Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 6:50 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
jaoman wrote:
For that matter, how do you answer to secular morality systems such as Utilitarianism?
For that matter, how do you answer to secular morality systems such as Utilitarianism?
I think they are weak! For that matter, secularism may play fine roles of negotiating several belief systems in one society, but that's also its only merit!
Kwalish Kid wrote:
Believing in science is not an atheist thing; it is a responsible person thing. If you can't be responsible because of your religious convictions, then we can properly identify you as immoral.
Believing in science is not an atheist thing; it is a responsible person thing. If you can't be responsible because of your religious convictions, then we can properly identify you as immoral.
That's true! If I betray my own religion, I'm certainly immoral, but this doesn't contribute to the thread, I think.
Kwalish Kid wrote:
Now you are really going off the deep end. What is a "size"?
Now you are really going off the deep end. What is a "size"?
A concept with a "weight" or something thereof. There are many good interpretations on Dictionary.com such as: 2. considerable or great magnitude: to seek size rather than quality, 4. extent; amount; range: a fortune of great size. It's just a wording from a naturally non-English speaker. Just repeat the "Ethics/Morals and Meaning" and you'll be good!
Kwalish Kid wrote:
The rest of this post is simply more of the same incoherent ranting that we have come to expect from this poster.
The rest of this post is simply more of the same incoherent ranting that we have come to expect from this poster.
Clearly, this is an ad hominem and such won't help you out of this intellectual problem of being an Atheist or help you with your existential anguish being an Atheist! Why don't you address the sentences properly rather than spilling your vomit! Man!
Banno wrote:
The contention, at the start of the second paragraph, that atheists cannot make genuine moral considerations, is pig ignorant. It deserves scant reply.
The contention, at the start of the second paragraph, that atheists cannot make genuine moral considerations, is pig ignorant. It deserves scant reply.
Banno, there's certainly a difference between making a genuine moral consideration and a real moral consideration and I believe you are apt to see this. Again you are unfounded and you certainly fail to quote me!
Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 7:08 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
I can't see how I'm being unfair! Isn't it true that Atheism is embracing the end of human kind more lightly than Religious believers? It's almost an assumption in Atheism that the life of human kind is limited! This is at least a point of this thread!
I can also say that it's very much too early to suggest that the success of Western culture is due to Atheism. That whole culture is mostly post-Christian and still a good portion of scientists today are Religious! Japan, with South-Korea, Taiwan and parts of India and Pakistan has also been able to achieve technology and standards of Western culture. I don't know so much about eastern Religious thinking, but I'm curious of how they view Atheism.
Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 7:27 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
baden511 wrote:
I just think you need to refine your argument because you seem to be trying to say too many different things at once. And some of your examples like the ones above don't really make sense. Putting Japan in the same bracket as Pakistan in terms of religious belief, for example, is like putting Richard Dawkins in the same bracket as the Pope.
I just think you need to refine your argument because you seem to be trying to say too many different things at once. And some of your examples like the ones above don't really make sense. Putting Japan in the same bracket as Pakistan in terms of religious belief, for example, is like putting Richard Dawkins in the same bracket as the Pope.
To my knowledge, most of Japan adheres to one religion or another. I don't think Japan is considered Atheistic in any significant sense! Yes? More on this: According to the CIA World Factbook 84% to 96% adhere to Shinto and Buddhism while 4% to 16% of the demographic population adhere to other religions or non-religious, atheist groups.
Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 7:43 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
I believe I'm thoroughly within academic standards for addressing the apparent paradox of being Atheist when it comes to the ontology of Ethics/Morals and Meaning as Mariner has sided with me in! Meaning at least is to Atheism nothing more than what adheres to the world of human kind while this is quite different for Religious people. So and so...
Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 7:57 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
I agree that "modern legal and cultural ethical systems are based more on secular rules and human-oriented bias than they are on religious revelation", but these, I believe, are not there for Atheistic reasons. They are there for making accommodation to a plural society where many religions (and non-) and cultures meet.
Really, are Atheists given incentives in the form of Heaven and Hell? I believe they are not! I doubt Atheists are committed in particular to anything at all. If you can get away with, not being caught by the police, a vicious act, I see two different mind-sets of the Atheist and the Religious. Atheist: "Hah, I've gotten away with it!" Religious: "Oh shit! I'm going to burn in "Hell" for this. My soul is shit!" I can understand the good intent of responsible Atheists for taking it as far as it can go in respects to the enterprise of the human kind, but I fail to understand any definite obligation.
Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 8:15 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
baden511 wrote:
"You have to consider quality as well as quantity here. Japan's religious beliefs consist in sets of social practices that are largely nontheistic in nature, that don't require faith in the same way that monotheistic religions do and that are set in the context of a progressive secular society. There is no sensible parallel to be drawn with countries like Pakistan."
"You have to consider quality as well as quantity here. Japan's religious beliefs consist in sets of social practices that are largely nontheistic in nature, that don't require faith in the same way that monotheistic religions do and that are set in the context of a progressive secular society. There is no sensible parallel to be drawn with countries like Pakistan."
Taken, though I still have doubts toward whether they are wholly "non-theistic". I've just made a note on being Religious and as such, I'm right, yet not in the "human in the Universe and in the relation to salvation and infinity" notion. Any expert to join in?
As I understand it from Wikipedia, both Shintoism and Buddhism incorporate to a large extent some concepts of spirituality and possibly infinity in whatever, rebirth, Nirvana, Buddha-matrix, some stuff. I think they're more "theistic" on the personal level than you would like to know, perhaps, yet I have no clue myself! I'm just speculating from what I've read about the two rel. on Wikip.
Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 8:40 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
I'd say this conscience is to larger extents founded and present in Religious people than in Atheists. F.x. take the sentence that all people are created in God's image. Isn't this something undeniably good?
