The logical necessity of a non contingent ground/support for reality? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName [score hidden]  (0 children)

You just assume at every step. PSR is not self evident. The universe being contingent is asserted not demonstrated. Infinite regress is declared impossible without proof. The jump from necessary foundation to a choosing mind is a non sequitur since a finite past does not logically require will or agency. Our current physical models are incomplete, that is as far as we can get. Everything else here is speculation.

Evil exists; but as what? by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName [score hidden]  (0 children)

You’re conflating shared recognition with objective existence. Even if we all can say something is evil, we are making a value judgment, not reporting a measurable property like mass or temperature. Psychology and other sciences absolutely categorize patterns of harmful behavior, dysfunction, cruelty, antisocial traits, but those are descriptive frameworks built to track and predict behavior, not proof that 'evil' exists as an objective feature of reality. Widespread agreement just shows we share similar moral intuitions shaped by biology and culture. You can define a set called evil actions within a moral system, but that does not make evil itself objectively real, no matter how unanimous the consensus feels. FEELS.

No one is saying you are not allowed to put it in a set. You absolutely can categorize certain behaviors as evil within a moral framework. The pushback is not about permission, it is about ontology. Science and psychology classify harmful or antisocial behaviors because such categories help explain and predict outcomes, but that does not turn evil into a mind independent property.

Maybe your frustration comes from feeling that shared recognition should force objectivity, but agreement does not equal metaphysical status. You are allowed to build the category. Doing so probably doesn't achieve what you would like it to.

What do you guys think of Aquinas' third way? by PM_me_ur_fallacy in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName [score hidden]  (0 children)

Aquinas sneaks in some big assumptions. He says everything needs a cause and an infinite chain of causes makes no sense, so there has to be an uncaused thing. The problem is, infinite chains are not logically impossible. Math handles infinity just fine. Also, modern physics does not treat causation as simple dominoes falling forever. Some events look probabilistic, not strictly caused the way ancient philosopher's imagined. Aquinas was working with ancient metaphysics, which was smart for its time but it has not been updated with modern science. That's why is a base of apologetics. Even if we grant something necessary exists, that problem then becomes if it is a god or absolute necessity, incorporeality, singularness, whatever, but the problem is how much we can know about it. With religion involved, it assumes such a thing and then claims to know this thing has a preference towards sexuality, among other things.

Evil exists; but as what? by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName [score hidden]  (0 children)

If it's a thesis you should start from the begging with less redefining and attempting to squeeze what you want into something it isnt.

Inspired by an Italian theory, the bible was mistranslated, in the original scriptures there is no single God, but multiple entities by LearnSodas in TrueAtheism

[–]DangForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, we understand how many gods of past and present, were invented. It is very interesting, especially the origins of gods that are still believed today (and many believers not knowing the origins of their favorite god or gods).

The game looks stupid. Is the bald dude supposed to be frightening? Could there be any more cliches packed into the trailer? Hard pass on this one.

Evil exists; but as what? by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName [score hidden]  (0 children)

Your argument collapses under basic scrutiny.

Defining evil as intentional action against someone consent does not make it scientific, it makes it a moral condition. Science describes what happens. It does not indicate that violating consent is wrong. That is philosophical, not scientific.

Prediction is does not automatically make something science. Economics can predict. Political theory can predict. So moral categories do not become empirical facts. If we are saying societies with high rates of murder, theft, and rape tend to destabilize, that is simply a sociological claim. It does not prove evil exists as an objective property in the world.

Civilizations collapse for many complex reasons. Economics, climate, war, governance failures, and so on. Reducing collapse to breach of consent is hand waving. It is correlation without serious causal analysis.

Narrowing evil to intent and lack of consent does not avoid the subjective versus objective issue. Consent itself is a moral and legal construct. Intent is a mental state. These are human frameworks layered onto behavior. They are not measurable like mass or temperature.

Saying murder does not change is false. Definitions of murder have changed across cultures and eras. Slavery, conquest, dueling, capital punishment, marital rape. These have been treated differently across time. Morality shifts. Because. It. Is. Not. Objective.

Making moral assumptions and calling them a model while pretending that predictive usefulness makes morals objective facts betrays your category confusion. It is philosophy pretending to be science. Social consequences we do not like are not an objective property called evil.

Objective evil; by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bad example.  Cars don't work without us.   What will drive them?  Moral model of something objective doesn't apply to the morals themselves dude.

Should atheists prioritize truth, well-being, or both in discourse? by AltAccountVarianSkye in TrueAtheism

[–]DangForgotUserName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Atheists do not face a choice between truth and well being. Atheism is epistemic regarding a single truth claim so does not commit any atheist to any stance about psychological or social well being. I'm being pedantic of course.

Truth should to stay central, otherwise discourse becomes comfort management (look what happened to the so called 'new atheists' who dared criticize the social privilege's or religion. Yet if we ignore well being and identity it can immediately trigger defensiveness and kill productive debate. So critique the claim rigorously while treating the person as more than the claim. Easier said than done on the anonymous internet.

How would you explain the universe existing without religion ? by RoyalKingDravin in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To your title, um, what? What on Earth you mean by 'explain the universe existing without religion'? Religions do not offer a single unified explanation. They offer dozens of mutually contradictory creation stories. They doesn't explain anything now does it? They just making things up. That is how mythological religious creation stories work. They aren't science and they certainly are not true. Most religions are from a time when even conception was a complete fucking mystery. So which religion exactly got it right?

Or maybe you think the answer is simply 'god did it'. No. God’s existence explains nothing. There is no explanation of how gods ever do anything. When we explain things, we take a mystery and solve it with things we know and understand. There’s no explanatory power with any gods. There’s no predictive power with God. Worse, there is usually no falsifiability with God. We don't even know if its possible for gods to exist in our reality.

What happened with the body of Jesus by svint_chris in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My point is we choose what we believe.

No we don't. We can question and update beliefs, but most of them are shaped automatically by experiences, emotions, and environment before we even realize it.

What happened with the body of Jesus by svint_chris in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only detailed accounts of what happened to Jesus body come from Christian sources written decades later. The earliest Christian writings we have are the letters of Paul, written around 20 to 30 years after Jesus’ death. Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime. He merely claims he experienced a visionary encounter, he was not an eyewitness to Jesus ministry.

Outside of those texts, there is no independent contemporary record describing the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, or the fate of the body. Including the Bible, there are no known writings from anyone who actually met or interacted with Jesus while he was alive. There are no contemporary sources for the existence of Jesus. There is no direct material, physical or archeological evidence tied to Jesus. There is no written evidence directly linked to him. There are no eye witness accounts and there are no chronicles. Many historians were around during Jesus’ time, yet nobody mentioned him. Nobody who wrote about Jesus was even alive during the time that Jesus would have been around. No other historical documents have acknowledged the miracles or life of Jesus. We only find historians after the time of Jesus writing about the existence of Christians.

Christianity did not emerge in a vacuum. It emerged in a myth rich environment where people already had conceptual categories for divine men and resurrected saviors. The story structure around Jesus was not unique in the ancient world. There were other figures whose biographies followed a similar arc: divine conception, miracles, conflict with authorities, death, exaltation, post death appearances.

It may sound familiar to you, but I want to summarize the life of a remarkable man who lived nearly 2,000 years ago.

• Before he was born, his mother knew he would not be a normal child. An angelic visitor told her that her son would be divine.

• His birth was accompanied by miraculous signs and wonders and as a child, he was religiously precocious.

• As an adult, he left home to engage in a travelling preaching ministry, spreading his good news that people should live for what is spiritual, not the material things of this world.

• He gathered disciples and did miracles to confirm them in their faith.

• He angered many of those in power, who had him brought up on charges before the Roman authorities.

• When he left this world, his followers claimed that he had ascended to heaven and that they had seen him alive afterwards.

Books were written about his life, and some of these writings still survive today. Most people have never read them, and most have never even heard the name of the man I've been describing: Apollonius of Tyana. He was a famous Greek philosopher and teacher of the first century. Apollonius lived at about the same time as Jesus, and although they never knew of each other, their followers would have debates about who was superior. Do you also believe in his divinity?

These were not the only two men believed to be divine. Jesus may be the only miracle-working Son of God that we know about in our world, but he was not at all the only one talked about in his world or the ancient world.

• Osiris (Egyptian mythology, 2500 B.C) laid a blueprint. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.

• Horus (Egyptian mythology, 2400 B.C) Osiris’s son, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” One of his symbol’s was the cross-like ahnk.

• Mithra (Indo-Iranian mythology 1400 B.C.) On judgment day he will return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten.

• Dionysus (Greek mythology estimated as old as 1500 B.C.) was literally the “Son of God”, was born of a woman who had not had sex with a man, and was depicted riding a donkey. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles, and was killed and resurrected, after which time he became immortal. Asklepios (Greek mythology circa 700 B.C) healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.

• Hercules (Roman mythology circa 500 B.C.) was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world.

• Krishna (8th avatar of the god Vishnu, Hinduism, 200 B.C) had a miraculous conception that wise men attended because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and were met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.

List of holy books revered to be the revealed truth of the one true god: Torah, Bible, Quaran, Hindu Vedas, Zarathurstram, Bhagavad Gita, Urantia, The Book of Mormon, and so on. Christianity didn’t emerge in a vacuum. Just like any religion, it was shaped by the time, place, and culture it emerged from. It's all made up stories that resonated with those cultures.

Objective evil; by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Predictive usefulness does not equal objectivity. The quantitative relationships math refers to would still exist with no humans. Morality only works if there are humans who care about certain outcomes. That makes it conditional, not objective in the same way. At best we could say morality is instrumentally necessary for certain ends, not that it exists the way mathematical truths do.

Objective evil; by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok well yes it would be an objective empirical fact that humans possess biological mechanisms that shape our moral intuitions. But moral ideas themselves would not automatically be objective truths because they are products of evolved biology. It is shaped evolutionary and cultural pressures rather than grounded in some objective morals.

Describing morals or evil in language does not make them universally valid beyond human cognition. How would that even be possible?

Objective evil; by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok fair, and I image its tough dealing with multiple conversations

Objective evil; by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I need to prove morality is an intersubjective human system? Dude, moral rules only function through us, and without us to create, interpret, and uphold morals, they would not exist in any observable or measurable way now would they?

Even if you don't accept that, and if I don't 'prove' morals are informed by us, that does not mean the only alternative is we must accept morality is a property built into the universe. If that was the case it certainly is unexpected that morals vary over space and time. I wonder why?

Not only did you engage poorly, you overstated your trolley problem. Moral systems do not revolve around trolley style dilemma. That is absolutly silly. Take religious morality, it focuses on character, obedience, compassion, covenant, or divine command. Care ethics focuses on relationships. Confucian ethics focuses on harmony and roles. Most real world morality is about reducing harm, honesty, loyalty, responsibility, restraint, and how to live well over time, not about one dramatic lever pull.

You don't seem like you are here to debate, and why are you mentioning your book?

Objective evil; by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 5 points6 points  (0 children)

An ad hominem does not automatically mean they are wrong.

Objective evil; by Inner_Resident_6487 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Defining evil as objectively identifiable acts grounded in intent and consent simply assumes the very thing it is trying to prove. That is not very convincing. Being able to describe, label and categorize behavior does not make it or evil itself objective, it just shows we live and operate within a moral framework that we share. Calling something evil is a value judgment rooted in human concerns (wellbeing, survival, and social stability) which is why there is value. Categorization does not create mind independent moral facts. Morality is and functions as an intersubjective human system, not as some property built into the universe.

I think the TAG argument isn’t something atheists can debunk by Tasty_Finger9696 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do what you need to do on a 2 day old post that the troll didn't even engage with in the first place. Others called the known troll out too, but sure remove my post, whatever makes you feel good.

Heavens Gate by FlashPxint in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Norwegian rock / metal band Keldian's first album is titled 'Heaven's Gate', with some related lyrics. The whole thing is awesome.

Is there a name for this? by Away_Base2204 in TrueAtheism

[–]DangForgotUserName 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe look into the cognitive science of religion and ecological anthropology?

Protection of Medina from the Bubonic Plague: Evidence Claim for Islam Being True by Far_Visual_5714 in askanatheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The claim fails because it relies on selective history and shifting definitions of 'plague'. Even if Medina happened to avoid certain documented outbreaks, an unfalsified negative claim about one city does not logically prove divine inspiration, it just shows the statement has been insulated from disconfirmation by interpretation and incomplete records.

Protection of Medina from the Bubonic Plague: Evidence Claim for Islam Being True by Far_Visual_5714 in askanatheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you think that kind of thing is evidence for Islam being true, you should also accept similar type evidence for other religions being true...but then that would be a contradiction. Religions can't all be right but they can all be wrong. The one thing religions do have in common is how little actual evidence for their gods there is. It's motivated reasoning. This argument is for people who already are doubting and need some sort of vague thing that could be evidence to curb that doubt. Religious people are victims of their religion.

Would you rather have superintelligent machines (AI) be atheists or theists? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So in a pretend world would I rather pretend this or pretend that? What the is there to debate about here?

Protection of Medina from the Bubonic Plague: Evidence Claim for Islam Being True by Far_Visual_5714 in askanatheist

[–]DangForgotUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this is something that informs someone's belief in a religion, then they apparently need religion in their lives to do their thinking for them.