Your statement about Newton shows that you don't understand Newton or science. There's one problem with your claim: my statement about Newton is verifiably true. In his own words, no less.
Sorry, but you're the one who is lacking in understanding. Ashamed of your own ignorance, you lash out at me.
"In my opinion, it is why the cow exists, and it is good for him to die for my sustenance." is no different than saying that you value your family's sustainence over the life of the cow.
Incorrect. Those are two different things.
You may not see it as "bad" but that's because either you don't believe the cow's life has any value beyond fulfilling your own needs (which I call ignorant since the cow will suffer, there is one less cow, and the cow once dead can't be brought back - at the very least you should view the animal as a resource), which is what I think you're saying, or you've already accepted the trade off of the cow's life for your sustenance.
False on both counts. I value the cow's life very highly. Without its life, I wouldn't get to kill it. It exists for me to eat it. There's nothing remotely bad about killing it for that purpose. It is 100% good. Nothing bad.
You keep coming back to silly metaphysical and extreme arguments. However I wasn't talking about killing cows and you know it.
I couldn't care less. You make statements. I make statements to disprove your statements. If you don't like it, then don't make the original statements that are so easily disproven, like that you can prove something is good or bad.
If I were to suggest that killing animals or humans randomly and as cruelly as possible were good
Again, you are missing the point. It is not about whether you think it is good or bad, but whether you can PROVE it. Whether it is subjective, or objective. You keep incorrectly claiming you can prove it, and that it is objective. The only way it can be objectively good or bad is if there's some greater authority saying so. Otherwise, it is just conjecture and opinion.
It's a perfectly valid opinion that there is some bad in killing a cow to eat it. I don't agree, but fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But you can't prove it. It is not objective. Same thing with pretty much anything else.
Sure you can still hold that belief despite the arguments but a rational safe sane society that didn't approve of mass murders and that sought to provide safety within the community would not agree.
Sure. But that doesn't get you any closer to showing that you can prove any of this.
It requires only the human condition and rational thought
To have an opinion, yes. To prove it? Not possible.
Hell no. Shoot to kill. Trying to disable only increases the chances of his causing harm to me or my family. Never would I try to disarm in such a situation. If I am brought to the point of pointing that gun to protect my family, I will shoot, without hesitation.
You do realize that with that statement you're only a step or two away from the religious extremism of a nut job terrorist suicide bomber don't you?
False.
There are many situations in which your family is threatened but the use of lethal force to restrain the attacker isn't necessary
So? That has nothing to do with my scenario. You apparently didn't read what I actually wrote. Try again, it's right there: IF I am brought to the point of pointing that gun THEN I will shoot. There are many situations where lethal force is not necessary.
Yes, it is. In fact, it is purely, 100%, subjective. Unless, of course, you believe in a higher power that sets up such rules.
NO NO NO NO AND NO. YOU DO NOT require a higher power to have a non-subjective morality.
Yes, you do. It's a logical truism.
That is a foul and horrid lie perpetrated by people such as yourself who don't understand the meaning of the word subjective and can't hold a logical or consistent discussion.
False.
If the only reason you follow these rules is a belief in a non-existent higher power you're a dangerous person.
It is clear that your understanding of science is seriously lacking. In that entire post, I only said two things you could possibly be referring to. The latter was a question: "I have no idea why you think justice and science are related." I don't think you are referring to that, because there is no obvious link in this context, so if you had a link in your mind, you could simply have taken the opportunity to describe it. This has nothing to do with my relative understanding of science.
The other was my claim that "it's not [hard to give any credit to the argument that Newton's work in physics and maths]... simple lines can be drawn from his philosophical worldview shaped by his religious views, and his work in science." And this is quite clearly true. He wrote about it himself. He talked about order and immanence from his religious views, and that this leads logically to discoverability in his scientific work. Further, this isn't even about understanding science, per se, but understanding the philosophy of science.
So the two things above, one of them was true, the other was a statement that I didn't know what link you were trying to draw, and neither one of them reflected on my relative understanding of science.
In the rest of the post, I made no comments relating to science *at all.* In each, I was either agreeing with you, or commenting on logical flaws in your post which have nothing to do with whether I understand science.
All of that just to say that when you respond to my post that it is "clear" that my understanding of science is "lacking," what's really clear is that you're full of shit. You didn't like my response and so you lashed out, pretending to take the high horse, either because you knew that you wouldn't be able to easily win the argument and didn't want to take the time, or you simply didn't have a leg to stand on.
I'll need your complete curriculum vitae... I'll save you the time: it doesn't help you. Unless you define your terms so broadly such that ANYTHING teaching of children is "indoctrination," and therefore "force" (and even then, the rest doesn't fit).
