Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How can anyone not have doubts?

Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:34:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of any kind of higher power, nor have I seen a compelling argument for a "larger purpose". I'm certainly not opposed to either of these things in principle, it's just that, absent anything that I've found to be valid (with the recognition that I don't know everything), I have no more reason to say that sort of thing than I do to say (and forgive the flippancy) "Sure, i know lightning is electricity, but I find it hard to believe it JUST follows the path of least resistance".

On this site, most of us are in it "for the fight", most of us like to debate and argue--that's why we're here in the first place. So I don't think it's super surprising to see things shake out as they do.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:43:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

You are asking if we are earnest in our assertions, beliefs, and claims. I can't efficiently represent the other members on this site, but I am an atheist because of a multitude of reasons and because simply I have no evidence to scrutinize pertaining to the god many claim to exist. There is a profound disparity between an atheist who does not have a belief in a god, and an individual who believes there is no god. Many might suggest that pertains to weak vs. strong atheism. If that is indeed the scenario, I am the former. However, certain claims about certain gods have been demonstrably verified as being incapable of existing.

We all are skeptical or tentative regarding certain aspects of life or even the knowledge we possess. There is nothing disingenuous about that. However, problems occur when, and the definitive line that separates those who are genuine and those who are not, are those that advance claims whereby that individuals knowledge of the claim is either incompetent and/or they are perpetuating dishonesty. Many might deem that to be "intellectually dishonest". It is simply just being dishonest.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:43:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:34:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of any kind of higher power, nor have I seen a compelling argument for a "larger purpose". I'm certainly not opposed to either of these things in principle, it's just that, absent anything that I've found to be valid (with the recognition that I don't know everything), I have no more reason to say that sort of thing than I do to say (and forgive the flippancy) "Sure, i know lightning is electricity, but I find it hard to believe it JUST follows the path of least resistance".

On this site, most of us are in it "for the fight", most of us like to debate and argue--that's why we're here in the first place. So I don't think it's super surprising to see things shake out as they do.

So when you see a news article like the recent one about an Afghani security guard giving his own life to save total strangers by hugging a suicide bomber to dampen the blast, it doesn't give you pause to wonder why a man would do such a thing? You don't believe that people can be heroes or heroines? That they only act as evolution has mindlessly programmed them to act? No offense, but that sounds like a pretty dire assessment of the nature of mankind.

I can understand the desire to fight, but isn't there also a desire to actually discuss the issues in a way conducive to improved understanding? If a person just wants to win it seems more logical to try checkers or poker. What do they really get from the excitability associated with arguing?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:50:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:43:14 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:34:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of any kind of higher power, nor have I seen a compelling argument for a "larger purpose". I'm certainly not opposed to either of these things in principle, it's just that, absent anything that I've found to be valid (with the recognition that I don't know everything), I have no more reason to say that sort of thing than I do to say (and forgive the flippancy) "Sure, i know lightning is electricity, but I find it hard to believe it JUST follows the path of least resistance".

On this site, most of us are in it "for the fight", most of us like to debate and argue--that's why we're here in the first place. So I don't think it's super surprising to see things shake out as they do.

So when you see a news article like the recent one about an Afghani security guard giving his own life to save total strangers by hugging a suicide bomber to dampen the blast, it doesn't give you pause to wonder why a man would do such a thing?

To try to save lives? The motive seems pretty transparent, I'd think. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not diminishing such actions by any means, but...what more is necessary to explain why someone would do that?

You don't believe that people can be heroes or heroines?

That has nothing to do with what you were talking about, nor do I believe that.

That they only act as evolution has mindlessly programmed them to act? No offense, but that sounds like a pretty dire assessment of the nature of mankind.

I never said that, so....again, this is a strawmanning, and bothersome strawmanning at that.

That people are people, and that people can make choices based on the kind of people they are, has nothing to do with your original post, so this is really unfair of you, particularly ironic given your post's message.

I can understand the desire to fight, but isn't there also a desire to actually discuss the issues in a way conducive to improved understanding? If a person just wants to win it seems more logical to try checkers or poker. What do they really get from the excitability associated with arguing?

What do people get from checkers or poker? I mean, some people prefer to debate. To some extent, it can be argued that there are benefits in the "sharpening of the mind" sense. But I would argue that having a position doesn't mean that we aren't "conducive to improved understanding", on either side of the aisle.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:03:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:43:09 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?



You are asking if we are earnest in our assertions, beliefs, and claims. I can't efficiently represent the other members on this site, but I am an atheist because of a multitude of reasons and because simply I have no evidence to scrutinize pertaining to the god many claim to exist. There is a profound disparity between an atheist who does not have a belief in a god, and an individual who believes there is no god. Many might suggest that pertains to weak vs. strong atheism. If that is indeed the scenario, I am the former. However, certain claims about certain gods have been demonstrably verified as being incapable of existing.

