Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The "Good Stuff" you see in the "opposition".

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:50:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Inspired by the following post, I wish to talk about "the good stuff". Talk about the "good stuff" you see in the "opposition"

For me, the "good stuff" that I see in many atheists is the commitment to the truth-seeking process - no matter how unpleasant or unpalatable it may turn out to be. I may think they've come to the wrong conclusion but I think it's simply obvious that many are committed to following the truth wherever it may lead

Another is a very strong moral sense in some atheists. I admire the strong commitment to moral principles. When compared to some theists who will do backflips to justify anything that seems obviously immoral, it's a breath of fresh air.

Compare:

Theist: "If God ordered genocide, it must be good because God is good (even if I can't see how it could be good and have ample reason to think genocide is one of the most evil things in the world)."
Atheist: "Genocide is evil, so if God ordered genocide then God is evil or a good God simply doesn't exist (because a good God would simply not order such a thing)."

The following was written by an atheist:

http://www.patheos.com...

"1) Everybody matters. As much as I admire Aristotle, you have to admit that he was a terrible elitist and that many people did not count very much for him. Women were defective men and "barbarians" (i.e. you and me) were fit to be slaves to Hellenes. Even the common people among the Greeks were disparaged as being addicted to pleasure and therefore as having a "slavish" disposition. In the ancient world in general, the attitude seemed to be that a few people mattered a lot and others were pretty much insignificant and disposable. Nietzsche, who hated Christianity and admired Achilles, had much the same attitude. Christianity, on the other hand, has always emphasized that everyone matters"a lot. All are children of God. Everyone has an immortal soul and an eternal destiny. In one of his sermons C.S. Lewis reminds his listeners that every person they meet is bound for glory or perdition and that this gives even the seemingly most negligible person a transcendent significance.
You do not have to accept Christian claims about the afterlife to see that it was a great moral advance to say that everyone, even the humblest, is important and has a life that matters deeply. In fact, Jesus always sided with the poor against the rich, the powerless against the powerful, and the down-and-out against the up-and-in. Many of those who now most ostentatiously claim to follow Jesus do precisely the opposite, always promoting the interests and agendas of the wealthy while wiping their feet on the poor (Rick cough Perry cough). Jesus consistently emphasized that even "the least of these" (Matthew 25:45) are owed our compassion, and should be fed, clothed, and given shelter when they need it. In a society where CEOs make tens of millions a year, and the janitors who clean their offices struggle to get ten dollars an hour, it needs to be stated loud and clear that everyone counts, and not just the high rollers, the fat cats, and the big donors to your reelection campaign.

2. Nothing is worth the sacrifice of your personal integrity. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36) Precisely. Power, status, wealth, fame, sex, and all worldly goods are worthless, indeed deleterious, if they require the sacrifice of your character. None of those goods count if you have made yourself reprehensible in the pursuit of them. Even intellectual brilliance does not redeem a lack of character. Having been hanging around universities for the better part of my life, I have known some people who were brilliant scholars and who made significant contributions to their fields. But they were total @ssholes. One treated all grad students with utter contempt, publicly abusing them in the most scurrilous terms. Another approved of a dissertation that was largely plagiarized submitted by a student with whom he was having an affair. Another (a devout Christian, BTW) blatantly hit on every female grad student in sight. Academic accomplishment does not make a scum bucket any less despicable
.
3. Money madness is dangerous. "And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 19:24) Everybody likes money and we all wish we had a lot more of it. I sure do. However, in today"s money-mad world, it is increasingly difficult to find institutions that hold any values higher than money. Medicine is all about money. Sports is all about money. The "justice" system is all about money. Universities are all about money. "Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery," observes Thomas Friedman. Someone asked me about the purpose of the scaffolding around the Capitol Building. I replied that they were putting up corporate logos. They might as well; corporations already own it. The Supreme Court recognizes corporations as people and money as their form of free speech. Living in such a society, we very much need to hear the Christian message that the obsession with money is bad, that it diminishes life, warps character, and poisons our interactions with others. Obsession with money turns you into the sort of person that Oscar Wilde characterized as "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing."

4. "Good" people are often the most odious. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows" houses, and for a pretense make long prayer. Therefore, ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Matthew, 23:14)The scribes and the Pharisees were the "good" people of Jesus" day. They were the most honored and respected as the ones who kept the law most punctiliously, priding themselves on their observance of every detail. They excelled at what David Hume called the "monkish virtues," that is, they strictly adhered to doctrine, prayed loud and long, and condemned every departure from prescribed religious practice and discipline. Yet, as Jesus observed, their piety did not inhibit them from evicting the widow from her home and making a profit on her misery. Jesus" depiction of self-righteous hypocrites is dead on and we are surrounded with instances in our own day. I know I have already picked on Rick Perry, but he is such a fat target, I can"t resist: In 2011, when he was running for president the first time, he kicked off his campaign here in Houston with a fundamentalist shindig at Reliant Stadium. This was in the hottest August in history, but the attendees were cooled by the 12,000 tons of air conditioning at Reliant. Just down the street, though, as tens of thousands of "good Christians" relaxed in alpine comfort at Reliant, impoverished elderly people were baking in houses with no AC. Jesus would have had more than a few words about those "good Christians."

5. There are higher obligations than human law. Civil disobedience has Christian roots. While Christian teachers have always urged a respect for the law and the civil authorities, there has all along been a tradition of refusal to recognize the authority of human law when it was thought to be in opposition to God"s law. Early Christians refused to participate in the ritual of sacrifice to the emperor, and this seemed like rank disloyalty to the Roman authorities. In American history, the tradition of Christian civil disobedience was most notably present in the civil rights movement. In the famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," M.L. King, Jr. recognized that a fundamentally unjust law is without moral authority, and should be defied...."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:52:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Continued.

