If you're proposing that 'human judgement' is somehow worse than an ancient manuscript that you yourself stated was 'written for a specific time and people' when it comes to how to live life, then I'd have to strongly disagree, and so would you given your earlier statements. If everyone decided to use those texts as a guide to life then there'd be a lot more dead folk than there currently are - most killed by stones. 21:18 So you are hereby telling me that any person claiming to have been spoken to by a god that happens to have no evidence for the claim is insane? Noted. Weird that. So many god claims and the theist can't understand why the atheist doesn't just 'buy it'. When it comes to the crunch of the matter though even the theist is an unbeliever. No, I wouldn't. What if I had just gone "insane"? What if this god wasn't the god I thought it was but was in fact some evil twisted tyrant trying to get me to do his evil? What if this god was testing me to see whether I would commit heinous acts or whether I had the ability to think for myself? What if it was actually an alien force trying to get me kill off the only thing that could prevent them from taking over the world? There's the problem. You'd go out there with your bazooka never considering the other possibilities. 1) A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them 2) anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death. 3) If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. I could continue, but hopefully the point was made. You simply cannot sit there and tell me that god never taught people to do such things - damn, he commanded it. He made clear how he detested things like homosexuality, women wearing mens clothing, etc etc etc and.. it is also biblically true that 'god never changes his mind'. If he found it detestable then and ordered commands for people to be killed, it stands to reason that he still would. You're missing the point. Be it zeus, apollo, abellio, tiamat, marduk etc etc it is completely inconsequential. I lack a belief in any of them and therefore according to you have no 'backing to be moral'. You are wrong absolutely regardless to which god it is you happen to believe in. No. If anything I was laughing [?] at the statement that you were an atheist when it seems more apparent to state given your statements that you were simply going through a rebellious phase as most 12 year olds do. Both. Those that jump off the cliff and end up as a big splat on the ground do not generally get time after to reproduce. Those that land on both feet generally do. What is of course quite well evidenced however is that the theist will commit as many crimes as the atheist but will justify his actions either way. gods stop nothing at the end of the day. Maybe for the average theist, but then the law works for the average atheist just as well. The outcome of an action doesn't have to be eternal for it to not be a good thing to do. With all due respect, but you can get forgiveness for your 'sins' on your deathbed after having been a paedophile all your life. An atheist however that commits a serious crime will spend his one and only life stuck behind bars with no sex, (well..), beer, beaches, holidays, kids, etc etc. When it comes to "life part I", (this life), this is all the atheist has. He can choose to be bad - but it will most likely ruin that one life. I remember reading an article about the tsunami and a bunch of christian missionaries that refused to give aid unless the survivers converted. I think about all those abortion clinics, all those serial killers, (they themselves might not have been overtly religious but you'll find that their parents were devout christians and were a massive factor in their childs future.. 'job'), etc etc etc. Of course we could point out both sides. You'll find bad people and good people of both the theist and atheist variety. The issue is that when you find a bad theist you say "well he wasn't a christian because he didn't act christian" and thus try and remove any connection between yourselves. That's why I took the whole "you weren't an atheist" stand, and you seem to have issue with it. Perhaps now you see the inherent problem with "he wasn't a real (tm) christian"? The thing I observe is that christians look upon themselves as morally superior. Why, your post absolutely stinks of it and yet it is complete nonsense. Theists tend to think this, but they're wrong. Ultimately yes, we die and rot - but that doesn't negate purpose. Purpose doesn't only exist if you're going to meander on for eternity. Everyone has purpose in their life. You're trying to downplay it because their purpose doesn't tie in with yours. That's rude. What I find is that those who believe they're going to a life part II where their sole purpose is to obey and serve a god, and spend life part I also under the belief that their sole purpose is to obey and serve this same god place little value on the lives of others. I can provide an example too.. I love my children more than anyone or anything in the universe. No ifs, no buts. Do you love your children more than god? Equal to god? Less than god? (Most theists here would espouse the latter). Who places less value on the lives of others? To the theist, not one human can compare to the love of an invisible guy in the sky. To me, an atheist, no invisible guy in the sky can ever compare to my love for another human. See, the atheist cares about others, the theist cares about god - and when he's helping humans it's so he can look good in front of that god and to show that god that he loves him. It's not about the person, it's about the god. With atheists there is no god. 1) We die and rot, sure. That doesn't negate purpose. 