Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9102 total)
6 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,721 Year: 1,602/14,231 Month: 526/1,076 Week: 259/376 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Stile
Member
Posts: 4218
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1861 of 2053 (905381)
01-25-2023 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1859 by Phat
01-25-2023 9:14 AM


Re: The Future IS Important Enough
Phat writes:
Im not simply an emotional "fool" who ignores rationality completely. (at least I don't want to be)
I don't care if you're rational or not.
I'm not rational all the time. I'm not sure if anyone actually is.
I'm just looking for your to be honest.
Thus I concede that you all have good reasons for being adamant about change...even at the cost of you paying the bill. I guess I was(am) thinking only of my own personal comfort!
I'm not here to discuss world-politics that I cannot control.
It doesn't interest me, or, at least, it doesn't interest me right now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1859 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 9:14 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8898
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 1862 of 2053 (905382)
01-25-2023 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1859 by Phat
01-25-2023 9:14 AM


Re: The Future IS Important Enough
Phat writes:
The reason that I dont go along with the green new deal and the move to eliminate fossil fuels pronto is that unlike many of you, I dont have kids. Im thinking of myself and my own comfort while many of you are willing to suffer if it helps the future generation succeed.
Do you think that this is the Christian way Phat? WWJD?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1859 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 9:14 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1865 by Phat, posted 01-26-2023 12:13 PM Tangle has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6244
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 1863 of 2053 (905387)
01-25-2023 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1859 by Phat
01-25-2023 9:14 AM


Re: The Future IS Important Enough
The reason that I dont go along with the green new deal and the move to eliminate fossil fuels pronto is that unlike many of you, I dont have kids. Im thinking of myself and my own comfort while many of you are willing to suffer if it helps the future generation succeed.
My children and grandchildren will have to look after themselves. They are beyond the age where what I do has much effect on their lives.
However, I benefited because of people who came before me. I have a moral obligation to pay it forward. That's why I am concerned about environment issues.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1859 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 9:14 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1864 by Phat, posted 01-26-2023 12:10 PM nwr has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17111
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1864 of 2053 (905426)
01-26-2023 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1863 by nwr
01-25-2023 1:08 PM


Re: The Future IS Important Enough
Im concerned about environmental issues too, but quite frankly do not want to suffer in my old age. I know it is selfish, by the way. I dont have kids to be selfless for. And im not doing it for a planet full of kids. Now might be the time for you to start praying for me. I need it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1863 by nwr, posted 01-25-2023 1:08 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1868 by nwr, posted 01-26-2023 7:18 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17111
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1865 of 2053 (905428)
01-26-2023 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1862 by Tangle
01-25-2023 10:24 AM


Phats Human Selfishness Showcased
Tangle writes:
Do you think that this is the Christian way Phat? WWJD?
For starters, He likely wont be too happy with me! Maybe in some of these arguments you guys are right. I dont fully know, anymore. At least not today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1862 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2023 10:24 AM Tangle has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5929
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 1866 of 2053 (905436)
01-26-2023 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1850 by Stile
01-24-2023 9:18 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
Stile writes:
We haven't only looked in a few places.
We have looked in all the places we can.
How about the places you can't look? You can't measure and examine people's consciousness for empathy or love of neighbour. You can observe what people do, but you can only observe and then believe what it is that motivates people to do what they do.
Stile writes:
Sounds to me like you found Love. And we know Love exists and that people are capable of these and more great acts of Love - all naturally.
What makes you think you found God?
The original point of this thread was that regardless of whatever name we might give to a desity isn't what matters. What matters is the nature of the deity we worship. The deity that I believe is modelled on a god of love whose nature I discern by understanding Jesus. I contend that there is a good reason to believe that but there is nothing physical to examine or test.
Stile writes:
Your conclusion is not based on evidence.
This means your highest priority is not "to find the truth."

Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
I can't know absolutely that what I believe to be true concerning the Christian faith to be the truth but the same holds for everyone else here. If I didn't believe that Jesus' resurrection was historically true I would reject Christianity. If I didn't believe that there was a deity that cared about life on Earth then I would reject theism. Things can be true even though we can't absolutely know that they are true. WE can have #1 as our priority without being able to materially confirm what it is we believe to be true.
Stile writes:
Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
But first I had to look at what I can know to find the truth concerning the resurrection and then even before that to come to a conclusion concerning basic theism.
Stile writes:
That's understandable as a starting position. Most people would even agree, I'm sure.
Of course... this doesn't change the knowledge we've learned.