"...6. Retribution is an essential aspect of justice. The doctrine of an eternal punitive hell is the vilest, sickest, most misshapen offspring of the human imagination. It gets one thing right, however: Truly rotten people deserve punishment, even if that punishment does not improve them or serve any further good such as deterrence. For such persons, the punishment is good per se. C.S. Lewis in his chapter on hell in The Problem of Pain asks us to imagine a man who has grown powerful and rich by living a life of deceit, treachery, and cruelty. He dies fat, sassy, and unrepentant, laughing at his victims and gloating over their suffering. Can we be satisfied if that is the end of the story? Would we not, if we could, inflict some sort of comeuppance on the old b@stard, something that would at least keep him from having the last laugh?
Lewis has a point. Speaking personally, no, I cannot be happy when the most despicable miscreants"Dick Cheney, say"never have to pay for their outrages. The deeper point is that the principle that people should get what they deserve is a fundamental and essential element of ethics. We simply cannot have a viable morality without that principle. By kindergarten age we already have an elemental concept of fairness, and that concept is violated when the good suffer and the bad go unpunished. Note that retribution is not vindictiveness or the lex talionis. We should not go back to breaking criminals on the wheel (not even Dick Cheney). Retribution must be carefully proportioned to the crime, where the proportionality is determined by neutral and impartial judges guided by a sense of fairness and with a disposition towards mercy.

7. Redemption is possible. True, some people are rotten to the core and irredeemable. Others, though, even hard cases that look hopeless, can be reached. Everyone loves stories of redemption. Two of the iconic figures we hear about every Christmas, Scrooge and the Grinch, won their iconic status by being redeemed. Consider Scrooge, a miserable wretch of a miser devoid of compassion and so bitter that he dismissed the joy of others as humbug. Yet Dickens, in his genius, allows us to see the causes of Scrooge"s misery and the means of a cure. Scrooge is cured by being forced to confront his past, present, and future and to see himself through the eyes of others and to see the real consequences of his actions. Of course, A Christmas Carol is fiction, but redemption occurs in real life as well. Late in life, when he was in constant pain and confined to a wheelchair, former Alabama governor George C. Wallace renounced his earlier racism and asked for forgiveness from African Americans. Too bad the realization could not have come fifty years earlier, but it was still a great thing.

Christianity demands that we take seriously the proposition that ALL have sinned, that we confront our own faults, and not take refuge in cheap, flimsy, self-justifying excuses. This, of course, is hard to do, especially for those in positions of power. When a politician is caught doing something wrong he or she generally gives a politician"s "apology." This consists of a tiny amount of contrition, vast quantities of self-pity and self-justification, and, not uncommonly, an attempt to shift the blame onto those harmed by the actions ("I"m sorry that you were offended by what I said.") In other words, the politico is terribly, terribly sorry"to have gotten caught. But those who do really do take seriously the bad stuff they have done"maybe by having their noses rubbed in it"can be changed and made into better, even different persons. Perhaps in this sense, a kind of salvation is possible."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:54:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
*waits for someone to completely ignore the purpose of the thread and try to turn it into a bashfest against their "opposition"*
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 3:15:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:54:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
*waits for someone to completely ignore the purpose of the thread and try to turn it into a bashfest against their "opposition"*

Well, I'm going to take it in a slightly different direction:

If I had to pick theists' strongest argument, I'd be compelled to choose complexity of life. Living things are seemingly very intricate, very elaborate, very deliberate. They bear the appearance of design, as even Dawkins hastens to admit.

But while I acknowledge this to be their best argument, I also see it for the concession to common sense that it is. Because in their everyday lives, theists are always able to witness and trace great complexity back to a designer, they are tempted to extend the rationale all the way up to life itself, the cosmos itself.

What science has established in the past 100 years is that our daily intuitions are flawed and of little value outside human scales of time and space. Both relativity and quantum mechanics show for a fact that these intuitions are unreliable and that the universe is neither bound nor regulated by them.

All evidence points to evolution by natural selection as the engine propelling diversity and complexity of life. You may not enjoy the conclusion, it might ruffle your sensibility, run contrary to your intrusion, but as far as our current understanding goes, it's true nonetheless.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 9:03:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:50:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Inspired by the following post, I wish to talk about "the good stuff". Talk about the "good stuff" you see in the "opposition"

Thank you for the change of pace, PCP. Thank you too for acknowledging that ethical atheism -- that is an atheism based on evidence, accountability and a concern for public good -- does actually require thought, integrity and courage.

(Speaking for the atheists, I should acknowledge that not all atheistic thought is of that sort, though. :D)

In praise of my religious colleagues, while I don't personally think religion produces anything we can't produce secularly, one quality I have noticed it producing abundantly is community cohesion.

Although I strongly support secular pluralism and multiculturalism, I share the concerns of many people of faith as to what the mechanisms of community cohesion, loyalty and service should be, if they are not the art, culture, rituals and traditions produced by common faith.

It's possible to find principles of loyalty and service in secular groups, but they are generally opt-in groups -- meaning, one has to choose them. Religious groups however, tend to be opt-out groups, and if we eschew religious communities, we eschew many of the opt-out defaults underpinning cultural cohesion.

