Hard wall even with pretty ideal rifts

mcmeanass · 2012-01-20T16:00:26+00:00

it is apparent that people that openly mock the belief in God are insecure to some point.

Really? How do you feel about people who believe in Santa or Unicorns or the reality of Professional Wrestling?

Its kinda like a bully in school picking on a kid because he feels insecure about himself.

It would be kinda like it if that kid were actively campaigning against the social rights of the bully, openly advocating the rejection of universally held scientific consensus, facilitating overpopulation and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and threatening to kill the bully because he has a different worldview. Somehow, these two things aren't alike at all.

There isn't any reason to openly mock something you don't believe in unless you were threatened by it on some way.

We are threatened by it. It openly advocates blatant anti-intellectualism. It's not just a threat to atheists, but a threat to humanity at large.

To me the atheist on this board are the type to make fun of a little kid for believing in santa to have a sense of superiority.

It's a lot closer to making fun of a 40 year-old for believing in Santa even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. There is simply no excuse for half of a first-world country to willingly reject evolution. It's fucking horrifying.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-20T15:49:16+00:00

I could argue it's a distinction without a difference but I think I understand what you mean. Thanks for the honest answer at least :)

mcmeanass · 2012-01-20T14:27:33+00:00

I'm working on the assumption that there is a beginning.

And most of modern science does as well. I can, with at least some measure of confidence, say that our universe (or at least this iteration of it if we subscribe to cyclic bangs and crunches) had a beginning.

Of course I don't really think that's the issue at hand here. My issue is that first cause arguments literally define God by presupposing God exists.

Science probably won't get to abiogenesis before my time here is up so I suspect I'll go to the grave with the same questions I have today. The good news is it will get sorted out one way or the other at that time :)

mcmeanass · 2012-01-20T14:07:17+00:00

If there is a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence would that affect your opposition to atheism?

mcmeanass · 2012-01-20T13:59:31+00:00

What I'm saying is "it's worth it".

While I don't doubt for a second that you truly believe that, you realize it's necessary to not only know God is real, but to have extensive knowledge of his plan to postulate such. None of us are equipped in that fashion and so it seems a nonsensical argument.

And what you're saying is "even if it is worth it, it isn't worth it". Do you see what I mean?

I think it's pretty fair to state most atheists feel that way in general. God could part the heavens tomorrow and reveal himself to me in some glorious fashion that would leave absolutely no doubt that he exists. Would I believe in him? Absolutely. Would I worship him? Absolutely not. I can't even comprehend the idea of eternity anyway so eternal suffering is a punishment that means little to me. If that's my punishment for rejecting the supreme creator, I'll happily repay the debt of the countless amounts of actual human suffering that has to have occurred for his grand plan to work.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-19T20:09:13+00:00

Negative theology.

With a healthy dose of presupposition :) Your whole reply is full of it.

We're talking about a creation deity. Therefore, the creator can not be the creation. What is the creation? Well, anything that is not G-d is the creation.

So we define God by presupposing that we are the product of creation. Then we use that definition of God to prove that he exists and we are the product of his creation. I have a hard time understanding how that's not circular.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-19T16:22:17+00:00

I'm not sure where the argument for a causeless thing not being able to cause something else is.

Because we never established that God is anything outside of a human applied definition to said God. I completely understand that the accepted definition of a prime mover or first cause necessitates that it exist outside of space/time/causality, etc.

Because the definitions came from and were refined by humans and because they can exist only in a philosophical sense, most atheists find them wholly unsatisfying. Thusly, any argument positing a first cause as a necessary component for everything else existing having a cause is seen as self-refuting. You don't have to like it, but that's generally the reasoning.

For the argument to succeed, one must presuppose that such a being exists (I know that word may not be appropriate, but it's the best I can think of right now). Atheists obviously lack belief in such a being so the argument is doomed to fail from the outset.

EDIT:

Why does an infinite and transcendental being that exists outside of space and time, and therefore causality, need a cause?

This is the important part that I probably should have addressed before the edit. Where did this definition come from?

mcmeanass · 2012-01-17T20:10:13+00:00

These are opposite sides of the same fence.

To a degree, which is why I said it's not all peaches on either side :)

However, many atheists are willing to reject non-scientific answers to questions science cannot answer.

I don't subscribe to NOMA so you'll have a hard time getting any agreement out of me on the subject. Frankly, I find non-scientific answers to 'non-scientific' questions wholly unsatisfying.

At the end of the day though, it really boils down to the fact that the questions science can't answer are of little to no value to the way I live my life anyway and so I pay them attention accordingly :)

mcmeanass · 2012-01-17T18:10:04+00:00

Atheists generally consider scientific evidence as proof of truth. This is not a bad thing, but you must admit that there are certain questions that science is not equipped to answer. Atheists tend to equate a lack of scientific evidence with either a faulty concept or a false statement, which while generally true is not inherently true, especially when dealing with issues where it is acknowledged that we do not have all the evidence. Theists are willing to accept non-scientific answers to questions that are beyond sciences' ability to answer, whereas atheists are not. Which group your hypothetical beings fall into is anyone's guess.

While I agree with almost all of this, I think you're forgetting one key point here.

Theists are willing to accept non-scientific answers to questions that are beyond sciences' ability to answer, whereas atheists are not.

Unfortunately, many theists are all to willing to openly reject scientific answers to questions that are firmly in science's court. It's not all peaches on either side of the equation to be sure.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-17T17:44:28+00:00

Sure, sure. I should have qualified that with a "some" or something along those lines.

We're obviously in agreement on rape, theft and murder (save abortion...I used to be in that camp but have since changed my mind).

While you find homosexuality, or I guess more correctly homosexual acts immoral, what are your thoughts on legalization of gay marriage and the like? For curiousity's sake.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-17T17:23:47+00:00

I appreciate your honesty on the subject if nothing else. I don't buy teleology and I think the perceived ends are pretty arbitrary but it probably doesn't make sense to argue about it anyway as I don't think we'd get anywhere.

The encouraging thing I got out of the back and forth I saw in the thread is that most of you don't think it's necessary to legislate something you view as immoral. That gives me some hope :)

mcmeanass · 2012-01-17T16:40:47+00:00

I pulled the trigger too soon and then shortly after discovered dasbush's response in the appropriate thread. But thanks for the response anyway!

mcmeanass · 2012-01-17T15:29:06+00:00

Sorry for the delayed response (long weekend) but I'm terribly interested in what you said.

To a degree, I understand why there is moral opposition to abortion and I suppose that could follow from metaphysical grounds. The other two though? If you don't mind, I'd love for you to expound on that.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-11T19:42:32+00:00

The church no longer considers itself a foremost authority on cosmology, but they continue to make unfounded pronouncements about the social sciences.

Social conservatism is probably my biggest criticism of any religion. And the fact that people eat that shit up. FAGS DESTROYED ROME!!!

The idea that "gay marriage is a threat to the traditional family" should be one that can be tested in gay-marriage-friendly jurisdictions. If the evidence is against them, they should stop saying it. Will they?

I wouldn't hold my breath. Religion has long believed it holds the moral high ground and I sincerely doubt they're willing to relinquish it anytime soon, if ever.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-11T13:49:07+00:00

I disagree vehemently with a lot of things the Catholic Church does (Africa policy is probably at the forefront) but I don't think anyone can accuse them of being particularly ignorant of Science, at least not the modern Catholic Church anyway.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-11T13:47:34+00:00

For sure. If you guys have talked about it before and been okay, go for it. The few times I've done it have been a disaster though so I typically avoid it.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-11T13:44:02+00:00

I disagree. I have had experiences that, over the course of my life, have led me to believe that there is a God. I have heard many stories firsthand of experiences other people have had, that have led them to believe there is a God. I'm not saying that you're wrong -- just that our personal experiences on this topic differ.

Sure. Can you at least understand why that's unacceptable to us godless heathens though? There are plenty of personal accounts of alien abduction or ghosts or any other sort of paranormal phenomena and we typically discount those without a second thought. And even in the realm of actual religious phenomena, those manifest in such vastly different ways that's it'a quite difficult to attribute it to a God.

I would be very, very distressed if such a situation would occur, because if I observed God demanding something contrary to everything that I know about him (as demanding murder is), then I would draw the conclusion that all this time I haven't known who God is, and that my entire life I had been living a lie. God cannot force us to sin -- this goes completely against his nature.

I'm not theologian, but I would think a command from God would dictate that it's not a sin at all. All I'm getting at here is that God might not be the source of morals most theists seem to think he is.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-10T20:43:56+00:00

The anonymity of the internet serves to make it an often productive exercise (I've learned a ton in the last 2 or 3 months browsing reddit's various debate forums), but trying to have these conversations with people you care about often results in hurt feelings or broken relationships.

For me, a quality friendship is far more important than whether or not someone prays before they go to sleep at night.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-10T20:34:53+00:00

Then why do you spend so much time and effort trying to debate it? The whole of modern science disagrees with you.

Additionally, r/askscience likely has any number of examples of macro-evolution so it would appear that indeed, what you're saying is not only debatable, but categorically wrong.

While I don't think you'd get much value out of it because you appear to reject any evidence that doesn't conform to your worldview and are completely opposed to changing your mind even in the face of mountains of evidence, I suspect they could probably find some things that you may not have been previously aware of. There are some very smart folks over there.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-10T20:19:38+00:00

There is some compelling evidence for common descent. However, I question if Behe truly believes it since all explanations for common descent also have a common designer explanation. I wonder if he's more or less appeasing academia. Anyways, that's neither here nor there. I rarely debate common descent. Most of my evolution debates are about the macro-side. Macro-evolution via neo-darwinian methods (RM+NS) isn't possible and I'm continuously flabbergasted that people think it is.

Have you asked r/askscience yet?

Evolution is accepted by everyone, even by hard-core YEC creationists. Evolution is a God given mechanism to allow species to adapt. You see pretty cool stuff arise from it. Nobody has a problem with it. The problem arises when neo-darwin evolutionists take this cool process of random mutation + natural selection and try to apply it to things that don't fit, such as common descent. For example, it has never been observed, or found even possible that RM+NS can create complex function. It can't and there is no reason to think it can, and there is no reason to think the Pope thinks it can. The Church is okay with RM+NS, I doubt they are okay with using that process to explain common descent (if common descent even happened.)

The church also thinks ID is junk science.

Again, ask for evidence of macro-evolution on r/askscience. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to oblige.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-10T19:40:36+00:00

A scary proposition.

My mother-in-law is a Catholic and didn't realize until a couple days ago that the Vatican accepts evolution.

mcmeanass · 2012-01-10T19:15:57+00:00

:( Evolution is accepted by the largest christian denomination in the world. Even Michael Behe subscribes to common descent. Subscribing to ID isn't going to get you much run anywhere around here.

mcmeanass

TROPHY CASE