On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:32:07 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> 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 might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause 
cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is 
something that would not be disproven over time.

In a purely logical sense, all it takes is one person getting cancer that 
can be traced back to that drug that would disprove the hypothesis that 
the drug doesn't cause cancer.

That's the problem with proving a negative - logically, you cannot test 
every possible test case to come to such a conclusion.  The fact that the 
drug industry lists most of the little side effects anyone saw in their 
clinical trials attests to that.

Then add to that the exceptions to that statement:  If it's taken beyond 
the guidelines the drug company determined from their clinical trials, 
might that cause cancer?  Did they test it?  If so, how?

And so on.

Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove (logically 
and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to God?  Or that 
Moses didn't?  I don't believe we can prove it - just because we can't 
fathom how such an event would take place does not constitute proof (as I 
know you know).

The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could've 
been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a 
communications device.  Doesn't matter what it was - we, as people, tend 
to describe things in terms that we can understand.  So when, in Genesis, 
the description of creation is described as 6 days long, are we defining 
that as human days?  Or is "day" a term used because the time periods 
involved were (and are) truly unfathomable?  If the earth shows geologic 
evidence of a collision 4.5 billion years ago with another planet (and 
some suggest that evidence does exist), that might be the dawn of day 1.  
Day 2 may well have come much longer than 24 of our hours after it.

Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it 
didn't happen?  Not really, no.

> 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'm interested in seeing such a list, if you're interested in sharing.  
You and I do come at this from similar perspectives, but I'm not sure 
what would be on my list - never really thought about it.

> 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.

I don't know that even those theists you point to in history would really 
have that - many/most seem to have taken the approach "God must have 
meant for this to happen" as a way of working around the bad that happens 
in the world (and that happened to them).

> 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.

Well, depending on what your list of proof consists of.  I do know some 
atheists whose list consists of things like "God can do something that's 
impossible" - and with that, there's a certain degree of faith that that 
will never happen - and it's that faith in the impossible not happening 
that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

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

I like what Adams (an avowed atheist) wrote about it, as a conversation 
between man and God:

God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without 
faith, I am nothing.
Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and so 
therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)

Funny, of course, but also drives at that idea that faith by definition 
is dependent on the absence of evidence.  Put another way, if there's 
evidence, you don't need faith.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
>>> says...

[snipped some old context].

>>> **instead** of theirs.
>> Sorry Patrick for not using the words with exactly the same meaning as 
>> you. I just wanted to make absolutely clear that being an atheist is 
>> simply part of who I am. It is in every cell of my body, in every 
>> thought that even remotely touches ethics, in how I interact with others 
>> and in all my scientific work. In short it is part of me the same way as 
>> believe in a God is for some others, that is why I said it is a 
>> religion. If some moron rejects that word because in his views that 
>> implies that it has to be unfounded, so be it. If you think it is an 
>> irrational emotional thing, think again. Besides if you think that for a 
>> true believer in God that is only for emotional reasons and that that 
>> can't be rational, you can not be more wrong than that.
>>
[snipped a large text that is largely based on your idea on what a 
religious person or an atheist should believe. Interesting but irrelvant.]
> 
> Let me put it another way. If, by your definition, atheism, which only 
> demands that you either reject, or strongly suspect the nonexistence of, 
> gods, is a religion, 
I have never said that. I said that I am an atheist and in a religious 
way, not that atheism is a religion. So your premise is wrong. Logical 
says that from a false premise you can derive anything. Hence you can 
from here on deduce anything.
[snipped some invalid conclusions].

I try to answer Darren elsewhere, perhaps that might shed some light. (I 
hope not).

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> In article <4753b011$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
>>>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>>>> Ethics is almost entirely 
>>>>> arbitrary, aside some fundamental survival derivatives.
>>>> I would disagree, but that's OK.
>>>>
>>> I would disagree too. You don't learn ethics by someone *telling* you 
>>> that its bad, you do so by testing the boundaries of what, first, you 
>>> parents allow, then society, and concluding, based on evidence, that 
>>> there are **consequences** for acting unethically. Its only arbitrary in 
>>> the sense that "sometimes" the rules are based on irrational projections 
>>> of imaginary consequences, or misinterpretations of the magnitude, 
>>> nature, existence or even the actual cause of real consequences.
>>>
>> That is not ethics, that is culture. You learn ethics by finding out why 
>> the universe exist and what it's ultimate goal is. Use that as a basis 
>> to explain mankind's existence and its final purpose. From that you can 
>> derive what you as a person should do. At least that is how I did it 
>> (granted, I still have to fill in some minor details).
>>
> One of us is using a completely crazy definition of what "ethics" means, 
> and since yours is nothing like what *anyone* I have ever talked to 
> uses, I don't think its mine. Just saying...