No, I am asking if you are earnest in your desire to better understand the entire subject instead of just one side. I personally am not religious, nor am I atheist. I believe there is a deeper truth which I might be able to get at if I apply myself diligently in an unbiased manner, as I was taught to study things. There are countless people on this planet, even highly accomplished scientists, who have changed their mind about what they believe following decades of dedication to either side. This must have happened because they were exposed to "evidence" which changed their perspective. I see nothing wrong with you being an atheist or a believer, but it seems to me that a thoughtful man who was interested in debating the subject would at least be willing to consider the responses that come from "the other side". The fact that some parts of certain beliefs have been demonstrable shown to be false while certain philosophies suggest a higher level of intelligent order would be a good reason for consideration.

We all are skeptical or tentative regarding certain aspects of life or even the knowledge we possess. There is nothing disingenuous about that. However, problems occur when, and the definitive line that separates those who are genuine and those who are not, are those that advance claims whereby that individuals knowledge of the claim is either incompetent and/or they are perpetuating dishonesty. Many might deem that to be "intellectually dishonest". It is simply just being dishonest.

I'm not surprised that there would be instances on a site like this where people would be called-out for their obvious bias or stupidity. What I'm questioning is why every discussion seems to degenerate into predictable infighting. Remember the cartoon "Spy vs. Spy"? That was meant to present a wry sense of humor. I wouldn't think that an organizational debate site would have the same goal. I'm totally willing to listen to anyone willing to take the time to write their thoughts and insights, and to give them the consideration they are worth. It doesn't mean I don't recognize stupidity, or enjoy the occasional attempt at irony or humor.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:17:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

Well I would imagine if people believe in the Biblical God they are "bound" to that side of the argument hence they "believe" lol, for me it's either in or out and God has seemed to have bound me to Him not really the other way around. But to answer your question yes there are doubts here and there but no I am not pulled by atheist arguments but I DO hear them out. From my own gatherings I feel a lot of the opposing side that their intuition and natural senses can be extremely dull, that's not an insult! that's just what I pick up on nothing more.

It's no secret around here I find the argument from "science" against God to be an argument from ignorance merely because of the nature of God, I can't even begin to imagine that one would put their full trust in such a system regarding God it's ridiculous FOR ME, IMO, however I do understand the point and that a material mindset is just that, material. And the need to validate claims is of utmost importance, but the "validation" or "proof" that God exists comes from different angles when dealing with the nature of Spirit and one I find very compelling in terms of scripture. I would not be a Christian if God hasn't validated Himself in my life, that's the whole point of the Gospel IMO.

There is some harsh realities in scripture but we live in a harsh hostile world the Bible pulls no punches it is very honest in that regard, nothing I haven't considered or listened to.
I'm definitely not in it for a fight, quite the contrary although it doesn't always turn out good lol.

If I may ask, are you basically agnostic? not really on one side or the other?
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:20:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I also leave myself open and I like to learn and explore! but nothing comes close to getting my attention like spiritual reality, it's there to me as plain as day and always has been.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:50:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:43:14 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:34:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of any kind of higher power, nor have I seen a compelling argument for a "larger purpose". I'm certainly not opposed to either of these things in principle, it's just that, absent anything that I've found to be valid (with the recognition that I don't know everything), I have no more reason to say that sort of thing than I do to say (and forgive the flippancy) "Sure, i know lightning is electricity, but I find it hard to believe it JUST follows the path of least resistance".

On this site, most of us are in it "for the fight", most of us like to debate and argue--that's why we're here in the first place. So I don't think it's super surprising to see things shake out as they do.

So when you see a news article like the recent one about an Afghani security guard giving his own life to save total strangers by hugging a suicide bomber to dampen the blast, it doesn't give you pause to wonder why a man would do such a thing?

To try to save lives? The motive seems pretty transparent, I'd think. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not diminishing such actions by any means, but...what more is necessary to explain why someone would do that?

You don't believe that people can be heroes or heroines?

That has nothing to do with what you were talking about, nor do I believe that.

That they only act as evolution has mindlessly programmed them to act? No offense, but that sounds like a pretty dire assessment of the nature of mankind.

I never said that, so....again, this is a strawmanning, and bothersome strawmanning at that.

It's not strawmanning. What you said seems to imply all the things I referred to in an obvious way. If there is nothing moral about sacrificing one's own existence to save that of another then it's just a mindless reaction, and therefore cannot be referred to as heroism. Name-calling doesn't change the point. There is a theorem written by George Price which is a part of the TOE in which he postulates that altruism is an evolutionary characteristic. He later rejected his own theorem because of his own exposure to countless acts of it, but it's still part of the TOE.

That people are people, and that people can make choices based on the kind of people they are, has nothing to do with your original post, so this is really unfair of you, particularly ironic given your post's message.

That's true, but I was merely responding to your post. I would rather have stayed more on track. The last thing I want is confrontation in a discussion about the undesirability of confrontation. :)

I can understand the desire to fight, but isn't there also a desire to actually discuss the issues in a way conducive to improved understanding? If a person just wants to win it seems more logical to try checkers or poker. What do they really get from the excitability associated with arguing?