I sometimes wonder what opt-out groups I'd choose (if any) to support a more coherent secular community. While I wouldn't go so far as supporting religion as the 'only' answer (or even a legitimate answer), I think the religious are right to continue poking at this question.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 9:44:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
With some it is a defense wall. Strong people tend to havea more versatile filter in order to keep what they believe to be "junk" out. I do the same thing. I am very studied on science, for example, so a cheap, ignorant "scientific" shot in the dark humors me. My filter kicks in and mumbles,"bs..." in my inner self quickly. Atheists do the same from the other side of the coin. If it is not tangable, they throw up the shield very quickly. I can tell them about faith, but if they have never tried it, theycannotknow what I mean on a personal level, but it is good to have a filter either way. Women filter men based on strength, confidence, leadership, etc., and men filter women by sensitivity, motherliness, looks, etc. This is a system that works well between us. Nevertheless, even a woman or a man will abandone the outer defenses to let the "good" things in when neccessary. Now the question is this for them. There is a possibility that God exists 50/50. If God does exist, is it beneficialto you to seek Him out, or is it of no value. Only the individual can answer this.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 10:45:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:50:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Inspired by the following post, I wish to talk about "the good stuff". Talk about the "good stuff" you see in the "opposition"

For me, the "good stuff" that I see in many atheists is the commitment to the truth-seeking process - no matter how unpleasant or unpalatable it may turn out to be. I may think they've come to the wrong conclusion but I think it's simply obvious that many are committed to following the truth wherever it may lead

Another is a very strong moral sense in some atheists. I admire the strong commitment to moral principles. When compared to some theists who will do backflips to justify anything that seems obviously immoral, it's a breath of fresh air.

Compare:

Theist: "If God ordered genocide, it must be good because God is good (even if I can't see how it could be good and have ample reason to think genocide is one of the most evil things in the world)."
Atheist: "Genocide is evil, so if God ordered genocide then God is evil or a good God simply doesn't exist (because a good God would simply not order such a thing)."

If God views our current state as nothing more than the fetal stage in becoming pure and more wise spirits. Gods relates to humanity as developing souls, hence their level of maturation in regards to the physical body is irrelevant. God is merely aborting the physical existence. By definition for it to be genocide ,as it applies to Gods relationship with existence , the spirit or soul would had to have also been "eliminated". And of course nobody can prove what God did with those souls.
It's easy to debate God when you reduce his actions to an act of a man and described it within humanities defined relationships. Humans recognize genocide as killing the physical body, in our perspective it is this that we define as genocide because humans only relate to our physical existences. The flaw in logic comes when the second aspect of reality is subtracted from the argument, the spiritual aspect. Genocide to God isn't genocide to humans, the argument is never accurate within the concept. It is merely an appeal to emotion based on what people perceive to be "mass killing". Assuming what happens to those souls isn't an argument either. When you can prove what God did with the souls that were removed from their physical bodies, then you can claim "genocide".




2. Nothing is worth the sacrifice of your personal integrity. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36) Precisely. Power, status, wealth, fame, sex, and all worldly goods are worthless, indeed deleterious, if they require the sacrifice of your character. None of those goods count if you have made yourself reprehensible in the pursuit of them. Even intellectual brilliance does not redeem a lack of character. Having been hanging around universities for the better part of my life, I have known some people who were brilliant scholars and who made significant contributions to their fields. But they were total @ssholes. One treated all grad students with utter contempt, publicly abusing them in the most scurrilous terms. Another approved of a dissertation that was largely plagiarized submitted by a student with whom he was having an affair. Another (a devout Christian, BTW) blatantly hit on every female grad student in sight. Academic accomplishment does not make a scum bucket any less despicable
.
3. Money madness is dangerous. "And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 19:24) Everybody likes money and we all wish we had a lot more of it. I sure do. However, in today"s money-mad world, it is increasingly difficult to find institutions that hold any values higher than money. Medicine is all about money. Sports is all about money. The "justice" system is all about money. Universities are all about money. "Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery," observes Thomas Friedman. Someone asked me about the purpose of the scaffolding around the Capitol Building. I replied that they were putting up corporate logos. They might as well; corporations already own it. The Supreme Court recognizes corporations as people and money as their form of free speech. Living in such a society, we very much need to hear the Christian message that the obsession with money is bad, that it diminishes life, warps character, and poisons our interactions with others. Obsession with money turns you into the sort of person that Oscar Wilde characterized as "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing."

4. "Good" people are often the most odious. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows" houses, and for a pretense make long prayer. Therefore, ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Matthew, 23:14)The scribes and the Pharisees were the "good" people of Jesus" day. They were the most honored and respected as the ones who kept the law most punctiliously, priding themselves on their observance of every detail. They excelled at what David Hume called the "monkish virtues," that is, they strictly adhered to doctrine, prayed loud and long, and condemned every departure from prescribed religious practice and discipline. Yet, as Jesus observed, their piety did not inhibit them from evicting the widow from her home and making a profit on her misery. Jesus" depiction of self-righteous hypocrites is dead on and we are surrounded with instances in our own day. I know I have already picked on Rick Perry, but he is such a fat target, I can"t resist: In 2011, when he was running for president the first time, he kicked off his campaign here in Houston with a fundamentalist shindig at Reliant Stadium. This was in the hottest August in history, but the attendees were cooled by the 12,000 tons of air conditioning at Reliant. Just down the street, though, as tens of thousands of "good Christians" relaxed in alpine comfort at Reliant, impoverished elderly people were baking in houses with no AC. Jesus would have had more than a few words about those "good Christians."

