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

Morality or Obedience?

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

  • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post

    1. There's no substantiated evidence of the supernatural.
    C. Therefore, the supernatural doesn't exist.

    Argument from ignorance.
    According to your lights disbelief in leprechauns is an “argument from ignorance".

    Red herring. Show the connection between secular/human development and the idea that moral values based on societal norms leads to absurdity. Hint: you're going to be way off if you don't understand the ethico-philosophical point undergirding the claim. And I've heard the ole' talking point about the UN Human Development Index, and there's other variables you'd need to take into account before you construct your secular castle in the clouds.
    What is "undergirding the claim” are the statistics, not the “ethico-philosophical point”.

    According to Global Peace Index: “the top ten most peaceful nations on earth, all are among the least God-believing – in fact, eight of the ten are specifically among the least theistic nations on earth. Conversely, of the bottom ten – the least peaceful nations – most of them are extremely religious”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-earth-atheism

    “If you are curious as to which states are the most/least religious, simply check out the Pew Forum’s Religious Landscape Survey. It’s all there. And then you can go ahead and check out how the various states are faring in terms of societal well-being. The correlation is clear and strong: the more secular tend to fare better than the more religious on a vast host of measures, including homicide and violent crime rates, poverty rates, obesity and diabetes rates, child abuse rates, educational attainment levels, income levels, unemployment rates, rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, etc.”

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ious-societies

    There is a host of literature and statistics that say the same thing, not just the UN Human Development Index, which I previously cited. So much for your claim that “moral values based on societal norms leads to absurdity”, they don’t. Quite the contrary it seems.
    “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


    • The difference Tassman is you don't have to believe in Supernatural/Leprechauns if you don't find credible evidence for them, but that is not the same as declaring that because there is no evidence that they don't exist. They could exist but you just don't have the evidence, yet.

      So reserving your belief is different than declaration as fact based on lack of evidence.

      I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence that I find credible
      vs.
      Therefore the supernatural does not exist.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        The difference Tassman is you don't have to believe in Supernatural/Leprechauns if you don't find credible evidence for them, but that is not the same as declaring that because there is no evidence that they don't exist. They could exist but you just don't have the evidence, yet.

        So reserving your belief is different than declaration as fact based on lack of evidence.

        I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence that I find credible
        vs.
        Therefore the supernatural does not exist.
        So based on this, should we all hold the position "they might exist" for leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, werewolves, faeries, wizards, etc.?

        An existential negative claim cannot be proven, AFAIK. But there ARE some things that the lack of evidence for their existence leads us to a justifiable belief that they do not exist. Usually, that is when claims about them defy what we know about the world and how it works. I cannot prove to you that a leprechaun does not exist, but I CAN show you their long history in folklore and mythology, that what they can do defies what we know about "how stuff works," and reasonably conclude, "there are no leprechauns, outside of the human imagination."

        Likewise for unicorns, vampires, werewolves, faeries, wizards, gods, etc..
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          So based on this, should we all hold the position "they might exist" for leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, werewolves, faeries, wizards, etc.?

          An existential negative claim cannot be proven, AFAIK. But there ARE some things that the lack of evidence for their existence leads us to a justifiable belief that they do not exist. Usually, that is when claims about them defy what we know about the world and how it works. I cannot prove to you that a leprechaun does not exist, but I CAN show you their long history in folklore and mythology, that what they can do defies what we know about "how stuff works," and reasonably conclude, "there are no leprechauns, outside of the human imagination."

          Likewise for unicorns, vampires, werewolves, faeries, wizards, gods, etc..
          Yep. Fictitious entities. Existence is not fictitious. Space-time how we experience existence.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            ...I cannot prove to you that a leprechaun does not exist...
            That's what I said.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              That's what I said.
              You...um...apparently ignored all the rest.

              I can tell you, "I believe leprechauns do not exist," and give you my reasons why.

              I can also tell you why I believe faeries do not exist.
              I can also tell you why I believe werewolves do not exist.
              I can also tell you why I believe gods do not exist.

              etc.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                You...um...apparently ignored all the rest.