What do people get from checkers or poker? I mean, some people prefer to debate. To some extent, it can be argued that there are benefits in the "sharpening of the mind" sense. But I would argue that having a position doesn't mean that we aren't "conducive to improved understanding", on either side of the aisle.

Checkers is a competition, and yes, debate can be, too. But what we are doing on these discussion boards is group discussion. I really don't think it should be a competition. It's true that having a position doesn't necessarily exclude an open mind, but my point is that i rarely if ever see evidence of it, on either side of the isle. And I'm not trying to pick a fight here, though I'm told I have a tendency to sound more serious than I mean to sound. ;)
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:40:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:29:51 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:50:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:43:14 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:34:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of any kind of higher power, nor have I seen a compelling argument for a "larger purpose". I'm certainly not opposed to either of these things in principle, it's just that, absent anything that I've found to be valid (with the recognition that I don't know everything), I have no more reason to say that sort of thing than I do to say (and forgive the flippancy) "Sure, i know lightning is electricity, but I find it hard to believe it JUST follows the path of least resistance".

On this site, most of us are in it "for the fight", most of us like to debate and argue--that's why we're here in the first place. So I don't think it's super surprising to see things shake out as they do.

So when you see a news article like the recent one about an Afghani security guard giving his own life to save total strangers by hugging a suicide bomber to dampen the blast, it doesn't give you pause to wonder why a man would do such a thing?

To try to save lives? The motive seems pretty transparent, I'd think. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not diminishing such actions by any means, but...what more is necessary to explain why someone would do that?

You don't believe that people can be heroes or heroines?

That has nothing to do with what you were talking about, nor do I believe that.

That they only act as evolution has mindlessly programmed them to act? No offense, but that sounds like a pretty dire assessment of the nature of mankind.

I never said that, so....again, this is a strawmanning, and bothersome strawmanning at that.

It's not strawmanning. What you said seems to imply all the things I referred to in an obvious way. If there is nothing moral about sacrificing one's own existence to save that of another then it's just a mindless reaction,

That's completely nonsensical.

First, morality hasn't come up at all. Second, even if it wasn't an issue of morality (which it is) it could be an issue of preference--to assert that it's "just a mindless reaction" is nonsensical.

and therefore cannot be referred to as heroism. Name-calling doesn't change the point.

Again, you have made quite literally nonsensical arguments, here, that have nothing to do with your original question, or my response to it. I'm not "name-calling", I'm pointing out what you're doing. What you're doing is inserting things I never said in order to rebut THOSE things, rather than what I said. Which is, by definition, strawmanning.

That people are people, and that people can make choices based on the kind of people they are, has nothing to do with your original post, so this is really unfair of you, particularly ironic given your post's message.

That's true, but I was merely responding to your post. I would rather have stayed more on track. The last thing I want is confrontation in a discussion about the undesirability of confrontation. :)

But you WEREN'T responding to my post. You were responding to points I never made, and then rebutting them as though I'd made them. I don't necessarily like confrontation. But neither do I like being misrepresented, either.

That I reject religious arguments (the original point of your post) says nothing about the positions I take on morality, free will, or consciousness.

I can understand the desire to fight, but isn't there also a desire to actually discuss the issues in a way conducive to improved understanding? If a person just wants to win it seems more logical to try checkers or poker. What do they really get from the excitability associated with arguing?

What do people get from checkers or poker? I mean, some people prefer to debate. To some extent, it can be argued that there are benefits in the "sharpening of the mind" sense. But I would argue that having a position doesn't mean that we aren't "conducive to improved understanding", on either side of the aisle.

Checkers is a competition, and yes, debate can be, too.

Right, so it's perfectly valid to enjoy the competition as your preference.

But what we are doing on these discussion boards is group discussion. I really don't think it should be a competition.

Discussion and debate is always a competition, between ideas at least, in order to attempt to find the best one. That doesn't mean it has to be a competition between the individuals, of course. Yet, if one has confidence in a position to which they've attached themselves, it's likely to at least seem as though they're taking the competition personally.

It's true that having a position doesn't necessarily exclude an open mind, but my point is that i rarely if ever see evidence of it, on either side of the isle.

Well, I would argue that the evidence is when someone changes their mind in response to an argument. And we do see that at times on here. But, if, for the sake of argument, I really believe I've rebutted everything about given position X, it's not a sign of closed-mindedness that I then maintain that position X is rebutted.

And I'm not trying to pick a fight here, though I'm told I have a tendency to sound more serious than I mean to sound. ;)

That's fine--just try to cool it on the assumptions, please.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:50:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:17:27 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

Well I would imagine if people believe in the Biblical God they are "bound" to that side of the argument hence they "believe" lol, for me it's either in or out and God has seemed to have bound me to Him not really the other way around. But to answer your question yes there are doubts here and there but no I am not pulled by atheist arguments but I DO hear them out. From my own gatherings I feel a lot of the opposing side that their intuition and natural senses can be extremely dull, that's not an insult! that's just what I pick up on nothing more.

