- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A fact worth remembering: Those who don't believe in God argue against absolutes
Posted on 10/9/20 at 11:41 pm to catinthehat
Posted on 10/9/20 at 11:41 pm to catinthehat
quote:this is the riveting, erudite, perspicacious analysis we know to expect from non believers. the issue is settled. this ad hominem just solved the greatest mystery of all time.
Go handle snakes
0
Posted on 10/9/20 at 11:47 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:astonishing. it can be explained a million times and people will still not get it. is your statement absolutely true for everyone? or can i dismiss it and think that there actually is absolute good that can be known?
while there is no such this as “good” and “evil” in an absolute sense
quote:as stated numerous times already, this is ethics, not morality
there are behaviors that objectively harm and objectively benefit the society in which we have created.
quote:link?
So if you want what you do to matter 4 billion years from now then sorry, it won’t.
quote:says who? how do you know?
But what you do and how you live now does matter, and a lack of eternal purpose doesn’t change that.
quote:that's ethics, not morality
I attribute to the result of strong selective pressure on the cooperative societies of a social species
Posted on 10/9/20 at 11:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:in an epistemological sense, you are correct (jtb, jtb+, warrant, etc). but that doesn't diminish the truth of it one bit. so the point still stands; an objective truth is true whether it is recognized or known by a person. it would be true if no person ever existed. again, you can argue whether a person could know such a priori truths or the manner in which they are deduced, but you can't ever get around the fact that they exist.
Saying the Earth was a sphere before anyone could possibly have demonstrated as much would have been a baseless claim
quote:yet again, i will ask what would be proof to you.
Until someone can present objectively verifiable facts for the existence of god
quote:oh it most certainly is. you might not like the epistemic justification/warrant or a person might not articulate it effectively. there are people who are too weak intellectually and emotionally to accept it. there are people whose metaphysical judgement is too occluded for them to acknowledge it. but it is a brute fact truth claim. pretty much every person who rejects god's existence (or some downstream truth such as morality) is doing so from a fatal epistemic mistake
that is not a truth claim
quote:not according to basically every person who has ever lived. the number of atheists is a miniscule percentage of the totality of humanity.
we have no reason whatsoever to believe that
quote:unless god has revealed himself, right? which he has.
It’s a baseless claim
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:02 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:and this is precisely the fatal epistemic mistake i was referring to
Chemistry and evolution are verifiable via the scientific method. Their reality can be demonstrated. The same cannot be said for any deity ever proposed
quote:says you
Moreover, evolution by natural selection appears decidedly undirected
quote:needlessly? according to what standard?
Life is needlessly complex
quote:
deleterious consequences
deleterious based on what? how would you even know? just because something appears a certain way biologically does not mean it is needless or deleterious. and why must biology be "efficient?" who made that a rule?
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:15 am to bfniii
quote:
is your statement absolutely true for everyone? or can i dismiss it and think that there actually is absolute good that can be known?
You can think whatever you want, but that’s not particularly relevant to the discussion. Again, the truth is what the facts are.
quote:
as stated numerous times already, this is ethics, not morality
Only in a world where the two are separate and distinct. In a world without morality capable of being separated from societal norms, ethics IS morality. When morals are subjective and not fixed, a society’s ethical standards are their morality.
quote:
link?
4 billion years from now the earth’s surface will have melted due to runaway greenhouse effect and all life will be extinct. 3 billion years after that we will have be engulfed by an enlarging and dying sun. Humans will become extinct, and the planet will be entirely uninhabitable, long before either event however.
Sorry to be a downer
quote:
says who? how do you know?
Meaning in the present is self-evident. It’s a case of your reality and actions providing the truth of a claim regardless of how you feel about it.
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:17 am to bfniii
quote:
and why must biology be "efficient?" who made that a rule?
Nobody, that’s the point
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:17 am to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
They don't believe in right and wrong.
You’re wrong, but what makes you even think that?
quote:
And thus they don't give a rat's arse about depopulation, brought about in any form.
We need more people on planet Earth? Why?