5. There are higher obligations than human law. Civil disobedience has Christian roots. While Christian teachers have always urged a respect for the law and the civil authorities, there has all along been a tradition of refusal to recognize the authority of human law when it was thought to be in opposition to God"s law. Early Christians refused to participate in the ritual of sacrifice to the emperor, and this seemed like rank disloyalty to the Roman authorities. In American history, the tradition of Christian civil disobedience was most notably present in the civil rights movement. In the famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," M.L. King, Jr. recognized that a fundamentally unjust law is without moral authority, and should be defied...."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 11:04:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 10:45:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/8/2015 2:50:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Inspired by the following post, I wish to talk about "the good stuff". Talk about the "good stuff" you see in the "opposition"

For me, the "good stuff" that I see in many atheists is the commitment to the truth-seeking process - no matter how unpleasant or unpalatable it may turn out to be. I may think they've come to the wrong conclusion but I think it's simply obvious that many are committed to following the truth wherever it may lead

Another is a very strong moral sense in some atheists. I admire the strong commitment to moral principles. When compared to some theists who will do backflips to justify anything that seems obviously immoral, it's a breath of fresh air.

Compare:

Theist: "If God ordered genocide, it must be good because God is good (even if I can't see how it could be good and have ample reason to think genocide is one of the most evil things in the world)."
Atheist: "Genocide is evil, so if God ordered genocide then God is evil or a good God simply doesn't exist (because a good God would simply not order such a thing)."

If God views our current state as nothing more than the fetal stage in becoming pure and more wise spirits. Gods relates to humanity as developing souls, hence their level of maturation in regards to the physical body is irrelevant. God is merely aborting the physical existence. By definition for it to be genocide ,as it applies to Gods relationship with existence , the spirit or soul would had to have also been "eliminated". And of course nobody can prove what God did with those souls.
It's easy to debate God when you reduce his actions to an act of a man and described it within humanities defined relationships. Humans recognize genocide as killing the physical body, in our perspective it is this that we define as genocide because humans only relate to our physical existences. The flaw in logic comes when the second aspect of reality is subtracted from the argument, the spiritual aspect. Genocide to God isn't genocide to humans, the argument is never accurate within the concept. It is merely an appeal to emotion based on what people perceive to be "mass killing". Assuming what happens to those souls isn't an argument either. When you can prove what God did with the souls that were removed from their physical bodies, then you can claim "genocide".


Annnnnddd this is exactly what I was talking about.




2. Nothing is worth the sacrifice of your personal integrity. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36) Precisely. Power, status, wealth, fame, sex, and all worldly goods are worthless, indeed deleterious, if they require the sacrifice of your character. None of those goods count if you have made yourself reprehensible in the pursuit of them. Even intellectual brilliance does not redeem a lack of character. Having been hanging around universities for the better part of my life, I have known some people who were brilliant scholars and who made significant contributions to their fields. But they were total @ssholes. One treated all grad students with utter contempt, publicly abusing them in the most scurrilous terms. Another approved of a dissertation that was largely plagiarized submitted by a student with whom he was having an affair. Another (a devout Christian, BTW) blatantly hit on every female grad student in sight. Academic accomplishment does not make a scum bucket any less despicable
.
3. Money madness is dangerous. "And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 19:24) Everybody likes money and we all wish we had a lot more of it. I sure do. However, in today"s money-mad world, it is increasingly difficult to find institutions that hold any values higher than money. Medicine is all about money. Sports is all about money. The "justice" system is all about money. Universities are all about money. "Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery," observes Thomas Friedman. Someone asked me about the purpose of the scaffolding around the Capitol Building. I replied that they were putting up corporate logos. They might as well; corporations already own it. The Supreme Court recognizes corporations as people and money as their form of free speech. Living in such a society, we very much need to hear the Christian message that the obsession with money is bad, that it diminishes life, warps character, and poisons our interactions with others. Obsession with money turns you into the sort of person that Oscar Wilde characterized as "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing."

4. "Good" people are often the most odious. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows" houses, and for a pretense make long prayer. Therefore, ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Matthew, 23:14)The scribes and the Pharisees were the "good" people of Jesus" day. They were the most honored and respected as the ones who kept the law most punctiliously, priding themselves on their observance of every detail. They excelled at what David Hume called the "monkish virtues," that is, they strictly adhered to doctrine, prayed loud and long, and condemned every departure from prescribed religious practice and discipline. Yet, as Jesus observed, their piety did not inhibit them from evicting the widow from her home and making a profit on her misery. Jesus" depiction of self-righteous hypocrites is dead on and we are surrounded with instances in our own day. I know I have already picked on Rick Perry, but he is such a fat target, I can"t resist: In 2011, when he was running for president the first time, he kicked off his campaign here in Houston with a fundamentalist shindig at Reliant Stadium. This was in the hottest August in history, but the attendees were cooled by the 12,000 tons of air conditioning at Reliant. Just down the street, though, as tens of thousands of "good Christians" relaxed in alpine comfort at Reliant, impoverished elderly people were baking in houses with no AC. Jesus would have had more than a few words about those "good Christians."

5. There are higher obligations than human law. Civil disobedience has Christian roots. While Christian teachers have always urged a respect for the law and the civil authorities, there has all along been a tradition of refusal to recognize the authority of human law when it was thought to be in opposition to God"s law. Early Christians refused to participate in the ritual of sacrifice to the emperor, and this seemed like rank disloyalty to the Roman authorities. In American history, the tradition of Christian civil disobedience was most notably present in the civil rights movement. In the famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," M.L. King, Jr. recognized that a fundamentally unjust law is without moral authority, and should be defied...."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 11:29:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 9:03:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/8/2015 2:50:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Inspired by the following post, I wish to talk about "the good stuff". Talk about the "good stuff" you see in the "opposition"

Thank you for the change of pace, PCP.