But if I was indoctrinated into a system of belief that said I would be separated from mom forever, then so are most humans throughout history indoctrinated into a similar system of belief, including yourself. Unless you weren't taught that harming others -- stealing, killing, etc. -- could land you in a ton of trouble... ? It's a damned shame you were forced into believing that!
Indoctrinating children into a system of belief that says they can either stay and be with mom forever or reject it and be tortured forever is forcing the issue. OK, even if that's true, what's that got to do with me?
Eh, that is a strange way to look at history. No, it's not.
The roots of science as we know it today probably is best to place with the Greek philosophers Some of it, yes.
Besides, it is hard to give any credit to the argument that Newton's work in physics and maths was helped by his naive interpretation of the Bible and his wasted hours looking for the Holy Graile. The fumes Newton inhaled because of alchemy probably reduced his abilities and was of course a total waste of time and effort. Your thoroughly irrational question-begging and ad hominem aside, no, in fact, it's not. It's quite easy, because simple lines can be drawn from his philosophical worldview shaped by his religious views, and his work in science.
Justice? Democracy was developed by the same un-Godly Greeks. Once again: some of it, yes.
They did not give women or slaves equal rights, but that cannot be claimed to be a Christian accomplishment either. Irrelevant, of course, since I am tracing ideas, not necessarily the institutional implementation of those ideas.
If justice should be the key to modern science I have no idea why you think justice and science are related. I made no such link, and why you are doing it is subobvious.
What the hell did they teach you in school? They tought me to avoid childish logical fallacies. And you?
You do have a point about the origin of the word, but but when people use the "lack of belief" definition, they clearly state their intent to use the word in a way that's different than many readers would expect. Perhaps, but that is how MOST atheists use the word today, that I run into, whether it's Penn Jillette or Richard Dawkins or many of my friends. Overwhelmingly, they use the definition "lack of belief" instead of "belief in lack."
Heh. So now YOU are smearing atheism, because... I stated something I thought was true, included the caveat that the statement only included what I knew, and then spent four times as many words describing why I thought that the fact was only true due to an accident of history. Using your own criteria for determining what counts as an insult, how could I have included that information without being insulting? I meant "smearing" only in the sense of how you used it. I didn't think I was smearing atheism. And I think you did smear atheism by the standard you applied to me. But no, I don't think you smeared atheism at all.
Right - and that was my point. The only time a state has had an official atheistic stance was when it was merely politically useful. And I simply submit that, similarly, almost every time a state uses religion as a reason to harm others, that it is doing so merely because it is politically useful. I concede there may be a few cases that don't fit that pattern, but you'd be hard-pressed to identify them.
I missed the part where you showed that I was forced to be a Christian. Were you routinely exposed to judeo-christian influences at a young age?
Had you been taught that your choice was Christianity or eternal hellfire by the time you first learned about death? OK, let me be more explicit, since you appear to not have understood what I said.
Please show me where I was forced to be a Christian. None of what you said addressed that.
In his opinion, maybe. Not in mine. In my opinion, it is why the cow exists, and it is good for him to die for my sustenance.
Now as for killing a person who threatens to harm your family, if it's a choice between your family and someone to whom you don't have strong ties fair enough. I'd at least hope you'd try to disable the person making the threat instead of killing them.
Hell no. Shoot to kill. Trying to disable only increases the chances of his causing harm to me or my family. Never would I try to disarm in such a situation. If I am brought to the point of pointing that gun to protect my family, I will shoot, without hesitation.
your point is that it's subjective. It's not really all that subjective as you might think.
Yes, it is. In fact, it is purely, 100%, subjective. Unless, of course, you believe in a higher power that sets up such rules.
Given the same situation if a member of your family threatened to kill someone and were killed in trying to do that, a rational person would have to agree that the death of the initial agressor is unfortunate but preferable to death of the innocent person
Question-begging: now you are assuming "rational" means "someone who agrees with my subjective assessment." This is not proof of anything at all.
They're direct responses to the things you've said.
False. What I was saying was entirely about PROVING something is good or bad, and you continue -- even in this post -- to go on about peoples' opinions. They are irrelevant. And I never brought God into that at all. You may be directly responding to what you THINK I said, but not what I said.
There are degrees of provability.
False. There are different standards of proof, but in the context, YOU were setting proof to be the highest of standards, and then proceeding to violate your own standards when it suited your purpose. I cannot "prove" God exists, but you then proceeded to claim you could "prove" something was bad.