                I can tell you, "I believe leprechauns do not exist," and give you my reasons why.

                I can also tell you why I believe faeries do not exist.
                I can also tell you why I believe werewolves do not exist.
                I can also tell you why I believe gods do not exist.

                etc.
                And I said that believing something does not exist is not the same as declaring as a fact they do not exist.

                I don't believe in leprechauns either and see no reason why to believe they do. That doesn't mean I can declare they don't exist as fact. I mean I CAN, and I would probably be right, but there is no way to PROVE IT as fact. It would ultimately be an argument from ignorance. Now if I had evidence of where a person invented the concept of leprechauns, then I could probably prove they don't exist. Just like say, Frodo the hobbit. We know where Frodo was created, in a fictional book by JRR Tolkein, so we can say that Frodo the Hobbit does not exist in reality only in fiction.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  And I said that believing something does not exist is not the same as declaring as a fact they do not exist.

                  I don't believe in leprechauns either and see no reason why to believe they do. That doesn't mean I can declare they don't exist as fact. I mean I CAN, and I would probably be right, but there is no way to PROVE IT as fact. It would ultimately be an argument from ignorance. Now if I had evidence of where a person invented the concept of leprechauns, then I could probably prove they don't exist. Just like say, Frodo the hobbit. We know where Frodo was created, in a fictional book by JRR Tolkein, so we can say that Frodo the Hobbit does not exist in reality only in fiction.
                  It depends on what you look for as evidence and as proof. The lack of evidence for something is itself evidence. When coupled with the other evidence against it's existence (featured in folklore/myth tales, possessing powers not seen in the physical world, similarity to other mythic creatues, etc.), it rises to the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If people are looking for "absolute proof," then they will forever sit on the "well, we just can't know!" fence. Most of us don't function that way. I am quite comfortable declaring, leprechauns do not exist, unicorns do not exist, faeries do not exist, and gods do not exist.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    It depends on what you look for as evidence and as proof. The lack of evidence for something is itself evidence. When coupled with the other evidence against it's existence (featured in folklore/myth tales, possessing powers not seen in the physical world, similarity to other mythic creatues, etc.), it rises to the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." If people are looking for "absolute proof," then they will forever sit on the "well, we just can't know!" fence. Most of us don't function that way. I am quite comfortable declaring, leprechauns do not exist, unicorns do not exist, faeries do not exist, and gods do not exist.
                    Fine, but when you try to convince me, you are using an argument from silence. That is what Mattballman's point was.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Fine, but when you try to convince me, you are using an argument from silence. That is what Mattballman's point was.
                      A) It's actually not an argument from silence, when the argument includes silence AND other evidence.
                      B) I don't set out to convince anyone - believe what you will. In discussions, I focus on explaining what I believe and why (despite repeated accusations otherwise).
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        This discussion has been had several times. I'm curious to knwo why you think this is so.
                        Oh, you want to talk now? I thought you thought I was arrogant? Are we over that now? I hope so. Let me know and I'll let you know why I think 'this is so'.
                        Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                        George Horne

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          According to your lights disbelief in leprechauns is an “argument from ignorance".
                          Nope! Thanks for playing, dingbat!


                          What is "undergirding the claim” are the statistics, not the “ethico-philosophical point”.
                          I made the claim that it was absurd, dummy. So, you can't tell me what I meant when I said it was absurd, and the point I was making that undergirded the claim, you clod. Your ability to grasp the logical flow of a conversation is pretty appalling.

                          According to Global Peace Index: “the top ten most peaceful nations on earth, all are among the least God-believing – in fact, eight of the ten are specifically among the least theistic nations on earth. Conversely, of the bottom ten – the least peaceful nations – most of them are extremely religious”.
                          This is just such stupid claptrap. No mention of how the quantity of populations are involved. No mention of which religion and why. I mean, seriously. You expect me to seriously think that this supports the idea that morality is based on societal norms? At most, this shows that there's a loosely defined correlation between a multifaceted phenomenon and crime/violence, relative to an as yet unacknowledged variable regarding population statistics, and an as yet unacknowledged variable regarding which religions in which populations and why the creeds of such religions in such populations relative to other as yet unacknowledged sociological factors would lead to greater or lesser degrees of violence/crime.