No problem. :) I thought it'd be a nice way to evaluate our (non)religious commitments. It's generally not easy for people to recognize the strong points in positions they are opposed to. It's a good exercise. It also works well as a method to help fight against bias.

Thank you too for acknowledging that ethical atheism -- that is an atheism based on evidence, accountability and a concern for public good -- does actually require thought, integrity and courage.

(Speaking for the atheists, I should acknowledge that not all atheistic thought is of that sort, though. :D)

In praise of my religious colleagues, while I don't personally think religion produces anything we can't produce secularly, one quality I have noticed it producing abundantly is community cohesion.

Although I strongly support secular pluralism and multiculturalism, I share the concerns of many people of faith as to what the mechanisms of community cohesion, loyalty and service should be, if they are not the art, culture, rituals and traditions produced by common faith.

It's possible to find principles of loyalty and service in secular groups, but they are generally opt-in groups -- meaning, one has to choose them. Religious groups however, tend to be opt-out groups, and if we eschew religious communities, we eschew many of the opt-out defaults underpinning cultural cohesion.

I sometimes wonder what opt-out groups I'd choose (if any) to support a more coherent secular community. While I wouldn't go so far as supporting religion as the 'only' answer (or even a legitimate answer), I think the religious are right to continue poking at this question.

Would you go to one of those secular churches?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 11:43:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are theists who are relentlessly open-minded, truth-seeking folk who look for the best minds on the other side to engage with. And I think they would be (and sometimes are) honest enough to change their mind, express doubt or counter nonsense from their own side.

The only thing I would have a slight issue with though is that I'd see myself as having more in common with that type of theist than a close-minded atheist. The opposition, for me, isn't necessarily folks who you disagree with (even strongly at times). It's those who give up their intellectual integrity to defend their own side whatever the cost.

For example, I'm much more aligned to Swinburne's theism than Dawkins' atheism. It seems to me the former is more rigorous, honest and even more justified than the latter.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 11:54:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 11:04:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/8/2015 10:45:51 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/8/2015 2:50:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Inspired by the following post, I wish to talk about "the good stuff". Talk about the "good stuff" you see in the "opposition"

For me, the "good stuff" that I see in many atheists is the commitment to the truth-seeking process - no matter how unpleasant or unpalatable it may turn out to be. I may think they've come to the wrong conclusion but I think it's simply obvious that many are committed to following the truth wherever it may lead

Another is a very strong moral sense in some atheists. I admire the strong commitment to moral principles. When compared to some theists who will do backflips to justify anything that seems obviously immoral, it's a breath of fresh air.

Compare:

Theist: "If God ordered genocide, it must be good because God is good (even if I can't see how it could be good and have ample reason to think genocide is one of the most evil things in the world)."
Atheist: "Genocide is evil, so if God ordered genocide then God is evil or a good God simply doesn't exist (because a good God would simply not order such a thing)."

If God views our current state as nothing more than the fetal stage in becoming pure and more wise spirits. Gods relates to humanity as developing souls, hence their level of maturation in regards to the physical body is irrelevant. God is merely aborting the physical existence. By definition for it to be genocide ,as it applies to Gods relationship with existence , the spirit or soul would had to have also been "eliminated". And of course nobody can prove what God did with those souls.
It's easy to debate God when you reduce his actions to an act of a man and described it within humanities defined relationships. Humans recognize genocide as killing the physical body, in our perspective it is this that we define as genocide because humans only relate to our physical existences. The flaw in logic comes when the second aspect of reality is subtracted from the argument, the spiritual aspect. Genocide to God isn't genocide to humans, the argument is never accurate within the concept. It is merely an appeal to emotion based on what people perceive to be "mass killing". Assuming what happens to those souls isn't an argument either. When you can prove what God did with the souls that were removed from their physical bodies, then you can claim "genocide".


Annnnnddd this is exactly what I was talking about.
Didn't seem so to me. You seem to imply a theist would deem genocide by God is a good thing. I was merely making the point it isn't genocide at all. Hence the argument itself is baseless in regards to good or bad. Attaching genocide to God is incorrect, that's my point, not whether or not the act is good or not. But maybe you were in a round about way saying if its good it isn't genocide, which if that's the case I misread.



2. Nothing is worth the sacrifice of your personal integrity. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36) Precisely. Power, status, wealth, fame, sex, and all worldly goods are worthless, indeed deleterious, if they require the sacrifice of your character. None of those goods count if you have made yourself reprehensible in the pursuit of them. Even intellectual brilliance does not redeem a lack of character. Having been hanging around universities for the better part of my life, I have known some people who were brilliant scholars and who made significant contributions to their fields. But they were total @ssholes. One treated all grad students with utter contempt, publicly abusing them in the most scurrilous terms. Another approved of a dissertation that was largely plagiarized submitted by a student with whom he was having an affair. Another (a devout Christian, BTW) blatantly hit on every female grad student in sight. Academic accomplishment does not make a scum bucket any less despicable
.
3. Money madness is dangerous. "And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 19:24) Everybody likes money and we all wish we had a lot more of it. I sure do. However, in today"s money-mad world, it is increasingly difficult to find institutions that hold any values higher than money. Medicine is all about money. Sports is all about money. The "justice" system is all about money. Universities are all about money. "Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery," observes Thomas Friedman. Someone asked me about the purpose of the scaffolding around the Capitol Building. I replied that they were putting up corporate logos. They might as well; corporations already own it. The Supreme Court recognizes corporations as people and money as their form of free speech. Living in such a society, we very much need to hear the Christian message that the obsession with money is bad, that it diminishes life, warps character, and poisons our interactions with others. Obsession with money turns you into the sort of person that Oscar Wilde characterized as "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing."