No. I firmly believe that is not possible. There are some truths -- very few, and mostly mathematical -- that are objectively identifiable no matter what reality is. I do not believe there is the slightest possibility that 2+2=5 (unless, of course, you change the meanings for those symbols, which is, of course, entirely beside the point).
Your beliefs have nothing to do with it. If you're willing to accept you may be some severed head in an alternate universe, and that the universe you see is all illusion, then you can say NOTHING about the laws of mathematics or physics in that "real" universe unless you find a way to observe it.
Sorry, if you believe that, then I have to think you've never done any significant study on the issue. Almost no one in the metaphysics world holds to your view.
Incorrect. Let's examine what YOU said: "If I live a life of poverty and chastity I'll go to heaven." I responded, "I don't know anyone who believes the quoted claim." The monks and nuns I am referring to ALSO do not believe that quoted claim. Taking a vow of chastity and poverty is, in Christianity, is done by some, but NOT in order to go to heaven.
Now you claim to know and understand the motivation for every Christian who takes such vowss.
I did no such thing. PLEASE learn to read. I ledt my quote in so you can try again.
You seem to be trying to argue that nothing can be proven beyond mathematics but that is absolute rubbish.
There are a few other things, perhaps. But not many, no.
If mathematics is provable baeed on observation of counting numbers etc. then why can't I prove facts like one type of mineral is harder than another?
Obviously, because that mineral may not exist.
Penrose was not talking based on the assumption that all that is aroun
Question-begging fallacy. You mean truth you don't wish to face. That was funny. You responded to my correct assertion that your assumption of truth without proof was a question-begging fallacy, with ANOTHER question-begging fallacy. Bravo!
There's billions of people on this planet and hundreds of millions in this country, and it is impossible for everyone to have the same beliefs, and the decisions of others will always be affecting you. Exactly. Which is why their beliefs are any concern of mine at all. No, they are not.
If your president decides to nuke a town because his deity told him it was right, I'm affected. So much for rational discourse.
How about you stick to the topics at hand I am. That is precisely what I am doing. I am saying that your concern with what other people think is stupid and infantile and irrational.
I'm not in your highschool You sure as hell act like it. "Oh boo hoo, someone believes something I think is wrong! WAAAAAAAAH!"
and don't need to pull my "stones" out in gym to prove I'm a man. Nope. You just need to stop acting like a child.
Ahh I see so the attrocities committed in the name of religion are okay because there are worse ones out there? Straw man logical fallacy.
There is a third case to consider. That god does not exist, but those people were nonetheless killed by Israelites in the name of religion. (with the exception of the flood genocide which cannot possibly be true as written). Bah. You could also say that none of the people they claim died actually died, and that they wrote it just to scare their enemies. That is pointless. The issue here is how many people died because of religion, and if were going to drag those numbers into it but won't take it at face value, then it's pointless to bring them in, in the first place.
You don't have to follow their rule, all you need is to conform to their standard theology! No I don't. What are you going on about? Last I checked, I could choose for myself what to believe, and not believe, in. So you're a Christian, but only for the subset of Christ's words that you choose to believe? I missed the part where you showed that I was forced to be a Christian.
You don't have to follow their rule, all you need is to conform to their standard theology! No I don't. What are you going on about? Last I checked, I could choose for myself what to believe, and not believe, in.
What about all those people God murdered (directly or sanctioned) back in the old testament? Remember the whole thing that happened over and over, with the slaughter of babies and animals and women (but save the virgins) and men and all that? Are you counting those? Well no, because we can't do that unless we admit God exists. That URL is pretty funny in this context; almost all of those are people killed by God's own hand. If God does exist, then who are you to argue with him? And if he doesn't, then, God didn't really kill them, so you're complaining about nothing.
... why do I care? Only because people are making life decisions based on the adult equivalent of Santa Claus Question-begging fallacy.
... and many of those decisions affect me. There's billions of people on this planet and hundreds of millions in this country, and it is impossible for everyone to have the same beliefs, and the decisions of others will always be affecting you.
Grow some stones.
Only because these religions target the young and threaten them with the same things to scare them into compliance. Mine doesn't.
Only because atrocities have been committed in the name of various world religions. Far less so than atrocities committed in the name of things OTHER than religion. And even those things done "in the name of" religion were almost always just using religion as an excuse, as any honest historical examination shows: it was about lust for power and control by leaders, who strung their people along with whatever they had handy, whether religion, nationalism, race, etc.
IF you're willing to accept that something that is harmful or destructive or unpleasant is "bad"
I most certainly am not. Killing a cow for food is good. Killing a person threatening to harm my family is good.
it's quite easy to define something as "good" or "bad" based on how it affects yourself and others
Yes, but only subjectively. The cow and person I killed would not agree with my conclusions. And I cannot prove I am right that those killings were good. I can only assert it as my subjective claim.