That's a reasonable statement. I feel that by minimizing the beliefs of others we are only ensuring their animosity toward ourselves, and what's the point of that? I see your point about a believer being trapped from denying God, but can't he/she still discuss such things as the many possible natures of God, or make concessions on the more obvious aversions put forth by atheists? Like the whole idea of Hell. How much harm could a person due to make them deserving of eternal torture of the worst kind? I don't think it can be denied that many men have used religion to their own ends. I do think that the best way to decide how to reach an atheist would be to better understand his/her objections first.

It's no secret around here I find the argument from "science" against God to be an argument from ignorance merely because of the nature of God, I can't even begin to imagine that one would put their full trust in such a system regarding God it's ridiculous FOR ME, IMO, however I do understand the point and that a material mindset is just that, material. And the need to validate claims is of utmost importance, but the "validation" or "proof" that God exists comes from different angles when dealing with the nature of Spirit and one I find very compelling in terms of scripture. I would not be a Christian if God hasn't validated Himself in my life, that's the whole point of the Gospel IMO.

Again, very understandable. But let me put it this way: If my favorite football team were the Redskins and they were playing against the Eagles, wouldn't it be narcissistic of me to insist that every single player on the Redskins' team was better than his counterpart on the Eagles' team? There are bound to be mistakes on both sides, yet I can't remember seeing anyone confess to any important one. If nothing else we know much more about the universe now than in Biblical times, and we must take that into account. Maybe I'm simply venting my disappointment, but I wish I could have a discussion on the religion forum like some I have on the history forum.

There is some harsh realities in scripture but we live in a harsh hostile world the Bible pulls no punches it is very honest in that regard, nothing I haven't considered or listened to.
I'm definitely not in it for a fight, quite the contrary although it doesn't always turn out good lol.

If I may ask, are you basically agnostic? not really on one side or the other?

My belief system is rather complicated. No, I'm not really agnostic. I can accept the idea of evolution, but not that it was a totally mindless process. And what really gets me is that I believe that man is here for a reason, and have a purpose to serve. But at the same time I can't deny that science has revolutionized the world. I am honestly looking for the honest truth, which in my experience usually lies somewhere in the middle ground.
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 7:02:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:40:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:29:51 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:50:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:43:14 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:34:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of any kind of higher power, nor have I seen a compelling argument for a "larger purpose". I'm certainly not opposed to either of these things in principle, it's just that, absent anything that I've found to be valid (with the recognition that I don't know everything), I have no more reason to say that sort of thing than I do to say (and forgive the flippancy) "Sure, i know lightning is electricity, but I find it hard to believe it JUST follows the path of least resistance".

On this site, most of us are in it "for the fight", most of us like to debate and argue--that's why we're here in the first place. So I don't think it's super surprising to see things shake out as they do.

So when you see a news article like the recent one about an Afghani security guard giving his own life to save total strangers by hugging a suicide bomber to dampen the blast, it doesn't give you pause to wonder why a man would do such a thing?

To try to save lives? The motive seems pretty transparent, I'd think. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not diminishing such actions by any means, but...what more is necessary to explain why someone would do that?

You don't believe that people can be heroes or heroines?

That has nothing to do with what you were talking about, nor do I believe that.

That they only act as evolution has mindlessly programmed them to act? No offense, but that sounds like a pretty dire assessment of the nature of mankind.

I never said that, so....again, this is a strawmanning, and bothersome strawmanning at that.

It's not strawmanning. What you said seems to imply all the things I referred to in an obvious way. If there is nothing moral about sacrificing one's own existence to save that of another then it's just a mindless reaction,

That's completely nonsensical.

First, morality hasn't come up at all. Second, even if it wasn't an issue of morality (which it is) it could be an issue of preference--to assert that it's "just a mindless reaction" is nonsensical.

and therefore cannot be referred to as heroism. Name-calling doesn't change the point.

Again, you have made quite literally nonsensical arguments, here, that have nothing to do with your original question, or my response to it. I'm not "name-calling", I'm pointing out what you're doing. What you're doing is inserting things I never said in order to rebut THOSE things, rather than what I said. Which is, by definition, strawmanning.

That people are people, and that people can make choices based on the kind of people they are, has nothing to do with your original post, so this is really unfair of you, particularly ironic given your post's message.

That's true, but I was merely responding to your post. I would rather have stayed more on track. The last thing I want is confrontation in a discussion about the undesirability of confrontation. :)

But you WEREN'T responding to my post. You were responding to points I never made, and then rebutting them as though I'd made them. I don't necessarily like confrontation. But neither do I like being misrepresented, either.

That I reject religious arguments (the original point of your post) says nothing about the positions I take on morality, free will, or consciousness.

I can understand the desire to fight, but isn't there also a desire to actually discuss the issues in a way conducive to improved understanding? If a person just wants to win it seems more logical to try checkers or poker. What do they really get from the excitability associated with arguing?

What do people get from checkers or poker? I mean, some people prefer to debate. To some extent, it can be argued that there are benefits in the "sharpening of the mind" sense. But I would argue that having a position doesn't mean that we aren't "conducive to improved understanding", on either side of the aisle.