4. "Good" people are often the most odious. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows" houses, and for a pretense make long prayer. Therefore, ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Matthew, 23:14)The scribes and the Pharisees were the "good" people of Jesus" day. They were the most honored and respected as the ones who kept the law most punctiliously, priding themselves on their observance of every detail. They excelled at what David Hume called the "monkish virtues," that is, they strictly adhered to doctrine, prayed loud and long, and condemned every departure from prescribed religious practice and discipline. Yet, as Jesus observed, their piety did not inhibit them from evicting the widow from her home and making a profit on her misery. Jesus" depiction of self-righteous hypocrites is dead on and we are surrounded with instances in our own day. I know I have already picked on Rick Perry, but he is such a fat target, I can"t resist: In 2011, when he was running for president the first time, he kicked off his campaign here in Houston with a fundamentalist shindig at Reliant Stadium. This was in the hottest August in history, but the attendees were cooled by the 12,000 tons of air conditioning at Reliant. Just down the street, though, as tens of thousands of "good Christians" relaxed in alpine comfort at Reliant, impoverished elderly people were baking in houses with no AC. Jesus would have had more than a few words about those "good Christians."

5. There are higher obligations than human law. Civil disobedience has Christian roots. While Christian teachers have always urged a respect for the law and the civil authorities, there has all along been a tradition of refusal to recognize the authority of human law when it was thought to be in opposition to God"s law. Early Christians refused to participate in the ritual of sacrifice to the emperor, and this seemed like rank disloyalty to the Roman authorities. In American history, the tradition of Christian civil disobedience was most notably present in the civil rights movement. In the famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," M.L. King, Jr. recognized that a fundamentally unjust law is without moral authority, and should be defied...."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 11:59:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I love the excerpt you posted.

For the most part, the atheism I see on this site is not representative of the atheism I find in other forums, like the church I attend. I'm under the impression most of the atheists I have experienced on this site believe in a very dogmatic form of materialism. For me, atheism is not necessarily equivalent to materialism.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 12:19:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 11:29:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/8/2015 9:03:07 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I sometimes wonder what opt-out groups I'd choose (if any) to support a more coherent secular community. While I wouldn't go so far as supporting religion as the 'only' answer (or even a legitimate answer), I think the religious are right to continue poking at this question.

Would you go to one of those secular churches?

No, Pooka, I wouldn't. :) For me, ritual feels dishonest. I observe other peoples' rituals (religious or not) under polite sufferance if I like the people, but don't observe my birthday, New Year's celebrations, Christmas or such.

I'm more readily drawn to artistic endeavours (e.g. Taiko drumming, story-telling, improvised music), educational pursuits (lectures, discussions) or sports (cycling, boxing, martial arts, archery, scuba...), or working-bees. Such things can also build a community spirit, and can be mobilised for community contributions. (For example, Mrs Draba and I are driving 400mi this weekend, to go on a 60mi charity ride, and have about 450mi of community riding booked across the next six weeks.)

That's not to suggest everyone should do the same, but I sometimes feel we're not building up nearly as much good will, trust, mutual respect and can-do between adults and youth as we might. I'm aware that church and religious groups have at times, excelled in this. Obviously, I don't support the religious indoctrination, but I do support (in principle) the mentoring and engagement, and the community and developmental concerns underpinning this activity.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 12:48:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheists generally tend to be good skeptics. Skepticism is a signature of intelligence. They also tend to be empiricists with above average scientific knowledge. I'd say that the most lacking area is "big picture" philosophical intelligence.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 12:33:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheists generally tend to be good skeptics. Skepticism is a signature of intelligence. They also tend to be empiricists with above average scientific knowledge. I'd say that the most lacking area is "big picture" philosophical intelligence.

I think skepticism is a very healthy thing.

On the other hand, even though empiricism serves us well, I don't believe the whole of life should boil down to merely concrete and objective experience. We are not simply objective creatures; much of our lives are motivated by abstract and subjective emotions; and, I don't believe this is, necessarily, a bad thing. It is our passions that move us, that cause us to act. It is the capacity to feel for anything that allows us to care one way or another. If the mind were ruled by stone cold concrete knowledge, mere information and facts and nothing more, without any degree of subjective feelings for one stimulus over another, we would quickly lose interest in the acquisition of further comprehension. It is our ability to feel for and have a passion for that gives us a desire to know.
bulproof
Posts: 25,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 2:03:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 12:48:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists generally tend to be good skeptics. Skepticism is a signature of intelligence. They also tend to be empiricists with above average scientific knowledge. I'd say that the most lacking area is "big picture" philosophical intelligence.

That would be why we reject the claim you make declaring the existence of gods. You never produce the evidence necessary to support that claim.
Gods are a claim made by man, without evidence that claim MUST be rejected.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 2:18:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:54:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
*waits for someone to completely ignore the purpose of the thread and try to turn it into a bashfest against their "opposition"*

At 10/9/2015 2:03:58 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/9/2015 12:48:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Atheists generally tend to be good skeptics. Skepticism is a signature of intelligence. They also tend to be empiricists with above average scientific knowledge. I'd say that the most lacking area is "big picture" philosophical intelligence.