You don't need God for that kind of morality.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never made any such counterclaim. Some people believe that morality does not exist without religion, or that it is necessarily different, but I never implied any such thing. I did say some of our current morality comes from religious thought, but as I have several times noted, that does not mean it necessarily wouldn't have happened anyway.
Since when is lack of direct or obvious benefit "bad"? Could not the damage done make the individual or community stronger in the long run? And how could you possibly know what all of the indirect consequences are? Unless you can see the entire picture, isn't it impossible for you to say?
Not really. I know a lot of people who don't believe in God who would agree that the murder of an innocent child is bad.
God has nothing to do with what I am saying. The context of this is whether we can "prove" something is bad. Whether we can know it objectively. Getting someone to agree -- hell, getting EVERYONE to agree -- whether or not they believe in God is beside any point I was addressing. I am skipping ahead here because most of the next few paragraphs have nothing to do with me or anything I said.
Unless you can see the entire picture, isn't it impossible for you to say?
That's true with or without religiously based morality.
Yes. I neither stated nor implied otherwise.
I fail to see how that is hypocritical. You are the one who brought "proof" into this. "Proof" is a higher standard of conclusion. I can say 2+2=4, and I can prove it. I can say I am not merely a head in a jar imagining this world, but I cannot prove it.
Actually who's to say that your proof of 2+2=4 isn't fiction also. Perhaps your head in a jar imagines this world such that 2+2=4 but in the world it actually exists in 2+2=5.
No. I firmly believe that is not possible. There are some truths -- very few, and mostly mathematical -- that are objectively identifiable no matter what reality is. I do not believe there is the slightest possibility that 2+2=5 (unless, of course, you change the meanings for those symbols, which is, of course, entirely beside the point).
When you start to question reality all your logic unravels. It's part of the study of metaphysics.
Granted, experts in metaphysics disagree on this, and the problem of universals goes back thousands of years, so I won't bother attempting to convince you. I will, however, simply quote Penrose, who argued that "mathematical truth is absolute, external, and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria; and that mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own, not dependent on human society nor on particular physical objects."
It's not a reason to abandon logic in this world that we can observe.
Of course not. And no one does, not completely. That is why I confidently asserted that everyone requires, and lives by, faith.
If you want the best and most consistent outcome you adhere to the rules of this world as best as you can describe them.
Exactly my point. I agree absolutely.
No, it's not, because you are saying it as though the people who have this belief in God are the problem. Why i
No. If you didn't understand what I wrote there, well, do some research. It's standard Protestant theology, and I am not going to spend time giving a seminar here. Sorry.:-)
Your religion does not ask that you live by their rule? Absolutely not. I am a Christian. Last time I was subjected to Christian indoctrination, they had a shitload of rules they expected me to follow. Expected to what end? For you to participate in their church, or for you to go to heaven? If the latter, then that is very explicitly un-Christian. The Bible is quite clear on this, that salvation comes through faith, not through doing -- or not doing -- specific things. The Holy Spirit indwells believers and changes them; change is not a prerequisite for salvation.
Methinks you're entirely delusional. You're obviously incorrect.
Man, you are fucking retarded! Anything i say, you just say close your eyes and say that it doesnt exist. Only when, in fact, it doesn't.
Do you even know what the word dogma means? Yes. Which is how I know you were wrong. Dogma is a rule that is passed down from an authority, something taken as absolutely true. In Protestantism: baptism required for salvation: not dogma. Attending church: not dogma. Marriage as holy: not dogma (again, this is belief, not an actionable principle or rule; saying divorce and cheating on your spouse is wrong is dogma for many, but that's not the same as saying marriage is holy).
It is quite clearly you who either does not understand what dogma means, or does not understand Christianity.
If you would prefer "secular" to "atheist," fine. I don't care. The point is not to beat up on atheists, far from it. What the fuck?!?!?
"Atheist" and "secular" have very different meanings "Atheist" and "atheist" also have very different meanings. So do "secular" and "secular," for that matter. "Atheist" has meant for a long time both "a belief in the lack of any god" and "a lack of belief in any god," two very different things. And I submit that a secular state -- which can be defined as one that rejects all recognition of religion -- is synonymous with an atheist state, in the latter (and more common today, among self-proclaimed atheists) definition. On the other hand, America is not such a secular state. Far from rejecting recognition of religion, it merely rejects special recognition of any particular religion.
The only reason that you would mix the two up is a great deal of ignorance about the meanings of those two words, or an attempt to smear atheism with every bad act not clearly motivated by religion.