2) It might be 'depressing', but that doesn't mean one should make-believe an alternative. Gen 38 I honestly can't stand that 'do as I say, not as I do' crap. This being espouses things as 'sins', as wrong and yet is a billion times more guilty of committing those sins than any human in the history of the cosmos. The best a theist can muster is to say that "god made us, owns us and can therefore do as he pleases", but don't seem to realise that this is not an argument to those actions being right. Before you come along and then say; "well, that's the OT god, jesus isn't like that", let me say that according to christians they still are the one and same being and that jesus through all that apparent love, was the one who introduced eternal writhing and gnashing of teeth in a pit of fire. It's worthless me telling the wife how much I love her while then ultimately saying I'll set her on fire if she doesn't kiss my nuts. Well, first we need to actually come to an agreement concerning worldviews, because "humanity is not ultimately valuable" isn't your typically atheist worldview. They all die, yes.. That doesn't mean they're not valuable. On the reverse of that you say with regards to theists "humanity is ultimately valuable" which surely isn't true. The only thing that is ultimately valuable is god. If you don't kill him it's because you don't want to burn, if you do kill him you'll find a way to get forgiveness sometime later. And it's not even a hassle for the guy they killed, he'll come back to life on a cloud with a free harp. So before we reach conclusions, logical or otherwise, let's reach agreement on a valid worldview. No. You'll find that the snip works better than god. (Out of interest, nowhere in the bible does god ever say it is wrong to sleep with children. He says it's wrong to sleep with people of the same sex, your parents and animals, but not one word about sleeping with children). As it's not in the bible and that is the theists 'guide to life' I'm sure they'll find their actions justified, (one only needs to look at many priests to show that point). Great, that makes it all better for the victim and their family. I don't see how you can argue it. As you have pointed out, a theist is moral because he knows a god is watching. Therefore when he refrains from doing wrong it is in his best interest, (saves him burning). You listen to your god because it is most advantageous for you. You don't listen to god because it's going to help someone else, but that it offers you a place in heaven. Of course. It's that area that causes so many problems in the world. In the earlier example of the guy with the cocaine addiction your actions did intentionally cause suffering because of that love - (although we would state it was ultimately for the best). Here's the thing as explained earlier though. These people come lower on the list than they do with atheists. With an atheist there is just people. With a theist there is a god that always ranks above every single human in existence, including ones own children - and from what I have seen, at the end of the day the theist wont care less about these people: How many campaigns or protests do you think god will get from heavens inhabitants that eternal burning is unjust and unfair? When you're sitting in heaven with your diet pepsi will you be in turmoil because half your family are in hell or will you be happy? If it's the former then heaven itself can't be all that good because to me it would still be torture, (knowing people I love are burning). If it's the latter, my point. How many protests are there now? How many church gatherings, or people praying at home actually ask this god to remove hell? How many theists in the history of mankind have actually stood up and asked god not to burn people but to find a less painful method of punishment? Your god has decided to eternally burn people that do not conform to his will. I see very few theists that actually have a problem with that. If I believed in this deity it would be the first thing on my agenda: "Look god, James R [eg] isn't a bad guy at all. He's been nice his whole life, helps the poor etc and yet you're going to burn him forever and ever because what.. he lacked a belief in you? No offence god, but that's some immoral sick shit right there. I would at least advise adopting a human method. You see god, a mass murderer gets the electric chair, but we can't do the same to someone that didn't pay his TV license. You have no such method.. they've done wrong, they burn forever, regardless to the crime. Fix it." 1) God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind (Num 23) 2) He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind (Sam 15) etc. You would perhaps argue that god is omniscient? In saying, he can't ever change because he already knows what he is going to do. That's the problem with omniscience. However, I wasn't talking about god changing his tone or his socks or whatever, but that his laws would not change - and jesus did indeed say all the laws were to be followed. (not one dot, not one stroke). Again you're only moral because your second life depends on it. That is you also doing that which is most advantageous for yourself. That is the way of humans. Now just replace heaven/hell and whatnot with prison etc and you have exactly the same thing - people doing what is most advantageous for themselves. ... or face eternal burning. His complete and total love that might ultimately send you to an eternal lake of fire is motivation for you to behave accordingly. Absolutely. It was his purpose after all.. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household" (matt 10) Sorry, that's somehow going to remove hatred? His purpose for being here was to make me hate my father, my mother, my own children. They are going to be my enemies and I love them the most, what to say of some guy on the other side of the planet? As I keep saying, everyone does.. atheists and theists. Why? Chemicals aren't powerful? And let's look at what jesus has to say on the matter: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.." Your own children, your own flesh and blood rank second place. In the atheist realm they come first. Valuing the lives of others is more pertinent with atheists because there will always be a human that ranks first place. That is not true of theists... no human will ever rank first place. Apparently I am not worthy because I love my own children too much. Fair enough. ... until you get to the eternal burning bit that is, the gnashing of teeth bit, the hate your own family bit, the not being worthy of him because you love your children more bit, etc etc - and that's after all the mass human killing bit done by daddy.