Checkers is a competition, and yes, debate can be, too.

Right, so it's perfectly valid to enjoy the competition as your preference.

But what we are doing on these discussion boards is group discussion. I really don't think it should be a competition.

Discussion and debate is always a competition, between ideas at least, in order to attempt to find the best one. That doesn't mean it has to be a competition between the individuals, of course. Yet, if one has confidence in a position to which they've attached themselves, it's likely to at least seem as though they're taking the competition personally.

It's true that having a position doesn't necessarily exclude an open mind, but my point is that i rarely if ever see evidence of it, on either side of the isle.

Well, I would argue that the evidence is when someone changes their mind in response to an argument. And we do see that at times on here. But, if, for the sake of argument, I really believe I've rebutted everything about given position X, it's not a sign of closed-mindedness that I then maintain that position X is rebutted.

And I'm not trying to pick a fight here, though I'm told I have a tendency to sound more serious than I mean to sound. ;)

That's fine--just try to cool it on the assumptions, please.

I know quite well what "straw-manning" is. It seems obvious to me, however, that you and I aren't communicating here, and so I am happy to just drop our discussion. Peace.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 7:16:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 7:02:01 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:40:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:29:51 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:50:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:43:14 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:34:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I have yet to see a compelling argument for the existence of any kind of higher power, nor have I seen a compelling argument for a "larger purpose". I'm certainly not opposed to either of these things in principle, it's just that, absent anything that I've found to be valid (with the recognition that I don't know everything), I have no more reason to say that sort of thing than I do to say (and forgive the flippancy) "Sure, i know lightning is electricity, but I find it hard to believe it JUST follows the path of least resistance".

On this site, most of us are in it "for the fight", most of us like to debate and argue--that's why we're here in the first place. So I don't think it's super surprising to see things shake out as they do.

So when you see a news article like the recent one about an Afghani security guard giving his own life to save total strangers by hugging a suicide bomber to dampen the blast, it doesn't give you pause to wonder why a man would do such a thing?

To try to save lives? The motive seems pretty transparent, I'd think. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not diminishing such actions by any means, but...what more is necessary to explain why someone would do that?

You don't believe that people can be heroes or heroines?

That has nothing to do with what you were talking about, nor do I believe that.

That they only act as evolution has mindlessly programmed them to act? No offense, but that sounds like a pretty dire assessment of the nature of mankind.

I never said that, so....again, this is a strawmanning, and bothersome strawmanning at that.

It's not strawmanning. What you said seems to imply all the things I referred to in an obvious way. If there is nothing moral about sacrificing one's own existence to save that of another then it's just a mindless reaction,

That's completely nonsensical.

First, morality hasn't come up at all. Second, even if it wasn't an issue of morality (which it is) it could be an issue of preference--to assert that it's "just a mindless reaction" is nonsensical.

and therefore cannot be referred to as heroism. Name-calling doesn't change the point.

Again, you have made quite literally nonsensical arguments, here, that have nothing to do with your original question, or my response to it. I'm not "name-calling", I'm pointing out what you're doing. What you're doing is inserting things I never said in order to rebut THOSE things, rather than what I said. Which is, by definition, strawmanning.

That people are people, and that people can make choices based on the kind of people they are, has nothing to do with your original post, so this is really unfair of you, particularly ironic given your post's message.

That's true, but I was merely responding to your post. I would rather have stayed more on track. The last thing I want is confrontation in a discussion about the undesirability of confrontation. :)

But you WEREN'T responding to my post. You were responding to points I never made, and then rebutting them as though I'd made them. I don't necessarily like confrontation. But neither do I like being misrepresented, either.

That I reject religious arguments (the original point of your post) says nothing about the positions I take on morality, free will, or consciousness.

I can understand the desire to fight, but isn't there also a desire to actually discuss the issues in a way conducive to improved understanding? If a person just wants to win it seems more logical to try checkers or poker. What do they really get from the excitability associated with arguing?

What do people get from checkers or poker? I mean, some people prefer to debate. To some extent, it can be argued that there are benefits in the "sharpening of the mind" sense. But I would argue that having a position doesn't mean that we aren't "conducive to improved understanding", on either side of the aisle.

Checkers is a competition, and yes, debate can be, too.

Right, so it's perfectly valid to enjoy the competition as your preference.

But what we are doing on these discussion boards is group discussion. I really don't think it should be a competition.

Discussion and debate is always a competition, between ideas at least, in order to attempt to find the best one. That doesn't mean it has to be a competition between the individuals, of course. Yet, if one has confidence in a position to which they've attached themselves, it's likely to at least seem as though they're taking the competition personally.

It's true that having a position doesn't necessarily exclude an open mind, but my point is that i rarely if ever see evidence of it, on either side of the isle.

Well, I would argue that the evidence is when someone changes their mind in response to an argument. And we do see that at times on here. But, if, for the sake of argument, I really believe I've rebutted everything about given position X, it's not a sign of closed-mindedness that I then maintain that position X is rebutted.