The only officially atheistic regimes I know of were communist Heh. So now YOU are smearing atheism, because, of course, the regimes that most fit that description are responsible for more deaths than all others in history.
In fact, I was attempting to take atheism out of the equation, NOT blaming atheism for the deaths. I was attempting to show that I don't see the "official atheism" of regimes that murdered tens of millions of people as significantly different from the secularism of America or France, in terms of being a CAUSE of those deaths. That is, communism -- as you said -- used atheism as a way to control the people. It wasn't an essential feature of the regime, or a cause of the deaths, it was a means. If not for that need for such a means of control, or if they had found some other means, China under Mao would have been merely secular.
Justice. It is from religion that we get the idea that all men are created equal, that equality before the law, equality of rights, equality of worth are good and right and true. Not true at all. If this were true, any representation of the people in which the church has a seat just on the basis that they are the religious group, would spontaneously cease to exist as those people protest the inequality of this form of government. Only if you take my words to mean something they clearly do not mean. I did not say, or imply, that religion is always just, or that religious people are always just. I only said that our concepts of justice and equality today are significantly influenced by religious thought. Your argument is not arguing against my argument.
That there might be such a thing as universal, just and egalitarian law that is not directly descended, or at least justified, by the Christian God, was an idea that didn't even come into existence until the Spanish and other nations colonized the world Not true. It goes back far before that. Although yes, it didn't take predominance in the church until around that time, but that is not what I am referring to. Again, I think we are looking at it from different angles.
However even with this confrontation shaking the philosophers up, it still wasn't until the age of Enlightenment that thinkers and (enlightened) absolutist rulers, not the church, started realizing that it might be possible to build up a society and law that is 100% based on reason, and thus can guarantee (or so they hoped) equality and fairness, without involving God, and all the bias that brings along. Yes, many in the Enlightenment wanted an atheistic government. But those Enlightenment figures themselves were strongly influenced by religious thought -- most directly, the Reformation itself -- that preceded them.
Specifically, all I know is that Catholics have said that man shouldn't interfere with the procreation process, and so shouldn't wear condoms. I don't see how you can possibly show that to be irrational scientifically or logically, unless you are going to argue from the Bible itself. Sure you can. All it takes is point out that, since procreation naturally only occurs as a result of sex, and since whether or not you have sex is entirely in your control (excepting getting raped), it is impossible to not interfere with the process That's a straw man fallacy, since it is not what the Catholics teach: they teach about noninterference PAST the point of choosing to have sex.
Besides, the Catholic Church itself is interfering with the process all the time, with each and every position it has regarding sex, including the very condom ban. And that is the equivocation fallacy, since it is modifying the contextual definition of "interfere."
Funny thing about the brainwashed.. they'll say all day long that they aren't brainwashed! Ad hominem.
Definition of faith: belief that is not based on proof. That's a weak definition, but it suits our purposes.
You seem to have your definitions mixed up. I do not require faith to know that when I walk down a sidewalk that I will not plunge into nothingness. Yes, in fact, you do. Sad that you don't realize this fact, though. You have faith in your senses and in your memory and past experiences and ability to reason. You absolutely require faith for that.
Faith is not something we are born with, it is something that some humans acquire via careful ignoring our innate ability to question the world around us and look for solutions. Nope. Not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact: faith is something we acquire as a means of survival. Without faith, we could not do anything, because we can never be sure that we are not just imagining what we think we see, smell, hear, remember, or conclude.
Instead, faith is basically throwing up our hands and saying "(insert deity) did it!" You are completely incorrect. I have faith, and I never do that.
Sorry, I function just fine without faith. Nope. In fact, you do not function AT ALL without faith. And you're only fooling yourself here.
Don't bring Isaac Newton into this. He didn't like Christianity in the slightest (being gay and a scientist). It depends on what you mean. He was a Unitarian, so by most of today's standards, yes, he was not a Christian, as he didn't believe Christ was God.
However, I never said he was a Christian. I said he was strongly religious. And, of course, he was. He said, for example, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." He wrote more about the Bible than he did about science. He also said "Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."
Further, there is FAR more evidence that Newton was strongly religious, than that he was gay.
Saying Isaac's discoveries were down to religion is a massive slap in the face of a fantastic scientist. It's obvious. He wrote at length -- again, he wrote more about religion than science -- about his religious beliefs, and about how there was order in the world caused by the immanence of a logically rational God in it, and that therefore the world, the universe, could be studied and understood, that it had to follow certain rules, which were objectively identifiable. His foundational philosophy of science was inherently tied to his religious beliefs.
