everlasting survival.
                Sure, I suspect that the deer would rather not be killed and eaten, so? But that does not change my point. Whose moral opinion on this matter is more valid or correct - the Aliens who want to harvest us, or ours?
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  The existence of an entity which is not subjected to the laws of nature is not supported by evidence. You need to provide a coherent argument as to how your hypothesised “immaterial soul” could interact with the material brain. Where is the point of contact between the material and immaterial? Without this you don't have a realistic, coherent argument.
                  That is nonsense, you are asking the impossible - how does the immaterial interact with the material? Who knows, that however does not mean it doesn't happen, or can't happen.



                  There's considerable evidence that every state of affairs is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs. This underlies all the Laws and Constants of nature as understood by science. Conversely, there's no evidence to support your claim of an "immaterial soul that is not subjected to the laws of nature".
                  I asked you to present a deductive argument defending your position - after all you claimed that it was "logical." Or admit that your belief in philosophical naturalism is based on faith. I will be waiting...
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    That is nonsense, you are asking the impossible - how does the immaterial interact with the material? Who knows, that however does not mean it doesn't happen, or can't happen.
                    Given the utter lack of evidence for such a scenario, there's no reason to believe it.

                    I asked you to present a deductive argument defending your position -
                    You cannot provide any evidence supporting your logistically incoherent notion of LFW and yet you demand evidence of me. Typical!

                    after all you claimed that it was "logical." Or admit that your belief in philosophical naturalism is based on faith. I will be waiting...
                    It is demonstrably the case that every state of affairs is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs. There's no evidence of exceptions. Furthermore, this logical sequence underlies all the laws and constants of nature as empirically verified multiple times.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Where do you get this majority thing? From Muslim countries? Totalitarian countries? Communist countries?
                      The Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and has become international law, to be followed by all.

                      And the fact is Islam, worldwide, is gaining ground.
                      Religion always claims special rights that override civil law...look at the fundy’s in the USA.

                      And that does not change the fact that all this is subjective.
                      No, it’s grounded in the natural evolution of human behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.

                      Sure, I suspect that the deer would rather not be killed and eaten, so? But that does not change my point.
                      It changes your point. Our morality is based upon survival instincts, it’s not something separate from that...such as the claims of an absolute, unchanging morality of a deity.

                      Whose moral opinion on this matter is more valid or correct - the Aliens who want to harvest us, or ours?
                      They’re equally "valid or correct". But instinctively we favour our survival over those trying to kill us.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        The Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and has become international law, to be followed by all.
                        That is just stupid, why do they get to tell everybody else what to do? And even some countries the signed it like Turkey, Iran, Syria, China, etc... don't follow it.

                        Religion always claims special rights that override civil law...look at the fundy’s in the USA.
                        You can thank the evolutionary process for that.


                        No, it’s grounded in the natural evolution of human behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.
                        Just as war, religious tendencies and dominance are grounded in "the natural evolution of human behavior."



                        They’re equally "valid or correct". But instinctively we favour our survival over those trying to kill us.
                        Thank you.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          That is just stupid, why do they get to tell everybody else what to do? And even some countries the signed it like Turkey, Iran, Syria, China, etc... don't follow it.
                          Why do fundy Christians or fundy Muslims get to tell everybody else what to do? At least the UN comprises an intergovernmental organisation to promote international co-operation and to create and maintain international order. Better that than to trust any of the self-serving, divisive religions, based upon an imaginary deity.

                          You can thank the evolutionary process for that.
                          No. One “thanks” ideological religionists, who think they are entitled to override civil law in the name of a deity.

                          Just as war, religious tendencies and dominance are grounded in "the natural evolution of human behavior.
                          Again, our morality is based upon survival instincts, it’s not something separate from that. It is not based upon absolute moral claims of an unchanging deity as found in a holy book, the interpretation of which no one can ever agree on.
                          Last edited by Tassman; 04-29-2017, 11:16 PM.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Why do fundy Christians or fundy Muslims get to tell everybody else what to do? At least the UN comprises an intergovernmental organisation to promote international co-operation and to create and maintain international order. Better that than to trust any of the self-serving, divisive religions, based upon an imaginary deity.
                            Tass, there are like 195 countries in the world, And I think only 48 signed on to The Declaration of Human Rights. So why does this clear minority get to tell the majority how to live and act?

                            No. One “thanks” ideological religionists, who think they are entitled to override civil law in the name of a deity.
                            Hey we can't help it. That is the way the natural laws created us to think and act. Blame the evolutionary process - it is all determined - correct?


                            Again, our morality is based upon survival instincts, it’s not something separate from that. It is not based upon absolute moral claims of an unchanging deity as found in a holy book, the interpretation of which no one can ever agree on.
                            Again, just as war, cruelty and religious tendencies are grounded in survival instincts.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Tass, there are like 195 countries in the world, And I think only 48 signed on to The Declaration of Human Rights. So why does this clear minority get to tell the majority how to live and act?
                              Why do clear minorities like fundy Christians or fundy Muslims get to tell everybody else what to do? At least the UN comprises an intergovernmental organisation to promote international co-operation and to create and maintain international order. In short, it’s the best hope we’ve got.

                              Hey we can't help it. That is the way the natural laws created us to think and act. Blame the evolutionary process - it is all determined - correct?
                              Incorrect! You’re describing fatalism, not determinism...as you always do in your typically dishonest way. Over and over again! But hey, dishonest come-backs are easier than trying to justify your logically incoherent, religion-based belief in Libertarian Free-Will. And your hypothesised, but unsubstantiated notion of an “immaterial soul”.

                              Again, just as war, cruelty and religious tendencies are grounded in survival instincts.
                              As Moses demonstrated with his God-sanctioned genocides rapes and slavery, but we’ve moved on since those primitive tribal times. There are now better, more encompassing ways to promote the survival of the species.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Yes, and all this is subjective. Which is my point. The Communist or Jihadist may have a different opinion on what is just or what constitutes a "better" society. Just as you and I are likely to disagree on some very fundamental issues when it comes to what a better society should look like.
                                But people objectively experience pleasure and pain. So there should be a way to maximize the amount of pleasurable feeling in people and minimize the amount of displeasurable feeling. Once that is done, an optimum society has been achieved.

                                We are back to beliefs. You believe it is a moral good that we survive. Again that is subjective. Let me put it this way. Say an advanced alien race came to earth, saw us as food, and began harvesting us - whose opinion on the matter is more valid and why?
                                I eat animals, so I think I lose my right to complain here.
                                Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

                                "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

                                "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,506 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X