And I'm not trying to pick a fight here, though I'm told I have a tendency to sound more serious than I mean to sound. ;)

That's fine--just try to cool it on the assumptions, please.

I know quite well what "straw-manning" is. It seems obvious to me, however, that you and I aren't communicating here, and so I am happy to just drop our discussion. Peace.

Do you not see the irony in your refusing to address what I've said, in a post that was originally a complaint about closed-mindedness?

You claimed things were my position which were not--claimed they were necessarily my position when that's flatly and obviously not the case. You then responded to those things, without actually addressing the things I DID say. When I objected to that, you claimed you weren't strawmanning, and now want to claim that we "aren't communicating". The lack of communication seems to be entirely on your side, and rather undercuts your original complaint. If you, yourself, can't be openminded to the notion that you have misrepresented the position of someone with whom you are engaging, then it seems your complaint can be applied just as much to yourself as to the forum at large.

If you don't recognize that claiming this: "You don't believe that people can be heroes or heroines? " is a strawman, then I would argue that you are either fundamentally dishonest (which I'd prefer not to think) or that you don't know what strawmanning is, because I challenge you to show where you got that from what I actually said.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 7:21:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:50:57 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:17:27 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

Well I would imagine if people believe in the Biblical God they are "bound" to that side of the argument hence they "believe" lol, for me it's either in or out and God has seemed to have bound me to Him not really the other way around. But to answer your question yes there are doubts here and there but no I am not pulled by atheist arguments but I DO hear them out. From my own gatherings I feel a lot of the opposing side that their intuition and natural senses can be extremely dull, that's not an insult! that's just what I pick up on nothing more.

That's a reasonable statement. I feel that by minimizing the beliefs of others we are only ensuring their animosity toward ourselves, and what's the point of that? I see your point about a believer being trapped from denying God, but can't he/she still discuss such things as the many possible natures of God, or make concessions on the more obvious aversions put forth by atheists? Like the whole idea of Hell. How much harm could a person due to make them deserving of eternal torture of the worst kind? I don't think it can be denied that many men have used religion to their own ends. I do think that the best way to decide how to reach an atheist would be to better understand his/her objections first.

I'm not minimizing their beliefs, if I made it sound that way then maybe I am, I don't feel that I do.
Hell serves it's purpose not only that but just the knowledge of hell serves it's purpose IMO, there is way too many hypothetical examinations that are false in origin. I think we could come together and reason on this issue even through scripture.

As I said... I do hear them out I just don't agree with it but I'm always willing to listen.

It's no secret around here I find the argument from "science" against God to be an argument from ignorance merely because of the nature of God, I can't even begin to imagine that one would put their full trust in such a system regarding God it's ridiculous FOR ME, IMO, however I do understand the point and that a material mindset is just that, material. And the need to validate claims is of utmost importance, but the "validation" or "proof" that God exists comes from different angles when dealing with the nature of Spirit and one I find very compelling in terms of scripture. I would not be a Christian if God hasn't validated Himself in my life, that's the whole point of the Gospel IMO.

Again, very understandable. But let me put it this way: If my favorite football team were the Redskins and they were playing against the Eagles, wouldn't it be narcissistic of me to insist that every single player on the Redskins' team was better than his counterpart on the Eagles' team? There are bound to be mistakes on both sides, yet I can't remember seeing anyone confess to any important one. If nothing else we know much more about the universe now than in Biblical times, and we must take that into account. Maybe I'm simply venting my disappointment, but I wish I could have a discussion on the religion forum like some I have on the history forum.

I'm not sure I'm following you here, I don't think it is narcissistic to believe that science and spiritual aspects are incompatible with one another.

Of course we understand the universe better lol, the study of science (our physical world) will always move forward, no one is denying that, but God and science are two different subjects right? What science discovers is due to our own efforts...

There is some harsh realities in scripture but we live in a harsh hostile world the Bible pulls no punches it is very honest in that regard, nothing I haven't considered or listened to.
I'm definitely not in it for a fight, quite the contrary although it doesn't always turn out good lol.

If I may ask, are you basically agnostic? not really on one side or the other?

My belief system is rather complicated. No, I'm not really agnostic. I can accept the idea of evolution, but not that it was a totally mindless process. And what really gets me is that I believe that man is here for a reason, and have a purpose to serve. But at the same time I can't deny that science has revolutionized the world. I am honestly looking for the honest truth, which in my experience usually lies somewhere in the middle ground.

I don't have to deny science to believe in God, there is no need really to me they are very different in nature.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 8:12:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I'm in it for the fight.

On a serious note I have seriously come across arguments that made me think twice, or more on things and I have changed a lot of philosophies over time including my stance on God's existence.

On DDO I have argued in favor of positions I am agnostic about, such as antinatalism etc. and come out wiser.

Surely that counts for something??
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 10:06:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I think you mistake confidence in ones philosophical position with confidence in ones view of objective reality. Most people who debate the subject focus on the former, myself included. I don't pretend to know how everything came to be or what if anything is waiting for us beyond the observable universe. I am however confident that no argument one can make will sufficiently justify any claim that there is some all powerful being responsible for it all.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:58:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:20:42 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I also leave myself open and I like to learn and explore! but nothing comes close to getting my attention like spiritual reality, it's there to me as plain as day and always has been.