You appear to have this extremely odd notion that science and religion don't mix. History does not back you up on this, at all. Even today, many of our great scientists are religious.
Read some of my other comments in this discussion, I already addressed your concerns. Actually, no. Actually, yes. I described my views on the subject in great detail.
You don't typically address anyone's concerns. False.
You either throw out "I stopped reading your post" I did that to precisely one comment in this discussion, and -- as the poster even conceded -- the beginning of his lengthy post was filled with illogical nonsense, so I didn't bother going through the rest of it.
or state "false" with no evidence to support your claim False. I only reply "false" when I do support the claim, or it is literally self-evident and there is no need, or (perhaps most commonly) when I am responding to an unsupported claim, where the burden of proof does not rest with me.
or quote Christian dogma as if it were the final word on the matter False. I have NEVER done that. Not in this discussion, or anywhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but you're the one who is lacking in understanding. Ashamed of your own ignorance, you lash out at me.
"In my opinion, it is why the cow exists, and it is good for him to die for my sustenance." is no different than saying that you value your family's sustainence over the life of the cow.
Incorrect. Those are two different things.
You may not see it as "bad" but that's because either you don't believe the cow's life has any value beyond fulfilling your own needs (which I call ignorant since the cow will suffer, there is one less cow, and the cow once dead can't be brought back - at the very least you should view the animal as a resource), which is what I think you're saying, or you've already accepted the trade off of the cow's life for your sustenance.
False on both counts. I value the cow's life very highly. Without its life, I wouldn't get to kill it. It exists for me to eat it. There's nothing remotely bad about killing it for that purpose. It is 100% good. Nothing bad.
You keep coming back to silly metaphysical and extreme arguments. However I wasn't talking about killing cows and you know it.
I couldn't care less. You make statements. I make statements to disprove your statements. If you don't like it, then don't make the original statements that are so easily disproven, like that you can prove something is good or bad.
If I were to suggest that killing animals or humans randomly and as cruelly as possible were good
Again, you are missing the point. It is not about whether you think it is good or bad, but whether you can PROVE it. Whether it is subjective, or objective. You keep incorrectly claiming you can prove it, and that it is objective. The only way it can be objectively good or bad is if there's some greater authority saying so. Otherwise, it is just conjecture and opinion.
It's a perfectly valid opinion that there is some bad in killing a cow to eat it. I don't agree, but fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But you can't prove it. It is not objective. Same thing with pretty much anything else.
Sure you can still hold that belief despite the arguments but a rational safe sane society that didn't approve of mass murders and that sought to provide safety within the community would not agree.
Sure. But that doesn't get you any closer to showing that you can prove any of this.
It requires only the human condition and rational thought
To have an opinion, yes. To prove it? Not possible.
Hell no. Shoot to kill. Trying to disable only increases the chances of his causing harm to me or my family. Never would I try to disarm in such a situation. If I am brought to the point of pointing that gun to protect my family, I will shoot, without hesitation.
You do realize that with that statement you're only a step or two away from the religious extremism of a nut job terrorist suicide bomber don't you?
False.
There are many situations in which your family is threatened but the use of lethal force to restrain the attacker isn't necessary
So? That has nothing to do with my scenario. You apparently didn't read what I actually wrote. Try again, it's right there: IF I am brought to the point of pointing that gun THEN I will shoot. There are many situations where lethal force is not necessary.
Yes, it is. In fact, it is purely, 100%, subjective. Unless, of course, you believe in a higher power that sets up such rules.
NO NO NO NO AND NO. YOU DO NOT require a higher power to have a non-subjective morality.
Yes, you do. It's a logical truism.
That is a foul and horrid lie perpetrated by people such as yourself who don't understand the meaning of the word subjective and can't hold a logical or consistent discussion.
False.
If the only reason you follow these rules is a belief in a non-existent higher power you're a dangerous person.
So? That has no
The other was my claim that "it's not [hard to give any credit to the argument that Newton's work in physics and maths]
So the two things above, one of them was true, the other was a statement that I didn't know what link you were trying to draw, and neither one of them reflected on my relative understanding of science.
In the rest of the post, I made no comments relating to science *at all.* In each, I was either agreeing with you, or commenting on logical flaws in your post which have nothing to do with whether I understand science.
All of that just to say that when you respond to my post that it is "clear" that my understanding of science is "lacking," what's really clear is that you're full of shit. You didn't like my response and so you lashed out, pretending to take the high horse, either because you knew that you wouldn't be able to easily win the argument and didn't want to take the time, or you simply didn't have a leg to stand on.
A pathetically transparent attempt, too.