Mine wasn't a definition. It was a procedure to arrive at a set of 
morals. If you follow ethics through the ages you will see that in most 
cases ethics are passed down from one generation to another with or 
without minor changes. There are however discontinuities as a result of 
people (prophets) that follow my recipe.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 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.
> 
You forgot the last part '(granted, I still have to fill in some minor 
details)'. This is one of those minor details. ;)

Of course there is slightly more to it. Some historical background: once 
(~25 years ago) I decided to find out if I could take the nonexistence 
of God as an axiom and see if you could still get a decent ethics system 
from that. To my surprise I could do that, the logic may not convince 
anybody else but it was OK for me at that time. Later I noticed that I 
started behaving 'ethical', following my own rules. That was a bit 
surprising too, because that really meant a change of behaviour. I was 
e.g. extremely introvert, I am still not exactly extrovert, but I came a 
long way. I am also much more friendly, laid back and tolerant for other 
peoples behaviour than I was. Other changes are more subtle and not so 
much noticeable for others. Over the years my views have changed 
slightly but not the basic ones. In particular I kept the axiom of the 
non-existence of God. Everything that I do or think somewhere rests on 
that axiom. Just as much as other people may found their behaviour on 
God's existence. In contrast to the atheist that Patrick seems to know I 
am totally not evangelistic. If you believe in God, that's fine by me. 
That does not mean that I as a person am not a convinced (read: 
'axiomatic') atheist.
The logic may be a bit different than usual, but I knew that I really 
struck gold when I discovered that my behaviour towards other people 
with the same believe as mine would become undefined. So the other 
reason that I am not evangelic is that I prefer not to enter that moral 
minefield. (I know that that last bit is probably incomprehensible if 
you don't fully understand my (twisted) logic, but I am afraid I can not 
explain it for the same reason :) ).
Having solved this puzzle, I got back for an attempt to find an idea 
that would answer the ultimate answer and could serve as a basis for the 
no-God axiom. I found a couple and the one that is most likely to me has 
the peculiar side effect that I now fully believe in predestination and 
as a philosophical point of view I don't believe that time exists (yes, 
I struck gold again). Reason number three for not being evangelistic: 
  you'd think I am completely nuts. I might be, but I am perfectly happy 
as it is.
Note to Patrick: you might think that if I tell you I am an atheist that 
you know what I think and how I should behave. Believe me, you haven't 
got a clue.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

Oh, it's just that Jesus did talk about the commandments and the law
quite a bit.  It's legitimate to say that's clarification instead of 
historical
context.

> 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.

Genesis was written by Moses, before that time it was oral history.
The penatuch (the first five books) is written in an early legal format
where the same conclusions are reached in several ways. The creation
story is meant to give context to the establishment of the law.

> 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. :-)

Well, athiests find God silly, so the idea that Moses talked with
God seems silly to them, and the idea that Jesus was raised from
the dead seems silly to them.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:40:30 -0800, Tim Attwood wrote:

> Oh, it's just that Jesus did talk about the commandments and the law
> quite a bit.  It's legitimate to say that's clarification instead of
> historical context.

Huh?  The 10 Commandments needed clarification?  I thought God was 
supposed to be infallible?  Omnipotent, Omniscient, and all that?

(Not trying to pick a fight here, I *really* don't understand what you're 
saying here)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> Genesis was written by Moses, 

Well, it was written *down* by Moses. It was obviously originally God's 
words, as I can't imagine who else would know what happened before Adam 
was created.

-- 
   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:
> I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause 
> cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is 
> something that would not be disproven over time.

We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision. 
You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things 
don't have certain properties.

> In a purely logical sense, 

Sure. And in a purely logical sense, you can prove a negative also. 
There exists no integer X such that X = X + 1. Easy to prove. Axiomatic, 
almost. Or, for example, the halting problem describes a 
universally-quantified negative that can be proven.

> Moving into the realm of religious debate, then, can we prove (logically 
> and/or scientifically) that Jesus did not regularly talk to God?  Or that 
> Moses didn't?  I don't believe we can prove it - just because we can't 
> fathom how such an event would take place does not constitute proof (as I 
> know you know).