                          the more secular tend to fare better than the more religious on a vast host of measures, including homicide and violent crime rates, poverty rates, obesity and diabetes rates, child abuse rates, educational attainment levels, income levels, unemployment rates, rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, etc.”
                          Again, which religion? What population statistics play into this? Homicide, violent crime, poverty, obesity, child abuse, low education attainment levels, income levels, unemployment, STD's, teen pregnancy are all not Christian values. So, other variables are in play here, as anyone with a little discernment can see. Is it possible that the secular are consistently living by religious values without the foundation? Is it possible that the religious are living by non-religious principles? Are other religious principles in play that would be denounced by Christian values? Simply citing this statistic proves absolutely nothing regarding whether secular attitudes are socially superior to religious attitudes, because the variables left unanswered are crucial to getting an accurate handle on what's going on. So, nice try.

                          And besides, it's all a red herring because this ignores the ethico-philosophical thrust behind my claim that relativizing moral values to social mores leads to absurdity. Since you have an inability to exercise the epistemic virtue of 'understanding a point view', you grabbed a herring out of your herring bag and stunk up the entire dialectical path.
                          Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                          George Horne

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The difference Tassman is you don't have to believe in Supernatural/Leprechauns if you don't find credible evidence for them, but that is not the same as declaring that because there is no evidence that they don't exist. They could exist but you just don't have the evidence, yet.

                            So reserving your belief is different than declaration as fact based on lack of evidence.

                            I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence that I find credible
                            vs.
                            Therefore the supernatural does not exist.
                            If you read my response very carefully you will note that I didn't "declare" leprechauns don't exist. It is possible that they do. But, for a variety of reasons it is highly improbable that they exist. The same applies to the supernatural.
                            “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
                              If you read my response very carefully you will note that I didn't "declare" leprechauns don't exist. It is possible that they do. But, for a variety of reasons it is highly improbable that they exist. The same applies to the supernatural.
                              What, are you afraid to prove a negative? You know you can do that, right? And what you did for leprechauns you didn't do for theism. It's easy to prove the non-existence of leprechauns!
                              Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                              George Horne

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post




                                I made the claim that it was absurd, dummy. So, you can't tell me what I meant when I said it was absurd, and the point I was making that undergirded the claim, you clod. Your ability to grasp the logical flow of a conversation is pretty appalling.
                                You can blather on about your “ethics-philosophical thrust” all you want...the statistics speak for themselves.

                                This is just such stupid claptrap. No mention of how the quantity of populations are involved. No mention of which religion and why. I mean, seriously. You expect me to seriously think that this supports the idea that morality is based on societal norms? At most, this shows that there's a loosely defined correlation between a multifaceted phenomenon and crime/violence, relative to an as yet unacknowledged variable regarding population statistics, and an as yet unacknowledged variable regarding which religions in which populations and why the creeds of such religions in such populations relative to other as yet unacknowledged sociological factors would lead to greater or lesser degrees of violence/crime.
                                OK. So all YOU need do is show what morality IS based on

                                Again, which religion? What population statistics play into this? Homicide, violent crime, poverty, obesity, child abuse, low education attainment levels, income levels, unemployment, STD's, teen pregnancy are all not Christian values. So, other variables are in play here, as anyone with a little discernment can see. Is it possible that the secular are consistently living by religious values without the foundation? Is it possible that the religious are living by non-religious principles? Are other religious principles in play that would be denounced by Christian values? Simply citing this statistic proves absolutely nothing regarding whether secular attitudes are socially superior to religious attitudes, because the variables left unanswered are crucial to getting an accurate handle on what's going on. So, nice try.

                                And besides, it's all a red herring because this ignores the ethico-philosophical thrust behind my claim that relativizing moral values to social mores leads to absurdity. Since you have an inability to exercise the epistemic virtue of 'understanding a point view', you grabbed a herring out of your herring bag and stunk up the entire dialectical path.
                                The facts speak for themselves regardless of the stinking dialectical path
                                “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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                29 responses
                                97 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                416 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X