But if I was indoctrinated into a system of belief that said I would be separated from mom forever, then so are most humans throughout history indoctrinated into a similar system of belief, including yourself. Unless you weren't taught that harming others -- stealing, killing, etc. -- could land you in a ton of trouble
Had you been taught that your choice was Christianity or eternal hellfire by the time you first learned about death? OK, let me be more explicit, since you appear to not have understood what I said.
Please show me where I was forced to be a Christian. None of what you said addressed that.
but bad for the cow
In his opinion, maybe. Not in mine. In my opinion, it is why the cow exists, and it is good for him to die for my sustenance.
Now as for killing a person who threatens to harm your family, if it's a choice between your family and someone to whom you don't have strong ties fair enough. I'd at least hope you'd try to disable the person making the threat instead of killing them.
Hell no. Shoot to kill. Trying to disable only increases the chances of his causing harm to me or my family. Never would I try to disarm in such a situation. If I am brought to the point of pointing that gun to protect my family, I will shoot, without hesitation.
your point is that it's subjective. It's not really all that subjective as you might think.
Yes, it is. In fact, it is purely, 100%, subjective. Unless, of course, you believe in a higher power that sets up such rules.
Given the same situation if a member of your family threatened to kill someone and were killed in trying to do that, a rational person would have to agree that the death of the initial agressor is unfortunate but preferable to death of the innocent person
Question-begging: now you are assuming "rational" means "someone who agrees with my subjective assessment." This is not proof of anything at all.
They're direct responses to the things you've said.
False. What I was saying was entirely about PROVING something is good or bad, and you continue -- even in this post -- to go on about peoples' opinions. They are irrelevant. And I never brought God into that at all. You may be directly responding to what you THINK I said, but not what I said.
There are degrees of provability.
False. There are different standards of proof, but in the context, YOU were setting proof to be the highest of standards, and then proceeding to violate your own standards when it suited your purpose. I cannot "prove" God exists, but you then proceeded to claim you could "prove" something was bad.
No. I firmly believe that is not possible. There are some truths -- very few, and mostly mathematical -- that are objectively identifiable no matter what reality is. I do not believe there is the slightest possibility that 2+2=5 (unless, of course, you change the meanings for those symbols, which is, of course, entirely beside the point).
Your beliefs have nothing to do with it. If you're willing to accept you may be some severed head in an alternate universe, and that the universe you see is all illusion, then you can say NOTHING about the laws of mathematics or physics in that "real" universe unless you find a way to observe it.
Sorry, if you believe that, then I have to think you've never done any significant study on the issue. Almost no one in the metaphysics world holds to your view.
Incorrect. Let's examine what YOU said: "If I live a life of poverty and chastity I'll go to heaven." I responded, "I don't know anyone who believes the quoted claim." The monks and nuns I am referring to ALSO do not believe that quoted claim. Taking a vow of chastity and poverty is, in Christianity, is done by some, but NOT in order to go to heaven.
Now you claim to know and understand the motivation for every Christian who takes such vowss.
I did no such thing. PLEASE learn to read. I ledt my quote in so you can try again.
You seem to be trying to argue that nothing can be proven beyond mathematics but that is absolute rubbish.
There are a few other things, perhaps. But not many, no.
If mathematics is provable baeed on observation of counting numbers etc. then why can't I prove facts like one type of mineral is harder than another?
Obviously, because that mineral may not exist.
Penrose was not talking based on the assumption that all that is aroun
... why do I care? Only because people are making life decisions based on the adult equivalent of Santa Claus Question-begging fallacy.
... and many of those decisions affect me. There's billions of people on this planet and hundreds of millions in this country, and it is impossible for everyone to have the same beliefs, and the decisions of others will always be affecting you.Grow some stones. Only because these religions target the young and threaten them with the same things to scare them into compliance. Mine doesn't. Only because atrocities have been committed in the name of various world religions. Far less so than atrocities committed in the name of things OTHER than religion. And even those things done "in the name of" religion were almost always just using religion as an excuse, as any honest historical examination shows: it was about lust for power and control by leaders, who strung their people along with whatever they had handy, whether religion, nationalism, race, etc.
IF you're willing to accept that something that is harmful or destructive or unpleasant is "bad"
I most certainly am not. Killing a cow for food is good. Killing a person threatening to harm my family is good.
it's quite easy to define something as "good" or "bad" based on how it affects yourself and others
Yes, but only subjectively. The cow and person I killed would not agree with my conclusions. And I cannot prove I am right that those killings were good. I can only assert it as my subjective claim.
You don't need God for that kind of morality.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never made any such counterclaim. Some people believe that morality does not exist without religion, or that it is necessarily different, but I never implied any such thing. I did say some of our current morality comes from religious thought, but as I have several times noted, that does not mean it necessarily wouldn't have happened anyway.