I also don't believe you can prove that even if they did, they 
truthfully related what they heard, so I'm not sure what the point is.

> The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could've 
> been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a 
> communications device.

I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually 
satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without 
consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)

> Personally, I don't believe any of it, but can I (or anyone) prove it 
> didn't happen?  Not really, no.

That *what* didn't happen? Yes, it can be proven scientifically that 
things didn't happen the way they're described in genesis. For example, 
it's pretty easy to prove that birds came after fish, unlike what 
genesis says (iirc).

>> 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'm interested in seeing such a list, if you're interested in sharing.  

Sure.

God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really 
was God.  (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in, 
incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)

A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who 
always won wars of oppression against them.

Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying 
they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.

Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.

Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and 
spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly 
after.

A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth defects.

A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of 
touch.

Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move 
a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll 
believe faith can move mountains.

A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a 
disaster or even lightning.

>> 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.
> 
> I don't know that even those theists you point to in history would really 
> have that - many/most seem to have taken the approach "God must have 
> meant for this to happen" as a way of working around the bad that happens 
> in the world (and that happened to them).

I'm not sure what "god must have meant this" has to do with what I said.

I'm talking about (say) Aztecs "converted" via force by the Europeans. 
(I don't remember just which ethnic group it was, but there was some 
leader that converted because his God lost to the invader's God.)

> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening 
> that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.

I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen. I also 
have a great deal of faith that gravity works and the sun will rise. But 
if I wake up on the ceiling in the dark tomorrow, I'll have to rethink 
those too.

> God:  I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without 
> faith, I am nothing.
> Man:  But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, it proves you exist, and so 
> therefore you don't.  Q.E.D.
> God:  Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. (vanishes in a puff of logic)

The flaw there is that it's using logic.

> Funny, of course, but also drives at that idea that faith by definition 
> is dependent on the absence of evidence.  Put another way, if there's 
> evidence, you don't need faith.

Right. But you also need logic. Without Modus Ponens, all the evidence 
in the world isn't going to help.

-- 
   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

Warp wrote:
> 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.

No, it gives us the same ability to deduce what is good and what is evil 
as god has.  That's what he said in the garden.  Read your bible.

To say "Starving babies isn't *really* evil, because God has a plan" is 
a cop-out, if it's possible to determine on your own what is *really* evil.

>   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.

Well, using logical scientific arguments to talk about religion DOESN'T 
WORK. They tried that. talk.origins, for example. Yet the ID people keep 
on trying, right?

You can make a scientific debate about whether evolution is true. You 
can't make a scientific logical debate about how much God knows. If Joel 
can assert that the reason evil exists is because God knows it's good 
for us, then I can assert that we know what's good for ourselves, 
without having to make a logical argument beyond citing the Bible (which 
I not Joel didn't even do).

I mean, how the heck does Joel know what God is thinking better than I 
do? How come when Joel tells me that I don't understand, I don't get to 
point out the parts of the Bible where God says yes, I *do* understand. 
Isn't that logical?

>   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.

Well, sure, because if everyone was logical and scientific in a 
discussion, there wouldn't be any religion being discussed. Religion is 
based on faith, which isn't science or logic. It's not really possible 
to discuss religion with a religious person and stay logical and 
scientific about it.

-- 
   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

In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
says...
> I have never said that. I said that I am an atheist and in a religious 
> way, not that atheism is a religion. So your premise is wrong. Logical 
> says that from a false premise you can derive anything. Hence you can 
> from here on deduce anything.
> [snipped some invalid conclusions].
> 
> I try to answer Darren elsewhere, perhaps that might shed some light. (I
 
> hope not).
> 

I quote: "As just another atheist I'd like to point out that atheism is 
a religion too."

That hardly sounds like a vague assertion that its sort of kind of like 
one, in some ways. All my conclusions lead from this assertion of yours.

Oh, and just to be clear. I am using the definition for religion that 
***religious*** people most often claim it is, and the definition of 
atheism that is most common among atheists. That your definition 
deviates from those isn't all that relevant, especially since it also 
deviates from most dictionary definitions too, which pretty clearly do 
not include anything other than disbelief in gods in one, and list a 
whole mess of stuff you have to believe to be the other. But, what ever 
definition or denial floats your boat. ;)

-- 
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