Imagine you were born into a devout Hindu family and lived your entire life in a Hindu community. Would the bible god feature in any way in your spiritual reality?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:05:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 8:12:29 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:18:34 PM, Idealist1 wrote:
I see so many people on this forum who time and again tend to appear wholly bound to one side of the God argument, and everything it contains. Why doesn't anyone ever say something like "I find it terribly difficult to imagine a being with the physical features of the Christian God, but then I also find it hard to believe that people have no larger purpose"? Doesn't anyone else on here feel pushed and pulled by all of the "evidence" and reasoning, or are they just in it for the fight?

I'm in it for the fight.

On a serious note I have seriously come across arguments that made me think twice, or more on things and I have changed a lot of philosophies over time including my stance on God's existence.

On DDO I have argued in favor of positions I am agnostic about, such as antinatalism etc. and come out wiser.

Surely that counts for something??

Have arguments of God's existence pushed you more in favor of belief or disbelief in God? What arguments were most pivotal for you?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:55:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?

Is your inherent meaning the afterlife?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 2:12:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 1:55:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?

Is your inherent meaning the afterlife?

My inherent meaning in life is to love. I don't act a certain way because I expect reward or fear punishment in the afterlife. I believe and act this way because it's the truth. The truth is that love is a maximal state of existence. To believe in this truth, you can't act motivated for selfish reasons like being rewarded or punished. The nature of what kind of rewards or punishments might await us in the afterlife is too unknown to be motivated for that reason anyway.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 2:15:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 2:12:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:55:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?

Is your inherent meaning the afterlife?

My inherent meaning in life is to love. I don't act a certain way because I expect reward or fear punishment in the afterlife. I believe and act this way because it's the truth. The truth is that love is a maximal state of existence. To believe in this truth, you can't act motivated for selfish reasons like being rewarded or punished. The nature of what kind of rewards or punishments might await us in the afterlife is too unknown to be motivated for that reason anyway.

Do you accept jesus as your saviour?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 2:22:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 2:15:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:12:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:55:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?

Is your inherent meaning the afterlife?

My inherent meaning in life is to love. I don't act a certain way because I expect reward or fear punishment in the afterlife. I believe and act this way because it's the truth. The truth is that love is a maximal state of existence. To believe in this truth, you can't act motivated for selfish reasons like being rewarded or punished. The nature of what kind of rewards or punishments might await us in the afterlife is too unknown to be motivated for that reason anyway.

Do you accept jesus as your saviour?

I accept that a nuanced version of Jesus might exist as God and I would accept this version of Jesus, as a personification of love, as my savior. I recognize that we're all basically selfish creatures without love. If you're talking about the Jesus that sends unbelievers to hell then I couldn't accept a savior like that.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 2:26:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 2:22:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:15:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:12:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:55:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?

Is your inherent meaning the afterlife?

My inherent meaning in life is to love. I don't act a certain way because I expect reward or fear punishment in the afterlife. I believe and act this way because it's the truth. The truth is that love is a maximal state of existence. To believe in this truth, you can't act motivated for selfish reasons like being rewarded or punished. The nature of what kind of rewards or punishments might await us in the afterlife is too unknown to be motivated for that reason anyway.

Do you accept jesus as your saviour?

I accept that a nuanced version of Jesus might exist as God and I would accept this version of Jesus, as a personification of love, as my savior. I recognize that we're all basically selfish creatures without love. If you're talking about the Jesus that sends unbelievers to hell then I couldn't accept a savior like that.

That's the good thing about gods, you can create one that perfectly suits you. Of course if the real one is the one that sends you to hell then your goose is just as cooked as the atheists you hate.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 2:36:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 2:26:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:22:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:15:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:12:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:55:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?

Is your inherent meaning the afterlife?

My inherent meaning in life is to love. I don't act a certain way because I expect reward or fear punishment in the afterlife. I believe and act this way because it's the truth. The truth is that love is a maximal state of existence. To believe in this truth, you can't act motivated for selfish reasons like being rewarded or punished. The nature of what kind of rewards or punishments might await us in the afterlife is too unknown to be motivated for that reason anyway.

Do you accept jesus as your saviour?

I accept that a nuanced version of Jesus might exist as God and I would accept this version of Jesus, as a personification of love, as my savior. I recognize that we're all basically selfish creatures without love. If you're talking about the Jesus that sends unbelievers to hell then I couldn't accept a savior like that.

That's the good thing about gods, you can create one that perfectly suits you. Of course if the real one is the one that sends you to hell then your goose is just as cooked as the atheists you hate.

All I know is that love is a maximal state of being. Since this is true, love is an inherent good. Whatever is good gives our life meaning. The purpose or meaning of life is love itself. An inherent purpose for human beings can only exist if we came to being intentionally. Intent requires consciousness. I believe some consciousness purposefully made human beings to love. That is the God I believe in based on the evidence I see.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 2:42:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 2:36:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:26:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:22:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:15:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:12:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:55:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?