I agree on the part of sanity, but I find that Atheists give up more easily in the face of adversity or possibilities that invite to wrongful behaviour. Religious people are more stalwart because they, on a personal level, have expectations of reward on a metaphysical, religious ground. I see no reason for Atheists to necessarily behave decent because there's nothing more than mere existence to that system of belief. Not only that, but Atheists widely believe that human kind isn't more than a limited time-span to be repeated again on another planet or not at all. It's like the view that every human effort is futile because in the Big Picture nothing MATTERS! This is key in this thread! In facing such a picture, people may easily become depressed and give up on ideals! This may cause dangers in human relations in the future! Yet, I find that you speak of being good and all that which is just fine, but this real address of this futility isn't answered by any of you who are Atheists or take that side in this thread. I think this is funny... perhaps sad...
Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 8:58 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Authority, no! However, I'm a Deist and I can report on my own challenges. I can also imagine... Less of infinity, mere biological organism... so on...
(I barely recall some psychological study that has come to the conclusion that being good has lead to better morale. The word is "morale" with an e which makes me think of the generals leading an army and being good on so on... This is a while back so it's with doubt I mention it.)
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 5:43 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
To the readers of this thread:
Can you tell me
the devotion of people who think they are mere biological organisms with limited time (Atehists, like it or not)
as opposed to
the devotion of people who think they are souls with nurturing duties of that to achieve rewards of infinity and "Heaven" or punishment of "Hell"
please?
Can you tell me
the devotion of people who think they are mere biological organisms with limited time (Atehists, like it or not)
as opposed to
the devotion of people who think they are souls with nurturing duties of that to achieve rewards of infinity and "Heaven" or punishment of "Hell"
please?
swstephe,
I agree that Atheists, ideally, can be as good people as Religious, but Atheists lack the definite underpinning of anything beyond this mortal life, whether you consider this to be only your own life span of the span of the history of human kind. This is a fact.
I can't deliver a taxonomy on Religious beliefs, but surely, by Religious I mean an unbreakable belief in infinity which exists in most Religious beliefs. The Brights' Net describes a beliefs in ghosts to be contrary to their cause...
I agree that Atheists, ideally, can be as good people as Religious, but Atheists lack the definite underpinning of anything beyond this mortal life, whether you consider this to be only your own life span of the span of the history of human kind. This is a fact.
I can't deliver a taxonomy on Religious beliefs, but surely, by Religious I mean an unbreakable belief in infinity which exists in most Religious beliefs. The Brights' Net describes a beliefs in ghosts to be contrary to their cause...
Sashianova
There are differences between Moral Realism and Moral Constructivism or Moral Fictionalism that I think you fail to see. Moral is real to Religious people because it has a bearing on their duties to infinity and to the view that people carry a message of miracle or such while Atheists can be moral to make life more enjoyable and nice in this span as defined by the very Atheist, beyond this there's nothing in reality that justifies Morality, it's purely a practical institution/faculty.
There are differences between Moral Realism and Moral Constructivism or Moral Fictionalism that I think you fail to see. Moral is real to Religious people because it has a bearing on their duties to infinity and to the view that people carry a message of miracle or such while Atheists can be moral to make life more enjoyable and nice in this span as defined by the very Atheist, beyond this there's nothing in reality that justifies Morality, it's purely a practical institution/faculty.
REX23
I don't deny that Atheists can be as good as or better than many Religious people. Your sentiment is good and I have no problem with that. However, I take the possibility of fatality while sending the message that we should think twice before we accept Atheism as progress and advancement. We may miss or lose incredibly important intuitions if we let go of Religion. I deeply encourage people to stay Religious or become Religious because it's the best without risking to lose anything. All Religions, the major ones incl. Scientology, carry a positive message yet the practice of some believers, especially Muslims today, is not so good.
I don't deny that Atheists can be as good as or better than many Religious people. Your sentiment is good and I have no problem with that. However, I take the possibility of fatality while sending the message that we should think twice before we accept Atheism as progress and advancement. We may miss or lose incredibly important intuitions if we let go of Religion. I deeply encourage people to stay Religious or become Religious because it's the best without risking to lose anything. All Religions, the major ones incl. Scientology, carry a positive message yet the practice of some believers, especially Muslims today, is not so good.
subversivephilosopher
Pointing to the devotion of a "mere biological organism" should speak for itself. The reality of moral in Atehists vs. Religious is very differently founded and you should know this! It's therefore it says "for real"! If you assert that Ethics/Morals and Meaning are good because people behave better and feel better, you must admit that this justification is wholly psychological and not real! Even if you take Paul Bloomfield's argument that Morals bring better health you are still at a loss because it's only valid for a certain span of time and it may still be that some vicious people retain much of their health to the extent that it's impossible to effectively separate a good person's health from this vicious person's health.
You are inexperienced on PF (8 posts), but I expect you to do the service where I'm doing the "disservice". Religious people are called delusional, how insulting isn't that? God!
As for process, I've been writing and thinking of philosophy at least since 1998 so I certainly should be processing or taking part in a process for that reason. Also, this thread is now 6 pages which is also a result of a process. Good?
I am soundly in Moral Realism, being a Moral Realist. My belief in moral is reflected in reality down to the very smallest particle/Monad! When you point out my generalisation of Religious/Atheist, it's because I spare myself of the time of taxonomy of Religions I don't know so much about. Take the Religions in India, f.x.
That you point to the weakness of Atheism of not dealing with mystery is good, but they want it that way and refuse to see any point in mystery like "existence"! I share this notion!
Also, I demand that you quote me where I accuse people [Atheists?] of being amoral and devoid... I think you're presenting a straw man here which is unfair!
Pointing to the devotion of a "mere biological organism" should speak for itself. The reality of moral in Atehists vs. Religious is very differently founded and you should know this! It's therefore it says "for real"! If you assert that Ethics/Morals and Meaning are good because people behave better and feel better, you must admit that this justification is wholly psychological and not real! Even if you take Paul Bloomfield's argument that Morals bring better health you are still at a loss because it's only valid for a certain span of time and it may still be that some vicious people retain much of their health to the extent that it's impossible to effectively separate a good person's health from this vicious person's health.
You are inexperienced on PF (8 posts), but I expect you to do the service where I'm doing the "disservice". Religious people are called delusional, how insulting isn't that? God!
As for process, I've been writing and thinking of philosophy at least since 1998 so I certainly should be processing or taking part in a process for that reason. Also, this thread is now 6 pages which is also a result of a process. Good?
I am soundly in Moral Realism, being a Moral Realist. My belief in moral is reflected in reality down to the very smallest particle/Monad! When you point out my generalisation of Religious/Atheist, it's because I spare myself of the time of taxonomy of Religions I don't know so much about. Take the Religions in India, f.x.
That you point to the weakness of Atheism of not dealing with mystery is good, but they want it that way and refuse to see any point in mystery like "existence"! I share this notion!
Also, I demand that you quote me where I accuse people [Atheists?] of being amoral and devoid... I think you're presenting a straw man here which is unfair!
Mariner
""[T]ribal reasonings""!
I mean, Dawkins starts off with naming God belief God delusion. In a sense, tribal reasonings exist in every philosophical discussion, sometimes they are called "camps"!
If you defend no camp, what is it worth? I can see value in all ideas, even those of Hitler, but if I'm supposed to be honest, I have to choose side! Being in a camp (hopefully having knowledge to back it up) is for me a matter of honesty! "Dispassion" has this far not been sensible to me.
""[T]ribal reasonings""!
I mean, Dawkins starts off with naming God belief God delusion. In a sense, tribal reasonings exist in every philosophical discussion, sometimes they are called "camps"!
If you defend no camp, what is it worth? I can see value in all ideas, even those of Hitler, but if I'm supposed to be honest, I have to choose side! Being in a camp (hopefully having knowledge to back it up) is for me a matter of honesty! "Dispassion" has this far not been sensible to me.
[Edit:] If we look at "unwritten social rules" (or Mariner's "socially dominant habits"), I sense Atheists are more willing to comply with these, these being criminal actions! No? That is, Atheists have potentially more Moral closet skeletons of immorality than the Religious person, especially one who is adamant. I hope you understand what I mean by "unwritten social rules".
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 6:35 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Kwalish Kid wrote:
"What does this even mean? Atheists aren't devoted to a deity by definition. They are often devoted to their spouses."
Yes, that's true! I want people to compare those two views/devotions and what it may mean to them!
"What does this even mean? Atheists aren't devoted to a deity by definition. They are often devoted to their spouses."
Yes, that's true! I want people to compare those two views/devotions and what it may mean to them!
Kwalish Kid wrote:
"Where do you get this garbage? Many atheists are moral realists! The great moral realists in the history of philosophy did not base their theories on religious beliefs."
How can they be Moral Realists without supporting themselves on grounds of society or physical/mental health? How does this go beyond possibilities that arise from being "mere biological organisms with limited time"?
"Where do you get this garbage? Many atheists are moral realists! The great moral realists in the history of philosophy did not base their theories on religious beliefs."
How can they be Moral Realists without supporting themselves on grounds of society or physical/mental health? How does this go beyond possibilities that arise from being "mere biological organisms with limited time"?
Kwalish Kid wrote:
"So you are using a non-religious standard of what is and isn't good. Why don't we just get rid of the religions that lead to such not good practices and get people to simply use your non-religious standard of what is good?"
The Religious teachings don't imply wrongful practices and are only peaceful when properly followed! Witness the large population of Religious people in the world who are very peaceful and in accordance with their beliefs (to a large extent, at least)!
"So you are using a non-religious standard of what is and isn't good. Why don't we just get rid of the religions that lead to such not good practices and get people to simply use your non-religious standard of what is good?"
The Religious teachings don't imply wrongful practices and are only peaceful when properly followed! Witness the large population of Religious people in the world who are very peaceful and in accordance with their beliefs (to a large extent, at least)!
Kwalish Kid wrote:
"Many awful, worthless things last without improvement. Your philosophical thinking does not improve because you are committed to holding a single religious position without ever considering it. You have already made your decisions about what atheists think without ever learning anything about it."
This comes out as vastly psychologistic! How can you know anything about my Religious considerations going back to when I'm 15 or 16 y.o.? You are presumptuous despite adhering to "honesty" and "rigorous scientific inquiry"! Naughty, you!
"Many awful, worthless things last without improvement. Your philosophical thinking does not improve because you are committed to holding a single religious position without ever considering it. You have already made your decisions about what atheists think without ever learning anything about it."
This comes out as vastly psychologistic! How can you know anything about my Religious considerations going back to when I'm 15 or 16 y.o.? You are presumptuous despite adhering to "honesty" and "rigorous scientific inquiry"! Naughty, you!
The concept of Monades is quite popular even today! I guess it means that I join Leibniz and Lady Conway in their madness! Can you cure me, please! Ehh... Not!
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 7:48 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Ahh... Those comfortable scenes of Heaven... Great calm and ease of mind.. The revelation that makes perfect sense.. Just think about it! Golden teeth.. Very well.
Makarismos writes:
"The title "a challenge to Richard Dawkins and the atheists" promised so much; especially since their is so much that is inconsistent in Dawkins thoughts regarding religion. What I have discovered is the usual loggerheads: one side claiming that their view is obvious or necessary or else absurd consequence's will follow (guess which one! Yes, its both of them!)."
"The title "a challenge to Richard Dawkins and the atheists" promised so much; especially since their is so much that is inconsistent in Dawkins thoughts regarding religion. What I have discovered is the usual loggerheads: one side claiming that their view is obvious or necessary or else absurd consequence's will follow (guess which one! Yes, its both of them!)."
This is good! What do you say to pessimistic Atheists? To the pessimistic Religious person it can be something like: "keep doing the right thing, eventually you'll get rewarded!" You know, the Atheist can risk dying without getting any rewards of his belief system! In some respects, therefore, a Religious believer is guaranteed reward because of the beliefs held while an Atheist receives... nothing, but amputation of joys, good life and the pains of death itself. Does the bell ring for some people here?
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 8:06 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
To Kwalish Kid
For a starter, I've been looking into Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality as a possible argument not demanding any Religious view like that of Kant's (although he espouses the Kingdom of Ideas, in the back of his hand there's Catholicism).
I also want to go through with the argument! What do you suggest that I read? Ignorance... What?!
The rest will be as it is. There's no need for more words, now.
For a starter, I've been looking into Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality as a possible argument not demanding any Religious view like that of Kant's (although he espouses the Kingdom of Ideas, in the back of his hand there's Catholicism).
I also want to go through with the argument! What do you suggest that I read? Ignorance... What?!
The rest will be as it is. There's no need for more words, now.
To WW_III_ANGRY
Can't you read? If you can, why don't you be more specific? There are no problems with Atheism? Atheists believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real just as much as Religious people? Where's the reward of moral behaviour for the Atheist if there's no money, no better material life and no more drinking beer? I can see that some bonds may be strengthened for the Atheist who is moral, but even those may not bring anything immediate other than having the possibility to die with respect from the loved ones/friends.
Can't you read? If you can, why don't you be more specific? There are no problems with Atheism? Atheists believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real just as much as Religious people? Where's the reward of moral behaviour for the Atheist if there's no money, no better material life and no more drinking beer? I can see that some bonds may be strengthened for the Atheist who is moral, but even those may not bring anything immediate other than having the possibility to die with respect from the loved ones/friends.
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 10:02 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Makarismos writes:
"Are you seriously suggesting that pascals wager is somehow a good reason to believe in god? Seriously?"
"Are you seriously suggesting that pascals wager is somehow a good reason to believe in god? Seriously?"
To people who are considering a kind of Religion, Pascal's Wager may be a good way, at least initially! In the minimal sense, one is to some degree considering those possibilities of infinity and nurture of the soul. This should be an improvement! So this is true, when you mention Pascal's Wager, you are indeed capturing a part of my argument in being serious about entities or truths outside of one's realm! Very good!
I can still posit the qualification that this is an argument in favour of those who have the notion of inifinity in their Religious views!
I can still posit the qualification that this is an argument in favour of those who have the notion of inifinity in their Religious views!
To Sashianova
I withdraw on the issue of Moral Realism. I've been wrong there! Sorry! Still, I find it valid to point to the difference of duties and values between Atheists and Religious people. This whole thread is about the possible dangers if it comes to the situation that people are coerced by Atheistic incentives to use force on other people in order to sustain themselves and their way of living. If people begin to find nothing else to fight for than luxuries, I fear the worst! The resources are definitely going to be more strained in the future with the growing world population. Not only this, but if people fail to support some possible eternal aspect that has real value of some kind out of being Atheists, I sense chances may be wasted of achieving some really marvellous feat!
The scenario is this: people turn Atheists (100%) because the immaterial rewards can't be proven or fail to be proven scientifically. Crises emerge and a greater part of the Atheists is forced into depressive conditions, forcing through conflicts of the severe kind. Then slavery comes into existence, because one finds the need to the work force, yet the Atheistic riches are beyond everyone! In some respects, there's greater risk of failing one's duties from the Atheistic side than from the Religious side. Atheism is a more fragile system/belief where its followers are more easily swayed to immorality if the circumstances don't go their way! This may be dangerous or become a threat to humanity in the future. I'm just saying it. I'm not some Fatalist spelling doom and destruction, but I find the optimism in Religiousness so compelling that I like to tell you about it!
I withdraw on the issue of Moral Realism. I've been wrong there! Sorry! Still, I find it valid to point to the difference of duties and values between Atheists and Religious people. This whole thread is about the possible dangers if it comes to the situation that people are coerced by Atheistic incentives to use force on other people in order to sustain themselves and their way of living. If people begin to find nothing else to fight for than luxuries, I fear the worst! The resources are definitely going to be more strained in the future with the growing world population. Not only this, but if people fail to support some possible eternal aspect that has real value of some kind out of being Atheists, I sense chances may be wasted of achieving some really marvellous feat!
The scenario is this: people turn Atheists (100%) because the immaterial rewards can't be proven or fail to be proven scientifically. Crises emerge and a greater part of the Atheists is forced into depressive conditions, forcing through conflicts of the severe kind. Then slavery comes into existence, because one finds the need to the work force, yet the Atheistic riches are beyond everyone! In some respects, there's greater risk of failing one's duties from the Atheistic side than from the Religious side. Atheism is a more fragile system/belief where its followers are more easily swayed to immorality if the circumstances don't go their way! This may be dangerous or become a threat to humanity in the future. I'm just saying it. I'm not some Fatalist spelling doom and destruction, but I find the optimism in Religiousness so compelling that I like to tell you about it!
Let me spell it out a different way: Dawkins fails to acknowledge that if either of the entities God, soul, Heaven or infinity by moral behaviour, are true, then Atheism is false as we know it! You may miss a part of the picture if you waste your good being to the haphazard occasion! If you fail a certain level of moral, you may find your "soul", yet to be proven, to be doomed!
So in a difficult situation an Atheist may opt to "sell the soul" for short-term benefit of some kind. My support in this, is for the Religious people who stick it out until the end, who stay honourable despite being in an environment that pushes toward immorality and indecency, who are able to never lose hope and wear the storm off, who are able to see the light in the tunnel.
In this system of resilience, I name the victor the Religious people! Because they have inherent, integral reasons for carrying the torch to the destination!
I wonder if I share some of Ayn Rand's Unknown Ideal here, that there's an abundance of positive effects in the future in making one's way through with something that's worth the fight! I suggest at least that this "something" is the adherence to a high standard of moral, something a Religious person can call the nurture of the soul in infinite terms!
So in a difficult situation an Atheist may opt to "sell the soul" for short-term benefit of some kind. My support in this, is for the Religious people who stick it out until the end, who stay honourable despite being in an environment that pushes toward immorality and indecency, who are able to never lose hope and wear the storm off, who are able to see the light in the tunnel.
In this system of resilience, I name the victor the Religious people! Because they have inherent, integral reasons for carrying the torch to the destination!
I wonder if I share some of Ayn Rand's Unknown Ideal here, that there's an abundance of positive effects in the future in making one's way through with something that's worth the fight! I suggest at least that this "something" is the adherence to a high standard of moral, something a Religious person can call the nurture of the soul in infinite terms!
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 10:52 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Sashianova writes:
"The OP is of the opinion that every living person is motivated to do wrong without belief in the threat of infinite punishment in the afterlife."
"The OP is of the opinion that every living person is motivated to do wrong without belief in the threat of infinite punishment in the afterlife."
This should read: "The OP is of the opinion that every living person can be motivated to do wrong without belief in the threat of infinite punishment or reward in the afterlife." This is an important difference! It should also read: "The OP is of the opinion that every living person is more fragile in one's adherence to moral in case of adversity to do wrong without belief in the threat of infinite punishment or reward in the afterlife." These are basically the two claims of this thread and they should speak for themselves!
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 11:04 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
"What are you challenging atheists to do? Why do you think I need a reward (as an atheist) for living "morally"? Why do you need a reward to do such? Are you challenging atheists to provide rewards for living morally to other atheists or something? You want them to believe in a reward for living morally?
"What are you challenging atheists to do? Why do you think I need a reward (as an atheist) for living "morally"? Why do you need a reward to do such? Are you challenging atheists to provide rewards for living morally to other atheists or something? You want them to believe in a reward for living morally?
Yes, I want all people to live morally for the sake of being moral among other things, such as enjoying and appreciating your own life in all your aspects. This is a call to moral on behalf of aspects that may miss the Atheistic account! Some facts are likely to be missed because of the relatively "narrow" view of Atheism!
Sashianova wrote:
"Every living person can be motivated to do wrong with or without belief in infinite punishment, and the adherence to morality is only as fragile as the will of each person. There is no correlation between moral adherence and belief."
"Every living person can be motivated to do wrong with or without belief in infinite punishment, and the adherence to morality is only as fragile as the will of each person. There is no correlation between moral adherence and belief."
This is exactly what I'm arguing for. That Religion compels one in a more steady way than Atheism and that there is actually correlation between moral adherence and belief of infinity. The stake of the Religious person is infinity, while the illusory stake (the real stake is the same as for the Religious person) of the Atheist is only that short span of factual life and possibly the enterprise of the human kind. Atheism is short-sighted! Trading in for limitedness instead of infinity!
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 11:28 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
In the PN forum, Wootah has supplied an excellent link: http://creation.com/the-darwinian-roots-of-the-nazi-tree-weikart-review. I think it supports my case to some extent! I hope you like it!
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 11:34 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
You'll have to admit that Atheism is in danger of missing important Truths about the whole thing, after-life-existence, God, Heaven and Hell, infinity and all that... There's real danger that Atheism leaves something (important) out!
Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 12:50 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
mric wrote:
You'll have to admit that Chemistry is in danger of missing important Truths about the whole thing, phlogiston, alchemy, earth air fire and water, and all that.... There's real danger that Chemistry leaves something (important) out!
You'll have to admit that Chemistry is in danger of missing important Truths about the whole thing, phlogiston, alchemy, earth air fire and water, and all that.... There's real danger that Chemistry leaves something (important) out!
First of all, they're not equivalent! You seem to miss the crucial difference that phlogiston, alchemy, earth air fire and water have all been subject to (open) scientific scrutiny and phlogiston, alchemy are just completely out of the picture! The traditional 4 elements of the earth are now explained differently than in the past, ie. been "reduced". As such, after-life-existence, God, Heaven and Hell, infinity are all entities subject to scientific investigation, but they're hard to get the hands on, therefore they are also subject to credible belief in a Religious person! Thus I conclude that your twist is a matter of blatant stupidity, totally missing the case or just being non-sense joke to which you refuse to add a smile!
Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 4:52 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
swstephe
I think Religious believers are likely to argue for Moral Realism while Atheists are likely to argue for every theory in the spectrum incl. Nihilism.
I think Religious believers are likely to argue for Moral Realism while Atheists are likely to argue for every theory in the spectrum incl. Nihilism.
Let's also consider a possible nuclear war.
The Religious person is confronted with the action of pushing the button and destroying God's creation!
The Atheist is confronted with doing what's necessary, sending the nukes or not!
Clearly, the attachment to the Earth is different in an Atheist and a Religious person.
Descartes and Newton both see that the mission is to describe the miracle of all, the world, life and the lot!
The Religious person is confronted with the action of pushing the button and destroying God's creation!
The Atheist is confronted with doing what's necessary, sending the nukes or not!
Clearly, the attachment to the Earth is different in an Atheist and a Religious person.
Descartes and Newton both see that the mission is to describe the miracle of all, the world, life and the lot!
Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 9:08 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Consider this:
I think Religious believers are likely to argue for Moral Realism while Atheists are likely to argue for every theory in the spectrum incl. Nihilism.
Clearly, the attachment to the Earth is different in an Atheist and a Religious person.
Descartes and Newton both see that the mission is to describe the miracle (from God) of all, the world, life and the lot!
(We leave the nuclear war out for now! Hrmph...!)
I think Religious believers are likely to argue for Moral Realism while Atheists are likely to argue for every theory in the spectrum incl. Nihilism.
Clearly, the attachment to the Earth is different in an Atheist and a Religious person.
Descartes and Newton both see that the mission is to describe the miracle (from God) of all, the world, life and the lot!
(We leave the nuclear war out for now! Hrmph...!)
Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 1:00 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
MC.Pearce writes:
"Merely being a religious believer doesn't guarantee an acceptable moral system. I'm not simply saying individuals break the rules of their religion. You could have a theist who believes in the virtues of human sacrifice (a la the Aztecs etc.), so their morality is actively evil. Or somekind of deist who believes in a god but believes that god merely set the rules of physics in motion and has zero interest in human actions or their morality."
"Merely being a religious believer doesn't guarantee an acceptable moral system. I'm not simply saying individuals break the rules of their religion. You could have a theist who believes in the virtues of human sacrifice (a la the Aztecs etc.), so their morality is actively evil. Or somekind of deist who believes in a god but believes that god merely set the rules of physics in motion and has zero interest in human actions or their morality."
So, saying atheism doesn't necessarily entail an acceptable ethical system is true, but exactly the same charge is true of theism.
First of all, I think evolution has done away with all unhealthy Religions, so the Religions today have survived through a qualifying process! This means also that there's no virtue in human sacrifice! In this sense, Religions are the result of ideas that are good and what goodness consists in. I contend that "Atheism doesn't necessarily entail an ethical system" at all! I also think that "exactly the same charge is true of theism." is contradictory. Why do you bother to have something holy or precious if it's not right? I mean "right" to the best ability of discerning something as right! It misses something. When you announce something holy, it means there's an eternal, immaterial value about it! This goes nicely together with the qualifying process of evolution of Religions. You question Deism and I think a problem with Deism is that it isn't organised so that its members are more inclined to the same moral. But still, Deism announces what's precious and if that concept is empty, there's no use with one's God belief!
First of all, I think evolution has done away with all unhealthy Religions, so the Religions today have survived through a qualifying process! This means also that there's no virtue in human sacrifice! In this sense, Religions are the result of ideas that are good and what goodness consists in. I contend that "Atheism doesn't necessarily entail an ethical system" at all! I also think that "exactly the same charge is true of theism." is contradictory. Why do you bother to have something holy or precious if it's not right? I mean "right" to the best ability of discerning something as right! It misses something. When you announce something holy, it means there's an eternal, immaterial value about it! This goes nicely together with the qualifying process of evolution of Religions. You question Deism and I think a problem with Deism is that it isn't organised so that its members are more inclined to the same moral. But still, Deism announces what's precious and if that concept is empty, there's no use with one's God belief!
Posted Jan 8, 2010 - 6:49 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Deism: http://moderndeism.com/index.html and http://www.deism.com/index.html. Two of the best I suppose.
If we're to follow your broad thinking the 'Atheist' as you've been defining him/her, would have the most to fear from the end of the world - because there isn't anything afterwards - the Christian is safe in the knowledge that there is a Heaven out there.
The end that the Atheist fears so much is one of the postulates in that very belief! The Christian needs to nurture one's own soul in order to be infinitely rewarded or face the eternal punishment! So, Heaven is not necessarily out there, not in any way guaranteed!
The end that the Atheist fears so much is one of the postulates in that very belief! The Christian needs to nurture one's own soul in order to be infinitely rewarded or face the eternal punishment! So, Heaven is not necessarily out there, not in any way guaranteed!
The Religious person is only rewarded if the code of conduct/moral is followed! You should know this!
Posted Jan 9, 2010 - 8:18 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
swstephe writes:
"Atheism is the default and natural winner of any debate at the level of logic and based on physical evidence."
The real fault lies at the prediction! This prediction says that there's no possibility of God and I think this is very wrong!
"Atheism is the default and natural winner of any debate at the level of logic and based on physical evidence."
The real fault lies at the prediction! This prediction says that there's no possibility of God and I think this is very wrong!
baden511 writes:
"Here's my line: The laws of physics may change in the sense that they become more refined in terms of their predictive power, but their fundamentals are inviolable within the universe as we know it, so supernatural powers like levitation or producing loaves and fishes out of the air etc. are ruled out. What happens outside the universe as we know it, on the other hand, if there is an outside, is, for now, a matter of speculation."
The real question revolves around the possibility of finding new laws/entities of physics. This is as I understand it, ruled out by Atheism. Therefore I think Atheism is short-sighted. "Openness" has been mentioned and I think it goes a long way for both sides.
"Here's my line: The laws of physics may change in the sense that they become more refined in terms of their predictive power, but their fundamentals are inviolable within the universe as we know it, so supernatural powers like levitation or producing loaves and fishes out of the air etc. are ruled out. What happens outside the universe as we know it, on the other hand, if there is an outside, is, for now, a matter of speculation."
The real question revolves around the possibility of finding new laws/entities of physics. This is as I understand it, ruled out by Atheism. Therefore I think Atheism is short-sighted. "Openness" has been mentioned and I think it goes a long way for both sides.
JezCave writes:
"But If I could be an atheist or theist when it came to the after life, I'd feel less fear being a theist because there is that option to go to Heaven... Wasn't one of your arguments about pebbles? And how if you have a wider area covering the pebbles you're covering more of the options?"
Perhaps not only the options, but the very Truths!
"But If I could be an atheist or theist when it came to the after life, I'd feel less fear being a theist because there is that option to go to Heaven... Wasn't one of your arguments about pebbles? And how if you have a wider area covering the pebbles you're covering more of the options?"
Perhaps not only the options, but the very Truths!
Quote again: "But It's okay, you're a deist - we're in this together, brother!"
Taken, until death, then!
Taken, until death, then!
The video (loosely): "...how do you explain that 83% of Danes and Swedes subscribe to Church? That's a very important question. Their Christianity is more cultural... (bla, bla)" So the video isn't a case for Atheism at all!
Speaking of this limitation of being a mere biological organism with limited time span... I believe it's a common prediction by Atheism that we're all f**ked. We probably won't get off this planet and so... So certainly, Atheism doesn't have this Refuge of infinity and "Heaven" that Religious people believe in. I'll check this out! You'll have this point for now!
Posted Jan 9, 2010 - 4:37 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
sleeter
You seem to argue from the point of view of a highly moral Atheist, yet you admit "You can't talk about a presence or lack of deontological moral or ethical standards, because 'atheist' doesn't necessitate such a thing."
You can safely assume that the Earth is holy to the Religious and as such taking part in its destruction very much qualifies to an eternal damnation in "Hell". Where's this incentive then to the Religious? I believe it's certainly level to or above the Atheist in relation to the Earth. But so and so... "Insane" people will never have the opportunity anyhow.
"Atheistic people aren't any more or less likely to be mislead towards evil than theistic people are." How can the Atheist know? There is nothing evil to them!
You seem to argue from the point of view of a highly moral Atheist, yet you admit "You can't talk about a presence or lack of deontological moral or ethical standards, because 'atheist' doesn't necessitate such a thing."
You can safely assume that the Earth is holy to the Religious and as such taking part in its destruction very much qualifies to an eternal damnation in "Hell". Where's this incentive then to the Religious? I believe it's certainly level to or above the Atheist in relation to the Earth. But so and so... "Insane" people will never have the opportunity anyhow.
"Atheistic people aren't any more or less likely to be mislead towards evil than theistic people are." How can the Atheist know? There is nothing evil to them!
JezCave
There's no impossibility to state one's real conviction in a poll like the Eurobarometer poll cited by mric.
There's no impossibility to state one's real conviction in a poll like the Eurobarometer poll cited by mric.
mric
From http://www.t-lea.net/Evolution.html: "I also like to mention that particle physics is far more complex than being just the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose writes in his book, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, p. 628, about the pions, kaons, lambda, sigma, omega-minus, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, "vast hordes of particles whose existence is so fleeting that they are never directly observed, tending to be referred to merely as 'resonances'", 'virtual' particles and 'ghosts'. There are also mentioned numerous other "theoretical" particles by other theories."
From http://www.t-lea.net/Evolution.html: "I also like to mention that particle physics is far more complex than being just the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose writes in his book, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, p. 628, about the pions, kaons, lambda, sigma, omega-minus, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, "vast hordes of particles whose existence is so fleeting that they are never directly observed, tending to be referred to merely as 'resonances'", 'virtual' particles and 'ghosts'. There are also mentioned numerous other "theoretical" particles by other theories."
Posted Jan 9, 2010 - 5:18 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Makarismos
Then I'd like you to demonstrate how it can be meaningful to believe in God without a moral code! What you assert by "The two things 1)belief in God 2)a moral code, are seperate." just seem impossible to me. With God comes Heaven and Hell and the duties. How can you believe in something perfect, yet fail to see any qualification on living up to this perfection? That the 2 things are separate issues simply isn't true! Name one major Religion where this is the case! Such a Religion doesn't exist!
However, if they truly are, you're right, my argument fails, but then again if this is case, this thread wouldn't have been initiated! The accusation of Dawkins' "hidden story" wouldn't be made.
Belief in God does by necessity require one to accept an ethical standard.
Then I'd like you to demonstrate how it can be meaningful to believe in God without a moral code! What you assert by "The two things 1)belief in God 2)a moral code, are seperate." just seem impossible to me. With God comes Heaven and Hell and the duties. How can you believe in something perfect, yet fail to see any qualification on living up to this perfection? That the 2 things are separate issues simply isn't true! Name one major Religion where this is the case! Such a Religion doesn't exist!
However, if they truly are, you're right, my argument fails, but then again if this is case, this thread wouldn't have been initiated! The accusation of Dawkins' "hidden story" wouldn't be made.
Belief in God does by necessity require one to accept an ethical standard.
Posted Jan 9, 2010 - 8:47 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Makarismos
Name one major Religion where this, "there is no ethical standard", is the case!
Name one major Religion where this, "there is no ethical standard", is the case!
sleeter
The fact that Atheism can't be connected to moral frameworks is exactly my point because this is in stark contrast to the Religious person, typically, who have the moral rules laid down.
Put in a different way, your group of immoral Atheists is proportionately bigger than my group of crazy, suicide-bombing Religious people.
As for the Holy Earth, to be respected and to be commanded. The two can go together, actually.
As for the scientific standard of ethics, there isn't one. Ethics can go in every direction outside Religion.
The notion of Evil suggests severity in Religion, in Atheism, there's no such thing even though you scale those wrongful actions.
I think your belief in God is clearly lacking in quality and I also think you are outside the major Religions because I fail to sense respect to this God you believe in.
For any possible misunderstanding coming from the opposition in discussion, I think I'll wait to see where this is going. I also continuously learn and build experience.
The fact that Atheism can't be connected to moral frameworks is exactly my point because this is in stark contrast to the Religious person, typically, who have the moral rules laid down.
Put in a different way, your group of immoral Atheists is proportionately bigger than my group of crazy, suicide-bombing Religious people.
As for the Holy Earth, to be respected and to be commanded. The two can go together, actually.
As for the scientific standard of ethics, there isn't one. Ethics can go in every direction outside Religion.
The notion of Evil suggests severity in Religion, in Atheism, there's no such thing even though you scale those wrongful actions.
I think your belief in God is clearly lacking in quality and I also think you are outside the major Religions because I fail to sense respect to this God you believe in.
For any possible misunderstanding coming from the opposition in discussion, I think I'll wait to see where this is going. I also continuously learn and build experience.
Posted Jan 10, 2010 - 9:35 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
jorndoe wrote: "You do not believe that at least half of the Danish population fall into non-religious categories, rather their "real conviction" is that of Christianity (or similar)?" Let me just ask, to better understand: To you, are moral obligations the reason to entertain religious beliefs, regardless of what the truth of things may actually be? (e.g. neverending bliss versus fear of neverending punishment, as a motivator/deterrent, in all people, independently of what any truth may be) The numbers of mric say "19% responded to the survey as actively believing there is no sort of god, spirit or life force." meaning essentially 19% Atheists and 49% of Danes believing in a "spirit or life force" meaning Religious people and those in between Agnostics. I think it goes both ways, moral obligations are the reason to entertain religious beliefs and vice versa. I believe it's impossible to align with "...regardless of what the truth of things may actually be?" Rather, interpretations are being made of applying the "gold standard" of current Ethics to new facts like stem cell research and GMOs, in a sense continuing the drawing of the Ethical map to the point of now. At its core, one is biased toward preserving the Holy objects and go from there. Makarismos This is the most meager proof of a theist without moral code. It surely is in your head, that's what I can say. For the requirement and the actual history/evolution of Religions, you don't give a damn, apparently. sleeter You're right, I believe there's a cognition in most people of "immorality" and I also think it's very much possible to describe an Objective Ethical Framework. If this isn't good in your eyes, then, at least, criminals exist and people can draw their own conclusions. You can go on and play the God believer all you want, but people will look through you, you know. God isn't a shifting wind and the Moses'es to go up on the mountain and come down with the 10 commandments are not so frequent.
Posted Jan 11, 2010 - 9:24 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
jorndoe wrote: "So, you admit the possibility of religious beliefs being inaccurate (or even plain false), and yet such beliefs are appropriate as a basis for ethics in general?" Yes! There may in fact be no God or any such, but I believe Religious people follow deep intuitions in their belief as well as the inability of science to answer many questions and to have credible meaning in their lives. Quote: "Where does that leave an active, non-arbitrary consideration of a situation (which includes respect, empathy/compassion, conscience, social sustainability, etc), as opposed to justifying actions by referring to an old (inconsistent, ambiguous) book?" I see no necessary contradiction of "active, non-arbitrary consideration of a situation (which includes respect, empathy/compassion, conscience, social sustainability, etc)" to Religious belief. This "old (inconsistent, ambiguous) book" is outdated, but this doesn't prevent one to keep the Holiness/Holy objects. These "undecidables (as well as the negation of these)" are not necessarily "undecidables" in the future! Quote: "History have already taught us that there is no basis for assuming correlation between moral behaviour and religious beliefs." I contend this. I believe there is need for more and accurate studies in this field. I am suggesting that people choose Religiousness (whatever they like) for the benefits, even Agnosticism may be somewhat good. With dear Milton, I can't understand how he can write this with certainty!
Posted Feb 6, 2010 - 8:46 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Let me put a needle into your romantic view of "Atheistic" Denmark: it's reported from http://e24.no/utenriks/article3504174.ece (in Norwegian, sorry) that at this moment there are more Danes who live off the state than there are Danes contributing (as a share off income) to it! I find it troubling, but... Note: The fertility rate in Denmark is (150th place) for 2005-2010, 1.80 (births/woman) which is not sustainable (appx. 2,20). Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ritories_by_fertility_rate. Let me also thereof add as assertions of possibility: God-/religious-belief makes you inspired to work harder God-/religious-belief makes you inspired to work better God-/religious-belief makes you more optimistic and thus encourages you to be more constructive at work God-/religious-belief makes you more optimistic and thus encourages you to be more constructive in society God-/religious-belief makes you more optimistic and thus encourages you to raise a more healthy family God-/religious-belief makes you more optimistic and thus encourages you to view future more positively
Posted Feb 6, 2010 - 12:09 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
I'd rather phrase it: "Beliefs that possibly are delusions, can have powerful influences on a person's behavior", but then again Absurdity lurks on the other side/aside of Religiousness! Btw, Soviet Union has been marked by two very bad ideas: Atheism and Communism! Let me put another needle into your romantic view of "Atheistic" Denmark: it's reported today, 7th Feb. 2010, that every 10th Dane suffers from seriously bad mental health. The report: http://www.sst.dk/Nyhedscenter/Nyh...Mental_sundhed_status.aspx (it's in Danish, sorry). It also says that there's a worsening trend among young women, aged 16-24, of who 13% reported bad mental health while this has risen to 18% in 2005 with the same age-group. Atheist...
Posted Feb 8, 2010 - 8:31 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
Means to an end, yes! Playing around with some social data...
jorndoe, you don't address the economic data.
I agree to the misuse of statistics. I've committed a "sin". I've, on the other hand, suggested some specific sociological studies of atheists and religious people in the Social Sciences section. Soylent You better make an identification of "amoral theists". The term is new to me. Do really theists have no belief in the core of their belief "system", the moral code? I wonder how they fulfill the criteria of being religious at all. Perhaps we should rename the "amoral theists". "Amoral theists" = "Formal theists". I'd rather say: "formal theism" = atheism.
jorndoe, you don't address the economic data.
I agree to the misuse of statistics. I've committed a "sin". I've, on the other hand, suggested some specific sociological studies of atheists and religious people in the Social Sciences section. Soylent You better make an identification of "amoral theists". The term is new to me. Do really theists have no belief in the core of their belief "system", the moral code? I wonder how they fulfill the criteria of being religious at all. Perhaps we should rename the "amoral theists". "Amoral theists" = "Formal theists". I'd rather say: "formal theism" = atheism.
Posted Feb 8, 2010 - 10:55 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
This thread is this: A Challenge to [...] the Atheists -> Accept (unwavering) humanism and ecology as much as you probably like to say: Cognitive moral -> "God's" moral (no more "messages from God" and wacko suicide-bombing and what have you) Alright? It doesn't make sense (at least to me) to only believe in a God and not the moral that's supposed to follow it. What kind of theists are you writing about, anyway? It suggests only that this God-belief is "empty" or "reactionary"!
Posted Feb 10, 2010 - 12:05 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?
It says just above your post: "Accept (unwavering) humanism and ecology". Humanism is as far as I know full of ethics/morals! Humanists are (usually, if not agnostic) atheists. I don't really know how useful it is to read everything with screwed/hostile attitude. Still, you fail to acknowledge the ontological status of actually ending up in "Hell"/"Heaven" and just to commit a moral mistake.
Posted Feb 12, 2010 - 6:25 AM: Elementary particles - Can elementary particles really exist?
Why is the nature as it is? Who knows? It should be noted that all matter, by my knowledge, is eventually converted into photons.
Posted Feb 11, 2010 - 12:53 PM: Does God lack free will?
I'm startled what "will" in God is supposed to mean. I believe God is totally constrained by being God and there's nothing else to do other than being God. I mean, if you are perfect, how can you step "outside" and be imperfect? It doesn't make sense!
No comments:
Post a Comment