Since when is lack of direct or obvious benefit "bad"? Could not the damage done make the individual or community stronger in the long run? And how could you possibly know what all of the indirect consequences are? Unless you can see the entire picture, isn't it impossible for you to say?
Not really. I know a lot of people who don't believe in God who would agree that the murder of an innocent child is bad.
God has nothing to do with what I am saying. The context of this is whether we can "prove" something is bad. Whether we can know it objectively. Getting someone to agree -- hell, getting EVERYONE to agree -- whether or not they believe in God is beside any point I was addressing. I am skipping ahead here because most of the next few paragraphs have nothing to do with me or anything I said.
Unless you can see the entire picture, isn't it impossible for you to say?
That's true with or without religiously based morality.
Yes. I neither stated nor implied otherwise.
I fail to see how that is hypocritical. You are the one who brought "proof" into this. "Proof" is a higher standard of conclusion. I can say 2+2=4, and I can prove it. I can say I am not merely a head in a jar imagining this world, but I cannot prove it.
Actually who's to say that your proof of 2+2=4 isn't fiction also. Perhaps your head in a jar imagines this world such that 2+2=4 but in the world it actually exists in 2+2=5.
No. I firmly believe that is not possible. There are some truths -- very few, and mostly mathematical -- that are objectively identifiable no matter what reality is. I do not believe there is the slightest possibility that 2+2=5 (unless, of course, you change the meanings for those symbols, which is, of course, entirely beside the point).
When you start to question reality all your logic unravels. It's part of the study of metaphysics.
Granted, experts in metaphysics disagree on this, and the problem of universals goes back thousands of years, so I won't bother attempting to convince you. I will, however, simply quote Penrose, who argued that "mathematical truth is absolute, external, and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria; and that mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own, not dependent on human society nor on particular physical objects."
It's not a reason to abandon logic in this world that we can observe.
Of course not. And no one does, not completely. That is why I confidently asserted that everyone requires, and lives by, faith.
If you want the best and most consistent outcome you adhere to the rules of this world as best as you can describe them.
Exactly my point. I agree absolutely.
No, it's not, because you are saying it as though the people who have this belief in God are the problem. Why i
- religion
- spirituality
- steam locomotive
No. If you didn't understand what I wrote there, well, do some research. It's standard Protestant theology, and I am not going to spend time giving a seminar here. Sorry.It is quite clearly you who either does not understand what dogma means, or does not understand Christianity.
"Atheist" and "secular" have very different meanings "Atheist" and "atheist" also have very different meanings. So do "secular" and "secular," for that matter. "Atheist" has meant for a long time both "a belief in the lack of any god" and "a lack of belief in any god," two very different things. And I submit that a secular state -- which can be defined as one that rejects all recognition of religion -- is synonymous with an atheist state, in the latter (and more common today, among self-proclaimed atheists) definition. On the other hand, America is not such a secular state. Far from rejecting recognition of religion, it merely rejects special recognition of any particular religion. The only reason that you would mix the two up is a great deal of ignorance about the meanings of those two words, or an attempt to smear atheism with every bad act not clearly motivated by religion.
The only officially atheistic regimes I know of were communist Heh. So now YOU are smearing atheism, because, of course, the regimes that most fit that description are responsible for more deaths than all others in history.
In fact, I was attempting to take atheism out of the equation, NOT blaming atheism for the deaths. I was attempting to show that I don't see the "official atheism" of regimes that murdered tens of millions of people as significantly different from the secularism of America or France, in terms of being a CAUSE of those deaths. That is, communism -- as you said -- used atheism as a way to control the people. It wasn't an essential feature of the regime, or a cause of the deaths, it was a means. If not for that need for such a means of control, or if they had found some other means, China under Mao would have been merely secular.
However, I never said he was a Christian. I said he was strongly religious. And, of course, he was. He said, for example, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." He wrote more about the Bible than he did about science. He also said "Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."
Further, there is FAR more evidence that Newton was strongly religious, than that he was gay. Saying Isaac's discoveries were down to religion is a massive slap in the face of a fantastic scientist. It's obvious. He wrote at length -- again, he wrote more about religion than science -- about his religious beliefs, and about how there was order in the world caused by the immanence of a logically rational God in it, and that therefore the world, the universe, could be studied and understood, that it had to follow certain rules, which were objectively identifiable. His foundational philosophy of science was inherently tied to his religious beliefs.
You appear to have this extremely odd notion that science and religion don't mix. History does not back you up on this, at all. Even today, many of our great scientists are religious.