Is your inherent meaning the afterlife?

My inherent meaning in life is to love. I don't act a certain way because I expect reward or fear punishment in the afterlife. I believe and act this way because it's the truth. The truth is that love is a maximal state of existence. To believe in this truth, you can't act motivated for selfish reasons like being rewarded or punished. The nature of what kind of rewards or punishments might await us in the afterlife is too unknown to be motivated for that reason anyway.

Do you accept jesus as your saviour?

I accept that a nuanced version of Jesus might exist as God and I would accept this version of Jesus, as a personification of love, as my savior. I recognize that we're all basically selfish creatures without love. If you're talking about the Jesus that sends unbelievers to hell then I couldn't accept a savior like that.

That's the good thing about gods, you can create one that perfectly suits you. Of course if the real one is the one that sends you to hell then your goose is just as cooked as the atheists you hate.

All I know is that love is a maximal state of being. Since this is true, love is an inherent good. Whatever is good gives our life meaning. The purpose or meaning of life is love itself. An inherent purpose for human beings can only exist if we came to being intentionally. Intent requires consciousness. I believe some consciousness purposefully made human beings to love. That is the God I believe in based on the evidence I see.

So your objective meaning is subjective to the god you subjectively create for yourself. Not very objective is it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 2:45:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 2:42:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:36:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:26:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:22:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:15:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:12:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:55:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?

Is your inherent meaning the afterlife?

My inherent meaning in life is to love. I don't act a certain way because I expect reward or fear punishment in the afterlife. I believe and act this way because it's the truth. The truth is that love is a maximal state of existence. To believe in this truth, you can't act motivated for selfish reasons like being rewarded or punished. The nature of what kind of rewards or punishments might await us in the afterlife is too unknown to be motivated for that reason anyway.

Do you accept jesus as your saviour?

I accept that a nuanced version of Jesus might exist as God and I would accept this version of Jesus, as a personification of love, as my savior. I recognize that we're all basically selfish creatures without love. If you're talking about the Jesus that sends unbelievers to hell then I couldn't accept a savior like that.

That's the good thing about gods, you can create one that perfectly suits you. Of course if the real one is the one that sends you to hell then your goose is just as cooked as the atheists you hate.

All I know is that love is a maximal state of being. Since this is true, love is an inherent good. Whatever is good gives our life meaning. The purpose or meaning of life is love itself. An inherent purpose for human beings can only exist if we came to being intentionally. Intent requires consciousness. I believe some consciousness purposefully made human beings to love. That is the God I believe in based on the evidence I see.

So your objective meaning is subjective to the god you subjectively create for yourself. Not very objective is it?

If humans have objective meaning it can't be subjective. If God is pure good, truth, love, and all purely good characteristics that maximize well-being, his own own standards are objective to himself.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 2:48:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 2:45:19 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:42:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:36:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:26:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:22:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:15:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 2:12:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:55:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:25:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:22:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:15:44 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Blade runner, why are you taking such an issue with his statement that people can't be heroes/heroines if atheism is true? It seems like an obvious logical conclusion. The main thrust of his argument was talking about this in an objective sense.

If our existence is objectively meaningless, acts of heroism are illusory. This is a point of contention given that we all recognize that the act of love in the circumstance mentioned transcends any evolutionary purposes or processes.

Your objective purpose is that this life is meaningless, it's the next one that counts.

Good luck with that very subjective claim.

I disagree. I think life has inherent meaning. Do you?

Is your inherent meaning the afterlife?

My inherent meaning in life is to love. I don't act a certain way because I expect reward or fear punishment in the afterlife. I believe and act this way because it's the truth. The truth is that love is a maximal state of existence. To believe in this truth, you can't act motivated for selfish reasons like being rewarded or punished. The nature of what kind of rewards or punishments might await us in the afterlife is too unknown to be motivated for that reason anyway.

Do you accept jesus as your saviour?

I accept that a nuanced version of Jesus might exist as God and I would accept this version of Jesus, as a personification of love, as my savior. I recognize that we're all basically selfish creatures without love. If you're talking about the Jesus that sends unbelievers to hell then I couldn't accept a savior like that.

That's the good thing about gods, you can create one that perfectly suits you. Of course if the real one is the one that sends you to hell then your goose is just as cooked as the atheists you hate.

All I know is that love is a maximal state of being. Since this is true, love is an inherent good. Whatever is good gives our life meaning. The purpose or meaning of life is love itself. An inherent purpose for human beings can only exist if we came to being intentionally. Intent requires consciousness. I believe some consciousness purposefully made human beings to love. That is the God I believe in based on the evidence I see.

So your objective meaning is subjective to the god you subjectively create for yourself. Not very objective is it?

If humans have objective meaning it can't be subjective. If God is pure good, truth, love, and all purely good characteristics that maximize well-being, his own own standards are objective to himself.

And are you likely to create a god who is not those things, so your god is subject to your invention.

Once again no objectivity.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin