Bad faith of the agnostic

Ross Dolan said:
So you do not think that A god caused what we humans call "the universe."

Okay, that is a reasonable blind guess. I wonder if it is correct.
Click to expand...
How could any god or gods cause the universe?
Where was such god or gods BEFORE the universe?

If they are 'outside' of the universe, than the universe is not the universe, for it is not universal.

What if the universe has always existed, and always will. The 'red shift' we see in stars might be an affect in our little 'corner' of it only (the part that we can observe). Outside of that...who knows?

The universe has no known boundary. Even if it did, how can something exist outside it without ruining the very definition of 'universe'?

Now if one wants to claim a 'multiverse', that's fine, but that means there is no universe.

Now to the two mutually exclusive theories about how life came to Earth:

The Theory of Abiogenesis, which states that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events. This is not a theory of science.

The Theory of Creation, which states that life arrived on Earth through the action of an intelligence. Note that this theory goes no further than this. It allows for life originating on Earth through the action of an intelligence, was brought to Earth in some way, or even what the intelligence is (Christians refer to this intelligence as God, for example). This is not a theory of science.

Neither theory even mentions the universe at all.

Now let's look at two mutually exclusive theories concerning the universe:

The Theory of the Big Bang, which states that the universe has a beginning and an end, and that outside of this it exists only as some kind of infinitesimal point, or maybe even not at all. This is not a theory of science.

The Theory of the Continuum, which states that the universe has always existed and always will. It cannot be created or destroyed. This is not a theory of science.

Note that science has NO theories about past unobserved events, since they are not falsifiable. Therefore, ALL of these theories I've mentioned are nonscientific theories.

Each of these theories has a religion attached to them. Sometimes that religion is fundamentalist in nature, since it tries to prove that theory True (which it can't...it is not possible to prove a circular argument True or False). Religious believers that try to prove any circular argument (otherwise known as an argument of Faith), True or False commit the circular argument fallacy. That in and of itself is fundamentalism.
 
Last edited:
Ross Dolan said:
Absolutely...which is why rational, sane, responsible people have to fight against laws or restrictions that have to do solely with appeasing some god...or solely with "we are doing it because it offends our god."
Click to expand...
So you don't like theocracies. Fine. They are often just another form of oligarchy or dictatorship anyway, running under the guise of the sanction of a god or gods.

HOWEVER,

Under a republic (or a democracy, which has no constitution or representatives), the owners of those constitutions (the people at the basic level), or the population at large in a democracy (since there is no constitution), will have multiple religions among them. Oddly enough, most religions have some commonalities:

* Life is valued and sacred.
* Man chooses his own destiny through his own acts.
* Man is responsible for His own choices (he is free to choose, but is not free of the consequences of that choice).
* We are all Bozos on this Bus we call Earth, filled with our own errors, weaknesses, and mistakes we make in life (save perhaps for a god that visits or lives in or on the Earth).

Therefore:

If the people choose, through a popular vote, or by adopting a constitution that enshrines these commonalities worth protecting, it is not necessarily a bad thing, and indeed, is a very Good thing, since these facts ARE about our own liberty and freedom of choice.
 
Hume said:
Sorry, that make no sense at all.
Click to expand...
We, our brain, makes decisions constantly. We don't consciously make choices because there is no self to make choices. Thoughts happen. They determine what decisions are made. Like with my mowing example, I didn't control thought, or lack of thought I'm that case. None of us controls our thoughts. They just happen. There's no self that sits outside of our stream of thought that I'd making choices.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
I assert those things because, biologically/neurologically speaking, there is no self.
Click to expand...
Okay.

That sounds like the theists who assert, "There is a God" and say they do so because there is a God...or the atheists who assert, "There are no gods" and say they do so because there are no gods.

As I said, Okay. We each have the right to insist that our blind guesses are facts.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Okay.

That sounds like the theists who assert, "There is a God" and say they do so because there is a God...or the atheists who assert, "There are no gods" and say they do so because there are no gods.

As I said, Okay. We each have the right to insist that our blind guesses are facts.
Click to expand...
Unlike a belief in a far-off being, we actually know there is no "self" part found in our brain.
 