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:21 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The Bible, the Old and New Testaments, offer implicit or explicit support for many things nearly unanimously agreed to be immoral in modern western society
first, like i care what "modern western society" thinks about morals. second, i'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about biblically but, feel free to take a stab at it quote:but why does the modern legal system have any authority or how is it right? why do you trust it? i gave an example earlier of a quintessential dilemma unresolvable by secular standards.
Any American living by the strict moral standards and laws of the Bible would be guilty of numerous misdemeanor and felony offenses under our legal system and thrown in jail.
quote:says the person who is a bible ignoramus
So the moral standards within the Bible are clearly not objective or universal truth
quote:and you're committing the genetic fallacy. how about you deal with what was said instead of dodging it with ad hominems.
Appeals to authority are generally worthless, particularly on topics without demonstrable realities
quote:first, and many do. second, even if no one did, it's still demonstrable that god exists.
Moreover, many men far smarter with far more information at their disposal than Lewis did not/do not believe in God.
quote:no you don't and that's easy to demonstrate
So even if we default to appeals to authority, I have better authorities.
quote:oh boy. you live in a fantasy world. how about presenting what you think are examples
Every apologetics argument presented by Lewis has be thoroughly refuted over the last half century.
quote:says the person who doesn't even understand what apologetics is
And the very need for apologists is in and of itself evidence against the existence of a deity
quote:no you don't. you have no such substantiation whatsoever apart from god. at most, all you can say is you THINK it's wrong and you have no grounds to object to any disagreement on the matter.
I believe that humans murdering children is evil because I have an objective moral standard to say as much and have it be more than mere opinion.
quote:no you can't. all you have is your opinion
I believe my worldview is preferable to yours because I can provide a rational basis for saying that murdering children is wrong and immoral.
quote:and you have it precisely backwards
You can't
quote:it's amazing people can be so lost on this issue. you have absolutely no authority whatsoever to make any sort of moral judgments at all. none. any statement you make can be responded to with "so what" and you have no grounds to rebut. otoh, a theist has their belief grounded in a moral law giver. a moral is right because it comes from an authoritative source of "rightness." you have no such rightness.
All you can do is emote and provide your opinion, to which I say, "so what?"
quote:that is debatable if you believe in the survival of the fittest. my word secularists are constantly arguing about the overpopulation of the planet. china tries to preserve resources by limiting the number of children a family can have. it's like you haven't put ANY thought into this at all. and btw, where in the bible are you seeing the justification for mass murder of children?
The mass murder of children is objectively detrimental to the future of a species under the biological parameters of life here
quote:wow. first, who is "we?" second, why is "negatively impacts our survival" the authority? should we survive? why? third, what is "unnecessary" level of pain? says who? fourth, it's amazing that after 20 pages, you still don't know what the word objective means. it most certainly is not a societal consensus.
If we define “wrong” as something that negatively impacts our survival as a species or leads to unnecessary pain and suffering, then we can say murdering children is objectively wrong.
quote:is your statement objectively true for everyone or can i dismiss it?
But no, there is not some base universal truth that killing children is wrong
quote:then it's not OBJECTIVE, right? then you're not referring to morals. you're referring to ethics which are malleable
So with respect to our species and our society, yes I can say murdering children is wrong. That statement is conditional however and I cannot say that murdering children would always be wrong in every conceivable society.
quote:why? are they wrong? who do you listen to and how do you know they are right?
You really need to start listening to people besides Frank Turek, Ravi Zaccarias and Ray Comfort
this post was aggiehank level bad. you are talking about things you have basically no understanding of.
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:22 am to bfniii
quote:
an epistemological sense, you are correct (jtb, jtb+, warrant, etc). but that doesn't diminish the truth of it one bit. so the point still stands; an objective truth is true whether it is recognized or known by a person. it would be true if no person ever existed. again, you can argue whether a person could know such a priori truths or the manner in which they are deduced, but you can't ever get around the fact that they exist.
Again, this is all meaningless if you cannot show the truth of the claim. Even if god exists, if he cannot be detected or evidenced for by any means whatsoever the only reasonable stance is that we have no reason to believe he exists.
Yahweh and Shiva have exactly the same amount of the evidence at present for their existence. These are mutually exclusive deities who cannot both exist in the context of their respective religions’ claims. One of them COULD exist, but the only choice I have is to reject the existence of both until someone provides evidence for the existence of one of them.
A god who doesn’t provide evidence for his existence is indistinguishable from a god who doesn’t exist.
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:31 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:i'm not sure what you're getting at. an atheist doesn't really have a reason to "refute" something like evil.
I find little use for the problem of evil, it’s just not an argument that holds much weight IMO and is easily refuted
quote:
the problem of divine hiddeness
who said it's a "problem?" who says god is "hidden?" i'm getting the impression you learned about christianity from a message board. quote:
the objectively false physical/historical claims made within the respective holy texts.
ok chief. there's that word objective again. you might want to look that up before you keep throwing it around. quote:wow. i think it's amusing that you think you know something that christian philosophers haven't heard of before. that you know something that has just stumped christian theologians who have spent decades reading skeptical literature. not to mention the unbroken hundreds of years old chain of philosophy of religion. you've found something that has slipped past every one of them worldwide. do you realize how stupid that sounds
I can say the god specifically described in the Bible or Koran cannot exist because those books make truth claims necessary for his existence that are verifiably false
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:43 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:you keep saying this without presenting even one. name one thing habermas has said that is "thoroughly refuted."
thoroughly refuted arguments
quote:otherwise known as academic fact.
fancy sounding theological verbiage
do you even know what the minimal facts argument says? quote:you're acting like he hasn't substantiated all of this. that he's just accepting it simplicatur. my word. and btw, that is most certainly not ALL he is making a case for. but you knew that didn't you. like these premises haven't been accepted by basically every clued up scholar ever. what you don't get is that habermas' main claims have been at least tacitly agreed upon by even secular scholars over the last 4 decades. but you knew that too, right?
- the gospels are historical fact
- the report of an empty tomb and the alleged witnesses of a resurrected Christ prove the resurrection occurred
- the conversion of Paul is a meaningful truth in any account
- the rapid success of Christianity and its success today proves its validity and the divinity of Jesus
quote:
completely spurious claims and preposterous logic
whatever. quote:by all means, impress us
The facts, when viewed objectively, reveal how thin and fragile this entire argument is at each juncture
quote:bullcrap. name one.
Every single argument he uses, every one, can be altered slightly and utilized for Islam
quote:ok. you are ignorant of history. that's all you had to say
In the case of Islam, the presentation would come with far more historical data given how much more recent and well documented the origins of that faith are compared to Christianity
you might be able to fool some people with this charade. you keep making these broad, sweeping statements and you haven't substantiated even one thing
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:44 am to bfniii
quote:
wow. i think it's amusing that you think you know something that christian philosophers haven't heard of before. that you know something that has just stumped christian theologians who have spent decades reading skeptical literature. not to mention the unbroken hundreds of years old chain of philosophy of religion. you've found something that has slipped past every one of them worldwide. do you realize how stupid that sounds
I suspect many are aware and simply ignore it, repress it or actually believe it and lie about doing so for reasons I shouldn’t have to explain here. Many more have simply never had the science adequately explained to them. For instance, we know from numerous fields the Biblical flood as described in Genesis couldn’t have happened. It’s impossible for many reasons, and even if it were possible there’s no evidence that it did occur. But someone who hasn’t spent the time studying these fields of science, or hasn’t attempted to watch a presentation on how they refute this story, would have no reason to know that.
Historically, most humans who have ever lived lacked the knowledge we have today. Isaac Newton was smarter than me but I know exponentially more about the world and reality than he did simply because of when we lived. In 2020, nearly all people of his intelligence level are non-believers. 92% of the scientists across all national science academies do not believe in god, and rising IQ (as well as rising educational attainment) has strongly correlated with non belief ever since such tests have been widely utilized. Non-belief is increasing faster worldwide than any religion is.
So it’s not that I know more than anyone else, it’s that we all know more and are becoming less religious because of it. And the more any individual knows, the less likely they are to be religious.
Posted on 10/10/20 at 12:50 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:well this has been done countless times over. ready to be a theist?
It’s a matter of what can be shown to be true
quote:oh my word you can't be serious. could it be that your reasons for not believing are a hallucination? how would you know otherwise? i'll ask again, what would be proof to you?
I would be forced to acknowledge that it was more likely I was hallucinating
quote:still making the mistake that i have been pointing to
I couldn’t demonstrate the truth of my experience
quote:well this is just ignorance. so you took ignorance and doubled down on it.
have no more reason to believe in the claims of Christianity than I do the claims of Islam, Hinduism or any other religion
quote:said no epistemologist ever
Reality can be shown to be real
quote:same old mistake yet again
no arguments for any deity I have ever encountered can be shown to be true
quote:so basically NOTHING would convince you. that means you're biased and untrustworthy on this issue.
you have to show evidence of God’s intercession not explained by chance or other factors
Posted on 10/10/20 at 1:03 am to bfniii
quote:
o you even know what the minimal facts argument says?
Sure, that there are a set of “facts” that even non believers agree on regarding the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus. Only three are actually nearly unanimously agreed upon, and those three are far different from what he presents.
First, it is generally agreed upon there was a Jewish figure who Jesus is at least based on at the time who was crucified by the Romans for sedition between 30-35 AD. That’s it, yet he presents it as “everyone agrees the Jesus described in the Bible was crucified under the exact conditions described”. That’s simply not true. The fact is the ONLY two events which scholars generally agree upon is the baptism and death of a man the Jesus account is based on. There is widespread belief among NT scholars that the gospels are a collection of stories, slowly embellished over time (which is why the stories in the chronological order of writing become more and more remarkable) and based on the lives of multiple first century apocalyptic Jewish teachers.
Second, that Saul who become Paul was converted at some point after previously persecuting early Christians. That’s it.
Third, the teachings of early Christians spread soon after Jesus’ supposes death. I mean, duh. Nobody would even have a need to refute this.
The other three points are not agreed upon as he claims. For instance, Catholics don’t believe James even was the brother of Jesus and many scholars question his existence at altogether.
Ultimately he falls victim to the same circular reasoning that most in his position do. He believes the Bible is reliable at face value, an unwarranted assumption. When you don’t allow him to use the Bible to prove the Bible, he’s left with a few scraps of likely accurate history and a lot of explaining to do.
This post was edited on 10/10/20 at 1:09 am
Posted on 10/10/20 at 1:13 am to bfniii
quote:
so basically NOTHING would convince you
Sure, just nothing that has ever been presented to this point.
If tomorrow every Christian alive disappeared and God left a message taking credit, we can revisit that
But I have sufficient reason to believe that won’t happen.
This post was edited on 10/10/20 at 1:14 am
Posted on 10/10/20 at 1:21 am to bfniii
quote:
bullcrap. name one
Islam spread exponentially faster than Christianity did over the first 100 years following their respective foundings, and the early history of Islam and its growth is arguably the single most extensively documented event in human history prior to the Great schism in the 11th century. We have more information on some of Muhammad’s uncles and cousins than we have about every single person mentioned in the New Testament combined, including Paul who wrote much of it. Moreover, every single major player in early Islam unquestionably existed based on numerous non-Islamic sources. We even have first hand paintings and writings of some of these people. We are only reasonably sure two of Jesus’ disciples even existed at all, and NO first hand copies or evidence of anything done by anyone discussed in first century Christianity exists today. Not one single thing.
Using his logic, this is strong evidence for the truth of Islam. Of course Islam is nonsense because, like Christianity, many of its claims are demonstrably false and the rest of the supernatural claims have no supporting evidence. But with regards to the life of Muhammad and his followers vs Jesus and his, the former is exponentially more well known and better documented.
This post was edited on 10/10/20 at 1:27 am
Posted on 10/10/20 at 8:32 am to bfniii
quote:
said no epistemologist ever
Philosophers don’t get a seat at the scientific table because the nature of their field is a lack of falsifiability. People become philosophers so they can never be proven wrong.
Posted on 10/10/20 at 8:34 am to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 10/10/20 at 8:38 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I do not understand the painting with such a broad brush
Complex, nuanced, researched thought requires effort and discipline.
Why invest that time when you can be a simpleton and construct binary strawmen to prop up and destroy to the cheers of the masses?
Posted on 10/10/20 at 8:52 am to AggieHank86
Page 22 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News