That would be why we reject the claim you make declaring the existence of gods. You never produce the evidence necessary to support that claim.
Gods are a claim made by man, without evidence that claim MUST be rejected

OK.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 4:16:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me preface by saying that although I am on the opposite side of the fence from theists, I don't see them or any other human being as opposition. I see us as all as fellow travelers on Spaceship Earth, each trying to do his or her best to survive, thrive, and be happy. While some theists, many of them here, are argumentative and confrontational, I feel that most of them genuinely have the best welfare of their brethren and even strangers in their hearts. Most of my family and many of my friends are believers and I know them to be very good people on a very personal level. We sometimes let our differences run a bit rampant here and I have been known to lose my temper on occasion. This is a human failing and I am completely human. In spite of that I believe that everyone has worth, everyone has the potential for good as well as bad. We're all on the same journey and we all have to travel in our own, individual way.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 7:52:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 12:33:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I think skepticism is a very healthy thing.
On the other hand, even though empiricism serves us well, I don't believe the whole of life should boil down to merely concrete and objective experience.
Nor do I, Anthony. I'm not a spiritualist, but I'm not a materialist either. The quality of human life matters. If whatever we do isn't seeking to enhance the quality of human life, then why are we doing it?

It is our passions that move us, that cause us to act.
Yes, but the domain that handles this honestly is called 'art' -- it's the domain that shares, compares, contrasts and explores the subjective without ever claiming authority for it. But that humility is what makes art honest.

Take the authority out of religion and what we have is inspirational art. Religion has sponsored and inspired some fabulous art. Alongside building community it's the other thing I like about religion.

Yet what is theology but art seeking authority? Art claiming the authority to advise, prescribe, dictate, judge, set consequence, make normative, while never being accountable for its ignorance, error and self-interest?

And what is art seeking authority but propaganda?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 4:06:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is our passions that move us, that cause us to act.

Yes, but the domain that handles this honestly is called 'art' -- it's the domain that shares, compares, contrasts and explores the subjective without ever claiming authority for it. But that humility is what makes art honest.

Take the authority out of religion and what we have is inspirational art. Religion has sponsored and inspired some fabulous art. Alongside building community it's the other thing I like about religion.

Art for me is beauty. It is that feeling of satisfaction, a very personal and private gratification.

However, beauty is not complete, in and of itself, but the admiration of beauty and knowing it is not only beautiful but right. For instance, meeting someone and appreciating not, only, the fact she is beautiful but, also, the fact she is right for you.

Beauty without righteousness leaves one feeling guilty, whether or not one's sense of righteousness derives from one's self or the collective. For instance, a person may enjoy, or receive pleasure, from his, or her, disbelief in God, a sort of freedom from the dogma of the collective, however, if his, or her, atheism is unsettling and plagued with doubts, the fear of wrongness tempers one's experience.

On the other hand, a person may feel atheism is completely logical and to think otherwise makes no sense yet find a lack of pleasure or appreciation in that reality.

It is a conviction, knowing something is right, and the admiration of its beauty that completes, or finishes, one's experience. These moments are not often, but seldom. All too often, we have one without the other. On the one hand, we have the logical conviction of something's rightness and, yet, its being right, at worst, is displeasing and, at best, is uneventful. In other words, righteousness is not always pleasurable. On the other hand, we have beauty without the assurance of being right, things that feel good but are not good for us.

In speaking from authority, one must not assume he, or she, has any authority over any other. Authority derives from conviction, and conviction derives from things being logically, or sensibly, sound. That which may appear logical to you may be illogical in the mind of someone else. Therefore, the conviction of being right resides in your heart, alone.

Yet what is theology but art seeking authority? Art claiming the authority to advise, prescribe, dictate, judge, set consequence, make normative, while never being accountable for its ignorance, error and self-interest?

Authority does not alone derive from ignorance, error, and self-interest but, also, from knowledge, righteousness, and an interest in others. In other words, it is one's conviction he, or she, has a complete or adequate understanding of a thing that gives one a sense of mastery free from fallacy and partiality.

The fact others may disagree with him, or her, is only indicative of individuality in one's perspective. In other words, his, or her, sense of authority is subjective.

An individual with a sense of authority has authority over himself, or herself, and one's collective. If an individual does not find authority in a particular matter, he, or she, will find it in someone else. For instance, I am not an accomplished mechanic so I take my car to someone who is. I trust the expertise, or mastery, of others in things I have failed to master myself. In this sense, I'm a collectivist.

Everyone starts out as a collectivist on any particular matter until he, or she, has mastered it himself, or herself. Individuality comes from a sense of mastery, and authority.

Two individuals who have an equal understanding of something remain distinct in that regard. Neither has authority over the other. In order for one to have authority, or mastery, over another, he, or she, must be able to teach or instruct the other in something new.

And what is art seeking authority but propaganda?

Authority, or conviction, is nice; authority, or conviction, set about by beauty is ecstatic.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 4:43:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 4:06:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It is our passions that move us, that cause us to act.

Yes, but the domain that handles this honestly is called 'art' -- it's the domain that shares, compares, contrasts and explores the subjective without ever claiming authority for it. But that humility is what makes art honest.

Take the authority out of religion and what we have is inspirational art. Religion has sponsored and inspired some fabulous art. Alongside building community it's the other thing I like about religion.

Art for me is beauty. It is that feeling of satisfaction, a very personal and private gratification.

However, beauty is not complete, in and of itself, but the admiration of beauty and knowing it is not only beautiful but right. For instance, meeting someone and appreciating not, only, the fact she is beautiful but, also, the fact she is right for you.

Beauty without righteousness leaves one feeling guilty

Your perspective is different enough from mine to offer a contrast, and I don't recall ever seeing a religion vs art thread.

With your indulgence, Anthony, I might quote both posts in another thread, and see what other members have to say.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 5:13:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 4:43:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/10/2015 4:06:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It is our passions that move us, that cause us to act.