ZenMode said:
We, our brain, makes decisions constantly. We don't consciously make choices because there is no self to make choices. Thoughts happen. They determine what decisions are made. Like with my mowing example, I didn't control thought, or lack of thought I'm that case. None of us controls our thoughts. They just happen. There's no self that sits outside of our stream of thought that I'd making choices.
Click to expand...
We can make a decision without an "outside" self.
 
Cypress said:
You can give a child a list of "very basic moral things".

Lists are fine for children.

But a list provides neither understanding nor awareness.

You actually have to read Aristotle, Confucius, the Gospels, and understand their historical context to grasp the metaphysical basis, meaning. and purpose underlying their programs of ethics, values, and virtues.
Click to expand...
basic morality is easy and simple.

you sophists blur it up with your made up "complexities".
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
basic morality is easy and simple.

you sophists blur it up with your made up "complexities".
Click to expand...
Nope. Nothing obvious about what constitutes virtue, and simple lists of do's and don'ts don't provide any justification or metaphysical understanding.

The Greeks of the Homeric age would have scoffed at the concept of humility, pacifism, and meekness as virtues

Any claim that humans just naturally adopt a "no killing" moral code is undermined by the most cursory look at history. Ritual child sacrifice made perfect sense to the religious sensibilities of the Canaanites, the Carthaginians, the Aztecs and Mayans.
 

Cypress said:
Nope. Nothing obvious about what constitutes virtue, and simple lists of do's and dont's don't provide any justification or metaphysical understanding.
Click to expand...

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting there is a "metaphysical" reason for not murdering?
 
Cypress said:
Nope. Nothing obvious about what constitutes virtue, and simple lists of do's and don'ts don't provide any justification or metaphysical understanding.

The Greeks of the Homeric age would have scoffed at the concept of humility, pacifism, and meekness as virtues

Any claim that humans just naturally adopt a "no killing" moral code is undermined by the most cursory look at history. Ritual child sacrifice made perfect sense to the religious sensibilities of the Canaanites, the Carthaginians, the Aztecs and Mayans.
Click to expand...
yes there is.

don't lie and treat others as you want to be treated.

it actually is obvious and simple.

it takes a mountain of lies for you to twist it.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
yes there is.

don't lie and treat others as you want to be treated.

it actually is obvious and simple.

it takes a mountain of lies for you to twist it.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

'Might makes right' was a widely held cultural value in Bronze Age civilization. An abiding and wide ranging program of social justice, universal love and pacifism was almost unique to the literature of the New Testament at that point in human history.
 
Cypress said:
Wrong again.

'Might makes right' was a widely held cultural value in Bronze Age civilization. An abiding and wide ranging program of social justice, universal love and pacifism was almost unique to the literature of the TaNaKh and the New Testament at that point in human history.
Click to expand...
Yet Trump became President. Might can be very successful.
 
Cypress said:
Wrong again.

'Might makes right' was a widely held cultural value in Bronze Age civilization. An abiding and wide ranging program of social justice, universal love and pacifism was almost unique to the literature of the TaNaKh and the New Testament at that point in human history.
Click to expand...
Buddhism is not might makes right.

neither is hinduism or taoism.

and the old testament is violent as fuck.
 
Cypress said:
Describe how you would explain to Mayan and Canninite priests why ritual child sacrifice -- which made perfect sense to them -- is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

First off: ritual child sacrifice would NOT be considered murder by those societies. They honestly believed that their god would be pleased with a sacrifice of something they valued deeply (a child).

So you can drop that line of reasoning.

It is pretty easy to see why someone should not murder even without some "metaphysical reason". If you need metaphysics to know not to kill someone then you are probably in more dire straits than I can imagine.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
Buddhism is not might makes right.

neither is hinduism or taoism.

and the old testament is violent as fuck.
Click to expand...
Those are Axial Age religions, not Bronze Age religions.

I have multiple posts on this board maintaining how the Axial Age religions were a major historical pivot point for how humans conceived of ethics, individual conscience, and relationship to others
 
Cypress said:
Those are Axial Age religions, not Bronze Age religions.

I have multiple posts on this board maintaining how the Axial Age religions were a major historical pivot point for how humans conceived of ethics, individual conscience, and relationship to others
Click to expand...
I don't give a shit about your gay distinction.

you're still wrong about "only old and new testament have morality" or whatever the fuck shit you were trying to pass.

it's just more Masonic horseshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top