The knowledge is there. Regardless of you not looking at it in the past, or continuing to not look at it now.
Your claim that you don't accept the knowledge doesn't make it go away for those interested in identifying the truth.
What knowledge am I rejecting?
GDR writes:
I don't just stop at the point that there is no physical evidence that can be affirmed scientifically as you have.
Stile writes:
I don't stop there.
I stop where information cannot be verified and is known to have a high likelihood of being wrong.

You seem to include such information while also claiming to have "finding the truth" as your highest priority.

I don't see how that's reasonable. It seems counter productive to me. Or, at least, indicative that "something else" is actually your highest priority.
Obviously things can be truthful without being verifiable. #1 can be the first priority even though it is unverifiable. Atheism is unverifiable.
Stile writes:
he evidence is not speculative, and it's also at your fingertips, if you care to look into it: Google Scholar

Evolution of Society and Culture - over 6 million, evidenced papers for you to read. This evidence is not "speculative" it's peer-reviewed (duplicated and objective) and vastly, vastly studied and tested.
Culture and the evolution of human cooperation
Social fields and the evolution of society
Warfare and the evolution of culture
Social change, cultural evolution, and human development

Evolution of Morality - over 2 million, evidenced papers for you to read. This evidence is not "speculative" it's peer-reviewed (duplicated and objective) and vastly, vastly studied and tested.
Evolution of Morality - an online book
The evolution of morality - a paper from 2015
The evolution of morality - "...a concise biological account of the evolution of morality."
The structural evolution of morality

These are all papers based on evidence that can be observed by anyone.
None of these papers ignore God or religion or philosophical thought in any way. In many, philosophical thought is incorporated - if it can be evidenced/tested/verified against reality.
The only reason you won't find mentions of God or religion, is because no helpful areas of those subjects can be applied to these topics that can be evidenced/tested/verified against reality.
This is not ignoring them, this is incorporating everything and anything while holding "looking for the truth" as the highest priority.

The second anyone shows how God or religion should be incorporated and can link them through evidence connected to reality... those papers will be included in these same archives.

The information is there.
It is not "speculative."
You cannot act like it doesn't exist just because you don't know about it.
I'll pick one. You talk about the evolution of morality and then claim that this is evidence that there is no external deity. What you have outlined is the same type of evidence as I use when I say that I have the Bible as written evidence and the rise of Christian belief as evidence.
OK, lets's say that morality evolved in the way your paper describes. Isn't it reasonable to ask why it evolved at all. It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. It doesn't account for why or even how the first seed of thought that became morality occurred. It doesn't account for the the vast range of human morality we can observe or for the ongoing individual struggles we have with our own moral behaviour. In so many ways atheism raises questions that can't be answered, and much more so than basic theism.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1850 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 9:18 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1867 by PaulK, posted 01-26-2023 2:21 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 1873 by Stile, posted 01-27-2023 9:01 AM GDR has replied
 Message 1877 by Percy, posted 01-27-2023 6:58 PM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17396
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1867 of 2053 (905437)
01-26-2023 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1866 by GDR
01-26-2023 1:41 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
OK, lets's say that morality evolved in the way your paper describes. Isn't it reasonable to ask why it evolved at all.
No, it wouldn’t be. Because the answer is there. Pretending that is isn’t is not reasonable.
quote:
It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest.
Oh yes it does. You’ve been told that often enough. You’ve had years to learn about it or discuss it and instead you choose not to, and keep to your wilfully ignorant opinion. And you pretend it’s all about the truth.
quote:
fittest. It doesn't account for why or even how the first seed of thought that became morality occurred.
I’d disagree with that.
quote:
It doesn't account for the the vast range of human morality we can observe or for the ongoing individual struggles we have with our own moral behaviour.
And it shouldn’t. That gets into psychology and history, and culture.
quote:
It doesn't account for the the vast range of human morality we can observe or for the ongoing individual struggles we have with our own moral behaviour.
Not really. Not if you actually care about the truth. The “answers” of theism often aren’t. I’ll take atheism and an honest interest in discovering the truth over the smug self-worship you indulge in any day, I don’t think my conscience would let me have it any other way,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1866 by GDR, posted 01-26-2023 1:41 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1870 by Phat, posted 01-27-2023 12:50 AM PaulK has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6244
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 1868 of 2053 (905451)
01-26-2023 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1864 by Phat
01-26-2023 12:10 PM


Re: The Future IS Important Enough
Now might be the time for you to start praying for me.
Prayer doesn't do anything, as far as I can tell.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1864 by Phat, posted 01-26-2023 12:10 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1869 by Theodoric, posted 01-26-2023 8:31 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 8140
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1869 of 2053 (905452)
01-26-2023 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1868 by nwr
01-26-2023 7:18 PM


Re: The Future IS Important Enough
And all studies support that it does nothing.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1868 by nwr, posted 01-26-2023 7:18 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17111
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1870 of 2053 (905454)
01-27-2023 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1867 by PaulK
01-26-2023 2:21 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Smug self worship? Who does this?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022
We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1867 by PaulK, posted 01-26-2023 2:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1871 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2023 1:11 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1872 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2023 7:58 AM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17396
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1871 of 2053 (905455)
01-27-2023 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1870 by Phat
01-27-2023 12:50 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
Smug self worship? Who does this?
GDR was doing it right there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1870 by Phat, posted 01-27-2023 12:50 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1884 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 2:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 8140
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1872 of 2053 (905456)
01-27-2023 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1870 by Phat
01-27-2023 12:50 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
Look into yourself. You do this all the time. This is not an attack, merely pointing it out. Take it for what it is worth.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1870 by Phat, posted 01-27-2023 12:50 AM Phat has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4218
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1873 of 2053 (905457)
01-27-2023 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1866 by GDR
01-26-2023 1:41 PM


The Unstoppable Movement of Knowledge
GDR writes:
How about the places you can't look?
If we can't know anything about them - what makes you think God exists, and is specifically confined there? Is that even still a God?
You can't measure and examine people's consciousness for empathy or love of neighbour.
Don't need to. You can measure and examine their actions.
You can observe what people do, but you can only observe and then believe what it is that motivates people to do what they do.
What? Why?
Why can't you just ask the people what motivates them?
Most will say "because I love them..."
Some will say "because God says I should" and if you ask them if God is love... they usually say yes as well.
I contend that there is a good reason to believe that but there is nothing physical to examine or test.
I contend that this "good" reason is only good because it makes you feel better.
It is not a "good" reason if you want to identify truth - because it involves a lot of processes that we know are very, very bad at identifying truth, and usually wrong.
I can't know absolutely that what I believe to be true concerning the Christian faith to be the truth but the same holds for everyone else here.
Absolutely.
The difference is - I acknowledge this and admit that when I'm looking for truth I cannot hold onto past ideas, no matter how much I want them to be true, and must "look for truth" in a way that best helps identify that truth. I will not let any previous ideas, no matter how much I like them, get in the way of identifying truth - whatever that truth may be.
But you seem to want to cling to "Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact" no matter how much doubt is cast upon that claim and no matter what evidence is found in the future. You seem to only want to "find truth if it aligns with Jesus' resurrection as a historical fact." And, while doing this, you also want to claim that you're actually "looking for truth" even though you're putting limitations on what "truth" you will accept - regardless of how true it actually is.
What knowledge am I rejecting?
The 8 million and 2 million papers of knowledge showing you that society and morality evolved naturally.
You talk about the evolution of morality and then claim that this is evidence that there is no external deity.
Not really.
I talk about evolution of morality and then claim that this is evidence that morality evolved naturally.
I also talk about us never finding any evidence of an external deity, after searching everywhere and anywhere for one, and that this is evidence that there is no external deity.
The two also support each other... but the evidence for each one is not dependent on the other.
If God was shown to exist tomorrow - it would still be obvious that morality evolved naturally.
If morality was shown to have non-natural origins tomorrow - this wouldn't show that God exists.
What you have outlined is the same type of evidence as I use when I say that I have the Bible as written evidence and the rise of Christian belief as evidence.
Are you saying that 2 million peer-reviewed papers following our best-known-method of identifying truth are "the same type of evidence" as the Bible.. which is shown to have many internal contradictions, many embellishments of the truth, many flat-out-wrong-and-never-actually-occurred claims to history and is never corrected for it's many, many errors?
That's, well, really silly.
Isn't it reasonable to ask why it evolved at all.
Good question.
A few possible answers:
-it provides a survival advantage
-it is a side-effect or emergent-property of increased intelligence (which provides a survival advantage), and may not provide any advantage at all on it's own
It doesn't fit with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest.
It definitely does.
It's a simple concept - you'd rather hang out with friends than with enemies, and "hanging-out together" makes you stronger/more-likely-to-survive than being alone.
The fittest (those who group together and help each other) survive and the unfit (those who remain alone) are killed... usually by those larger groups.
It doesn't account for why or even how the first seed of thought that became morality occurred.
Like all things that evolved - mutations in DNA replication during the process of having children.
-increased intelligence occurred, and provided a significant survival advantage
-increasing intelligence is selected for as it provides more and more of a survival advantage
-at some point, intelligence increases so much that "the first seed of thought that became morality occurred" and continued to evolve
It doesn't account for the the vast range of human morality we can observe or for the ongoing individual struggles we have with our own moral behaviour.
You know we don't all have the same arms, right?
I can't lift anything near what weight-lifters can. The human frame comes in all shapes and sizes... even though we all have "arms"... some are bigger/stronger, others are faster/nimbler.
Same with intelligence and morality.
We all have brains. But not all brains function exactly the same.
Some will have a greater leaning for morality, others will not. Almost all will have slightly different "leanings" in different moral directions, regardless of how "great" that leaning is.
This is another simple concept: different strokes for different folks.
In so many ways atheism raises questions that can't be answered, and much more so than basic theism.
Atheism doesn't attempt to answer any of these questions.
However, these questions can all be answered very easily without invoking God. This is the knowledge that is contained in the 2 million papers you're not accepting, that are based on our best-known-method for identifying truth and not "a bunch of erroneous stories written down some 2000 years ago."
It won't go away, no matter how many times you re-ask the same questions over and over and over and get the same, fully-evidenced-answers repeated to you over and over and over.
I'm not sure what you think is going on here... but we're not having a discussion like "what is the source of dark matter?" where neither of us has knowledge to back up our claims. We're having a discussion like "how do airplanes fly?" where one of us knows how airplanes fly and the other has never seen a plane and doesn't believe they even exist. I'll show you explanations of airplanes over and over and over again... and you seem to just keep falling back to "but I don't get it... so it can't work!" Which is... only half right.
It hasn't been hundreds of years, but it has been "years" that we've known how things like society and morality have naturally (entirely, fully naturally) evolved and do not require the intervention of any external deity. (You'll notice that most of those linked papers are from the 2000's and even the 2010's...) Just like airplanes. You can either accept it or not - it doesn't really matter, and doesn't make it go away.
This is the problem with attempting to hide God in pockets of "unknown" knowledge. When that knowledge comes around and becomes known... you have to adjust your reasoning or become identified as someone who "fights against knowledge/facts."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1866 by GDR, posted 01-26-2023 1:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1885 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 3:12 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1874 of 2053 (905467)
01-27-2023 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1854 by Phat
01-24-2023 2:53 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Phat writes:
Gravity is an impersonal force. It makes no impression upon human behavior. Jesus, by contrast, is (according to scripture) The living truth.
Jesus is impersonal to most. He only makes an impression on a small minority.
Phat writes:
The only way to "The Father"..ie GOD.
The only way to the Father is by the way, the truth and the light. The way is by following the commandments, principally by loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself.
Phat writes:
you may well counsel me to "throw the book away"
I, for one, constantly counsel you NOT to throw the book away.
Phat writes:
When one thinks they have the final answer, they do not simply throw it away or set it aside in the hopes of a more favorable answer. We see it as a trap.
Thinking you have the final answer is a trap.
Phat writes:
I only claim to know one thing. He knows everything.
Of course you couldn't possibly know that.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1854 by Phat, posted 01-24-2023 2:53 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1878 by Phat, posted 01-28-2023 9:44 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1875 of 2053 (905468)
01-27-2023 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1858 by Phat
01-25-2023 8:48 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
Phat writes:
One does not simply "set beliefs aside." If we follow anything, it is going to be our belief, rather than a vague concept of evidence.
False dichotomy. It is possible to believe AND think - both at the same time, even.
Thinking, and following the evidence (which is NOT "vague", by the way) protects us from some of the stupid ideas that you claim to believe.
Phat writes:
For many believers, belief is a commitment. Its as solid as a marriage. It is not merely cast aside...
It isn't very often that marriages are "merely cast aside".
Phat writes:
UNLESS (and I stress this strongly) the new evidence is conclusive and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
It's funny how "True believers" consider themselves "skeptical" of good evidence. Their "reasonable doubt' is definitely UNreasonable.
They fervently believe the defendant is innocent because, "He's a good boy. He wouldn't do that," yet they have "reasonable doubts" about the video of the good boy committing the crime.
Phat writes:
I am unmoved by the New Atheists...
Atheists don't care about moving you.
Phat writes:
... and emotionally passionate secularism...
Thanks for the compliment. Jesus was an emotionally passionate humanist too.
Phat writes:
... masquerading as an alternative to my belief(s).
There's no need to "masquerade". Nobody gives a flying fuck about your beliefs.

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1858 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 8:48 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023