Jan Ardena: I don't think "lack" was my word, but rather was referring to an earlier comment by somebody else. But "lack a belief in gods" means no more than "not have a belief in gods", I imagine. You might want to ask the original poster, if this is concerning you. A "miracle" of some sort, witnessed by thousands of reliable witnesses (including non-religious people), perhaps. God telling us something we don't already know, perhaps. Can't you think of anything? Nobody has made the argument that because atheists don't believe in God, God doesn't exist. If anything, you have it the wrong way round. It should go: God doesn't exist; therefore atheists don't believe in him. Much more rational, that way. No. It's a claim, with as much evidence as the claim that life is more valuable when there's an afterlife. Yes, you could say that. So, we have a stalemate on this matter. Which was my original point. But Muslim suicide bombers tell us why they are blowing themselves up. There are plenty of videos left by them. Yes, they have political motives, but without religion they wouldn't be doing it. They are quite explicit about what they hope to obtain by their deaths. Only in the most superficial sense. Belief in supernatural beings is a continuum, not a dichotomy. If you want to be simplistic, though, you can define: theist: one who believes in one or more supernatural beings. atheist: one who does not believe in supernatural beings. I don't think it's hard. Do you?
A question: how would we individually reverify such claims, though, in the currently available instances? Certainly Jesus raising the dead and walking on water and the loaves and fishes thing and so forth could be called "witnessed by thousands of reliable witnesses" and if the Gospels were correct, even by presumably hostile ones at times. But there's no video, no audio, and the thousands didn't leave their own records? I think the issue is unverifiable.
James R, How would a "miracle" witnessed by thousands of reliable witnesses be better evidence than one reliable witness, or sciptures? How could you deduce that God or gods exist from such an event? God tells us (through) scripture that there is an afterlife. Does that qualify as God telling us something we don't know? To try and think of something that constitutes evidence for God, signifies a lack of understanding (imo). you said, Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's another way of saying God doesn't exist, unless atheists believe Santa may exist. Then why don't atheists just admit they believe God doesn't exist? Why the song and dance? It could also be argued that, without the political strategy of the west, they wouldn't be doing it. If suicide bombings were really a way to get to heaven, wouldn't every muslim be a suicide bomber? Or do you thinking they all have the potential due to their religion? Or; theist; one who believes in God atheist; one who does not believe in God. I would say that is the proper, simpler definition as "supernatural beings" could mean anything. Not at all. But atheists seem to think it hard for theists. Jan.
If I may answer that one? In science there is something called distrubution of repeated measurements. The more repeated the measurements the more closer to a bellcurve form you have - the more reliable the mean becomes. Therefor the more confident you can be that a hypothesis(your miracle for example) is null or stastistically significant. One measurement or one persons perception of an event is meaningless!
But it doesn't mean its not true. How could "distrubution of repeated measurements" determine whether it is true or not? If it can determine truth, then only one testimony is needed. Jan.
I just gave an explanation as to why the greater the number the greater the precision. I never proposed to give you the brain to make you think with.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not necessarily, no. But there are standards to determine when probability is high enough that correlation can be accepted as being linked no coincidental.
The standards (if you mean precision, repeatability, reproducibility, accuracy) are only useful indicators of the certainty of measurement of known parameters under certain very well defined conditions using known standardised tools. They say nothing about causation or the veracity of the relationship or the constant conjoining of disparate elements. The problem of causation has been well elucidated in Humes work, as has the problem of induction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_problem_of_causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_problem_of_induction edit: if you mean probability, that is in fact the level of probability of the correlation being constantly conjoined.
Who???? Wikipedia is not what I would call a reliable source, so I wont bother to look at it if you dont mind.
No problem, please refer to these: http://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Huma...4371347?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183665657&sr=8-2 http://www.amazon.com/Enquiry-Conce...4371347?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183665657&sr=8-3 After all, nothing on the internet is sacrosanct, not that it is in books either.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course, you could always read the links from wiki and use your own brain to make up your mind. The brain, I am afraid, I cannot supply you with.
OK I see, a philosopher. Where did I say I had belief that correlation between A and B is indisputably due to a link between A and B?
You said this: All I'm saying is that results!=inference, merely data. The interpretation is simply a matter of greater faith in the certainty of measuring known parameters, not the veracity of a relationship.
I repeat: Where did I say I had belief that correlation between A and B is indisputably due to a link between A and B?
You inferred meaningfulness from repeated measurements, did you not? When you declared perception of a single event by a single person to be meaningless? (Btw, I believe that there are exceptions to this rule too, in science for non recurring events)
Indeed I did, but I didn't infer indisputably. Not where I come from, measurements are either repeat throught a sample of a population or the same measurement is repeated over and over again for a single observation(such as the signature of a hydrogen atom) under controlled conditions.
You didn't not infer it either, but glad to clear that up. Thats not my problem.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! All "causal" events are non-recurring btw, you merely assume they are similar (ie represent the same effect) and use fancy stuff like standard deviation and standard error to draw inferences .Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I assume nothing of the sort. No measuring device is 100% accurate, no condition can be precisely repeated, and quantum laws have a habit of making things never the exact same twice. :shrug: These are all your assumptions so you can wrongly say: if something cannot be totally black and white, one can assume that anything can be merited as the answer. Like we dont know 100% that a bird outside the window stays up by pushing down the air, so we may as well say the combined people in all the world think it up there.