Yes, but the domain that handles this honestly is called 'art' -- it's the domain that shares, compares, contrasts and explores the subjective without ever claiming authority for it. But that humility is what makes art honest.

Take the authority out of religion and what we have is inspirational art. Religion has sponsored and inspired some fabulous art. Alongside building community it's the other thing I like about religion.

Art for me is beauty. It is that feeling of satisfaction, a very personal and private gratification.

However, beauty is not complete, in and of itself, but the admiration of beauty and knowing it is not only beautiful but right. For instance, meeting someone and appreciating not, only, the fact she is beautiful but, also, the fact she is right for you.

Beauty without righteousness leaves one feeling guilty

Your perspective is different enough from mine to offer a contrast, and I don't recall ever seeing a religion vs art thread.

With your indulgence, Anthony, I might quote both posts in another thread, and see what other members have to say.

That would be nice.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 5:44:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 5:13:03 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/10/2015 4:43:57 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/10/2015 4:06:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It is our passions that move us, that cause us to act.

Yes, but the domain that handles this honestly is called 'art' -- it's the domain that shares, compares, contrasts and explores the subjective without ever claiming authority for it. But that humility is what makes art honest.

Take the authority out of religion and what we have is inspirational art. Religion has sponsored and inspired some fabulous art. Alongside building community it's the other thing I like about religion.

Art for me is beauty. It is that feeling of satisfaction, a very personal and private gratification.

However, beauty is not complete, in and of itself, but the admiration of beauty and knowing it is not only beautiful but right. For instance, meeting someone and appreciating not, only, the fact she is beautiful but, also, the fact she is right for you.

Beauty without righteousness leaves one feeling guilty

Your perspective is different enough from mine to offer a contrast, and I don't recall ever seeing a religion vs art thread.

With your indulgence, Anthony, I might quote both posts in another thread, and see what other members have to say.

That would be nice.

Thank you Anthony -- done: [http://www.debate.org...]
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 7:42:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 4:16:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
Let me preface by saying that although I am on the opposite side of the fence from theists, I don't see them or any other human being as opposition. I see us as all as fellow travelers on Spaceship Earth, each trying to do his or her best to survive, thrive, and be happy. While some theists, many of them here, are argumentative and confrontational, I feel that most of them genuinely have the best welfare of their brethren and even strangers in their hearts. Most of my family and many of my friends are believers and I know them to be very good people on a very personal level. We sometimes let our differences run a bit rampant here and I have been known to lose my temper on occasion. This is a human failing and I am completely human. In spite of that I believe that everyone has worth, everyone has the potential for good as well as bad. We're all on the same journey and we all have to travel in our own, individual way.

Good post.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2015 9:04:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:50:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Inspired by the following post, I wish to talk about "the good stuff". Talk about the "good stuff" you see in the "opposition"
atheists. I admire the strong commitment to moral principles. When compared to some theists who will do backflips to justify anything that seems obviously immoral, it's a breath of fresh air.

Really appreciate your posts :)
I like to think of myself as, what Rowe called, a friendly-atheist. So it is refreshing to see something like an analogue in the form of a 'friendly-theist'.

Just to get clear on your position, are you an advocate of DCT? I wondered because Huemer's argument (and I am not aware of other arguments you made in this regard) seems not to favor theism, by any means. I mean, he himself is an atheist.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 4:10:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/10/2015 9:04:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/8/2015 2:50:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Inspired by the following post, I wish to talk about "the good stuff". Talk about the "good stuff" you see in the "opposition"
atheists. I admire the strong commitment to moral principles. When compared to some theists who will do backflips to justify anything that seems obviously immoral, it's a breath of fresh air.

Really appreciate your posts :)
I like to think of myself as, what Rowe called, a friendly-atheist. So it is refreshing to see something like an analogue in the form of a 'friendly-theist'.


Yes, I am very much a 'friendly-theist'. I think the likelihood of one turning out to be a friendly (a)theist increases exponentially if you get seriously involved in philosophy and realize that many of the people who hold positions diametrically opposed to your own are a) just as smart as you or b) smarter. And they don't seem to be obviously less concerned with intellectual/moral virtues than yourself. It becomes a lot harder to think of your "opposition" in binary terms then, IMO.

Just to get clear on your position, are you an advocate of DCT?

Not so much. I'm more of a fan of natural law. But I do think most criticisms of DCT badly misunderstand it.

I wondered because Huemer's argument (and I am not aware of other arguments you made in this regard) seems not to favor theism, by any means. I mean, he himself is an atheist.

I take "the good stuff" from his arguments. ;) Like I think his arguments for establishing the existence of moral facts are superb. I might quibble with him about the mode of ontology/epistemology of those facts though.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2015 10:40:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/11/2015 4:10:50 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Yes, I am very much a 'friendly-theist'. I think the likelihood of one turning out to be a friendly (a)theist increases exponentially if you get seriously involved in philosophy and realize that many of the people who hold positions diametrically opposed to your own are a) just as smart as you or b) smarter. And they don't seem to be obviously less concerned with intellectual/moral virtues than yourself. It becomes a lot harder to think of your "opposition" in binary terms then, IMO.
Yes, although some remarks by certain authors certainly are detrimental to this. W.L. Craig and perhaps J.L. Mackie come to mind.

I take "the good stuff" from his arguments. ;) Like I think his arguments for establishing the existence of moral facts are superb. I might quibble with him about the mode of ontology/epistemology of those facts though.
I just wondered whether you are a proponent of the moral argument.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic