In article <slr### [at] bisqwitikifi>, bis### [at] ikifi 
says...
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:41:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/02/winning_athiests.jpg
> 
> That image is just as ignorant waltzing to the victory as
> are many of the arguments of christians.
> 
> God is able, but whether he's willing is a matter more
> complex than of "yes" and "no". It is a "yes", because
> he will do it at his own pace, and it is a "no", because
> he will do it at his own pace.
> Saying that he is malevolent because of that is just ignorant,
> and neglects the possibility that God's reasoning can be
> something no human can even comprehend.
> 
> Humans tend to overestimate their own ability. It is the same
> regardless of how intelligent one is. A cat cannot comprehend
> the simple concept of "pointing at something with the finger",
> no matter how you try to teach it. (Well, at least I haven't succeeded.)
> Similarly, it stands reason to assume that there may be a similar,
> but even greater gap between the mental capabilities of a human
> and the God. A human cannot be made to comprehend some concepts
> that are trivial to God, without extraordinary measures.
> And if you take omnipotency to the issue -- God could possibly
> do it, but would the human still be a human after that? And what's
> the point? The human only needs to have faith in God. God doesn't
> need the human's approval in his actions.
> 
> 
Perhaps. But the problem with this argument is that I am reasonably sure 
my *cat* can prove I exist, to its, and other cats, satisfaction. 
Arguing that something you can't prove exists at all **might** be 
outside the comprehension of mere humans not only isn't all that useful, 
it invalidates pretty much **any** argument that anything we claim to 
know about it could be accurate either, including what its supposedly 
telling us to do. You can't win the argument with that. All it does is 
place God in the position of being something so fundamentally intangible 
and beyond our understanding that, almost by definition, the atheist 
arguments about the validity of our definitions of God, or what is/isn't 
just/valued/sinful, etc. to one, must be considered more likely than the 
unbelievable premise that you can't comprehend such being, label its 
attributes, or in any other way "define" what it is, does, or wants, but 
at the same time, it somehow "told" us those very things.

I.e., if you can't get your cat to point to thing, why would a God so 
far beyond our comprehension to make the example valid, have any more 
luck getting us to do anything at all? And more to the point, unlike the 
cat, how the heck would we know he/she/it was the one doing so?

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
>> I already granted that I was reading an English translation and therefore 
>> was several steps removed. That "kill" isn't what it says in the old 
>> testament isn't really the point - the point is that Jesus, for example, 
>> can't reasonably be said to provide context for the meaning of the ten 
>> commandments, nor can Pope John Paul III, or etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> Matthew 22:34-40
> But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees,
> they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question,
> testing Him, and saying, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment
> in the law?" Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your God
> with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is 
> the
> first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love
> your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the
> Law and the Prophets."

I fail to see the relevance.

I was speaking of the ten commandments, as given to Moses. Certainly, 
something that comes later can dispute or clarify such commandments. But 
  I don't know what context God's words to Adam could have that isn't in 
Genesis, given there was nobody else in the entire world at the time.

Jesus says which of the commandments are more important. How does that 
help Moses interpret them? How does that help anyone before Jesus 
interpret them?

(This is turning into a pretty silly discussion at this point. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:15:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> Here's the other thing: Atheists can generally provide a long list of
>> "here's things that would convince me to be religious."  Theists can
>> rarely provide a single answer to "what would convince you you're
>> wrong?"
> 
> Well, that's proving a negative (after a fashion, perhaps), which is not 
> generally regarded, AIUI, as a valid scientific approach.

Errr, not at all. Of course you can prove a negative in the scientific 
sense. "This drug does not cause cancer."

I can provide a long list of things that could happen that would very 
quickly convince me that I am wrong about the non-existence of God.

I have never met an theist who could give a single example of anything 
that would convince him *his* religion is wrong. (Note: there have been 
such theists in history - people conquered by christians, for example 
who decided that meant the christian god must be stronger than their 
own.)  I guess you could call the original christians such theists, and 
probably the original muslims, mormons, etc. On the gripping hand, 
they're all followers of JHVH, so it's not real clear this was actually 
changing their minds.

Hence, all the arguments that "atheism is just another religion" is 
wrong, because atheism, not being based purely on faith, is open to 
change via argument or evidence.  At least mine is.

(There's actually a number of interesting SF books I've read wherein 
God's existence is scientifically proven.)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> That is not ethics, that is culture. You learn ethics by finding out why 
> the universe exist and what it's ultimate goal is. ... At least that is how I did it


Wow. Fill me in. How did you figure out the purpose of the entire 
universe and its ultimate goal?

Seriously. I want to know. I'm not mocking you.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Joel Yliluoma wrote:
> Saying that he is malevolent because of that is just ignorant,
> and neglects the possibility that God's reasoning can be
> something no human can even comprehend.

Sorry. We've eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The only 
difference between us and God is that we haven't eaten from the Tree of 
Eternal Life.

Hence, your claim that good and evil is too complex for us to understand 
is, based on the very part of the Bible that Ken Ham built a whole 
museum around, incorrect.

Thanks for playing, tho.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> Blind faith tells you what an outcome
> *must* be, then demands that you not only reject evidence of the
> contrary position, but also implies that the very idea that you might
> test it, or seek evidence is invalid, by definition, since it would no
> longer, at that point, be *blind*.

I know my faith isn't blind.  It's based on personal subjective spiritual
experience about my surroundings.

I'm pretty sure all those countless old lines of sacred scriptures from all
religions in the world came from similar experiences by people from all ages
getting in touch with the inner truth.  It's not a matter of blindly accepting
what old shepherds told us, but of sharing the same gut feeling about what
constitutes reality and our role in it.  I'm just following my instincts and
reaching to about the same point that many other people.  could it be all just
chemical reactions or quantum side-effects causing mass delusion?  Yes, but I
have faith it's actually God's plan at work.

and before you ask, no, I don't believe God created Adam out of clay at about
6000 years ago or that God's days are the same amount as man's days.  He had to
oversimplify things to get his message across the early believers.  If He talked
to Einstein rather than Moses we should get a far more technically detailed and
accurate version of how things came to be.  Instead of an exciting and highly
poetic and concise Creation account that came to us, we'd have boring math
formulae all over and a few diagrams trying to get it across.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> I know my faith isn't blind.  It's based on personal subjective spiritual
> experience about my surroundings.

I, personally, have no problem with faith based on this sort of thing. 
If God spoke to you personally, that's cool with me. But don't try to 
convince me that because God spoke to you, I should follow your rules, 
is all. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Joel Yliluoma wrote:
> > Saying that he is malevolent because of that is just ignorant,
> > and neglects the possibility that God's reasoning can be
> > something no human can even comprehend.

> Sorry. We've eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The only 
> difference between us and God is that we haven't eaten from the Tree of 
> Eternal Life.

  This gives us the same reasoning powers as God has. Right.

  I have to say, you usually act all scientifical and logical, but it seems
that when your motivation is to attack religion, you put logical thinking
to the side and use whatever convoluted argument you can come up with (or
which you have read somewhere) regardless of how logical or relevant it is,
just for the sake of argument.

  Of course I'm not surprised. The vast majority of people who otherwise
are logical and rational become irrationally fanatic when the topic is
religion.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I, personally, have no problem with faith based on this sort of thing.
> If God spoke to you personally, that's cool with me. But don't try to
> convince me that because God spoke to you, I should follow your rules,
> is all. :-)

AKA "the rebel teenager atheist". :)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:09:04 -0500, Warp wrote:

> The vast majority of people who otherwise are logical and rational
> become irrationally fanatic when the topic is religion.

I think "exasperated" is the word you're looking for here, Warp.

Those of us who fit that "otherwise logical and rational" description get 
frustrated when the counter to logical and rational points is "because 
God said so" or "because God made it so" or "Because it's God's will".

That doesn't leave room for logical or rational debate, leads to 
frustration, and ultimately is going to result in a facetious comment 
being made.

Logically, rationally, the next step for the religious fanatic is to come 
back and say "Gee, where's your logic now?", which is quite infuriating.

Jim

Post a reply to this message