Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

Please explain how logical regression is flawed. Remember it is not Christianity's certainty we are talking about here but logic's. If you deny it is certain that everything that began to exist has a cause then you are not going against Christianity or the other Abrahamic religions, but you are going against logic.

This seems to be an example of a flawed form of analysis and also masochistic. Why do you think this law should be inversely proportional to how much better something makes you feel? Isn't the opposite true in every occasion? The more someone makes you feel better around them the more truly you care about that person and value them. The more you feel better eating healthy or exercising the more truly it is a benefit to your health. The more you serve and help others the more you realize it is true that giving of ourselves is the key to feeling fulfilled in this life (and the next). It would seem to me that a Law of Beliefs would make someone less skeptical about something that made them feel better.

Did this then according to your own Law of Inverse Beliefs through you into doubt and skepticism about your unprovable atheism?

1) Logical regression is flawed because it assumes causality in situations where such causality either does not exist or cannot be identified. The God/Creator hypothesis is flawed for that reason.

2) Perhaps I didn't state this clearly enough for you. I am most skeptical of those beliefs that would make me feel good to have, because I'm liable to turn off my bullshit detector as a consequence. People believe the nonsensical tenets of religion because it feels good to them to do so, and as a result, they are credulous to a degree they never would be in other contexts. Stopping myself from adopting false beliefs merely because they would make me feel good isn't masochistic--if anything, it's the exact opposite: self-respect. This does NOT mean that I refrain from adopting a given belief--only that I examine myself carefully to make sure that I have adopted it because it is the truth, not because it makes me feel good. I consider that I have an intellectual obligation to strongly question those beliefs that might have some intrinsic benefits for me to profess (like social opportunities from becoming a member of a church, for example).

3) My atheism does not, in fact, make me feel better. My increased respect for life as a result of not being religious makes me happy. And so what if my atheism is "unprovable"? So is all religion. Besides, it's famously difficult to prove a negative. Therefore, in fact, I do not say "God does not exist." Rather, I say, "The existence of God is extremely unlikely." Beats the heck out of Christianity's illogical certitude.

Quote: stinkingliberal

That's a meaningless concept until you define "creation," which in turn depends on whether you identify a creator, or at least a causal force, to explain the universe's formation. Science posits just such a force; religion posits an old bearded guy.

It would be more accurate to say that mathematics is a FEATURE of this universe that we live in, and that in other universes, mathematics might not apply at all.

Sorry. I guess I wrongly assumed that people know what creation means. 1."The action or process of bringing something into existence" 2.The bringing into of existence of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God.

Quote: stinkingliberal

I'll ignore the rather odious implied comparison of atheists to Stalin (who wasn't actually an atheist at all BTW) and answer the question with a seriousness that it probably doesn't deserve.

Caution on two fronts: First of all you are wrong, Stalin was an atheist, it is just a fact. Secondly, without Evenbob here we have a real chance to keep things civil and rational, don't blow it.

Quote:

What would/should stop a person from committing a horrible act? Indeed, it should be his conscience/moral code, not God waving a stick. Conversely, if someone wants to commit such an act but refrains from it because of fear of divine punishment, isn't that morally inferior to someone whose conscience prevents him from contemplating that act in the first place, even with no threat of punishment?

Yes I would agree. In Christian theology what is known as a "perfect act of contrition" is a confession of sin not because of the fear of punishment but rather because one loves God and loves others.

Quote:

We can be good without God. I consider myself a moral person and don't commit criminal acts not because I fear punishment (by the cops or by God), but because I think those acts are wrong. BTW, I break three of four of the Ten Commandments on a routine basis because I don't think it's wrong to covet my neighbor's wife's ass, or however that goes, and I take God's damn name in vain routinely.

I was going to ask a question and then you answered it yourself. I was going to ask that if you don't commit criminal acts because you think those acts are wrong then what do you do when you don't think some criminal act is wrong? You then went on to say that you regularly break 3 or 4 of the Ten Commandments because you don't think it is wrong. Don't you see the problem with making yourself the arbiter of deciding what is right and wrong? Don't you see how that would and should scare me or especially your neighbor and his wife?

You seem to be saying that you can be good without God as long as you want to?!? What about when telling the truth on your taxes is an inconvenience or you justify in your own mind the need for a new jetski? What happens if you get so angry at someone that you no longer think it is wrong to kill them? This is not being a moral person, this seems more like selfishness to me disguised as goodness, when what you really use as the measuring stick of goodness is if it is good for you. You need a much bigger and more objective stick.

Quote: stinkingliberal

1) Logical regression is flawed because it assumes causality in situations where such causality either does not exist or cannot be identified. The God/Creator hypothesis is flawed for that reason.

If you see a ball rolling across the floor is it an assumption to say that some force acted upon the ball? Of course not. Causality is not dependent or the force being identified. It is 100% true and not an assumption that if something began to exist then it has a cause. There is no flaw I can see with that logic. I await your attempt to show that there is.

Quote:

2) ...I consider that I have an intellectual obligation to strongly question those beliefs that might have some intrinsic benefits for me to profess (like social opportunities from becoming a member of a church, for example).

Excellent, thank you for clarifying, you and I are in agreement on this point.

Quote:

3) My atheism does not, in fact, make me feel better. My increased respect for life as a result of not being religious makes me happy. And so what if my atheism is "unprovable"? So is all religion. Besides, it's famously difficult to prove a negative. Therefore, in fact, I do not say "God does not exist." Rather, I say, "The existence of God is extremely unlikely." Beats the heck out of Christianity's illogical certitude.

Thank you for being very honest in your atheistic convictions, that is not often admitted by those who claim to be atheists.

I am not sure how not being religion increases your respect for life. Perhaps you mean that you are staggered by the improbability of life and all the amazing random occurrences and laws that had to be so precise in order to have life as we know it. If that is the case imagine if you kept this same staggering improbability but added to it the notion that we are not an accident but created for a purpose and that we will live forever and all that we are and do matters and does not end in vain? That would be a true increased respect for life.

Quote: stinkingliberal

That's a meaningless concept until you define "creation," which in turn depends on whether you identify a creator, or at least a causal force, to explain the universe's formation. Science posits just such a force; religion posits an old bearded guy.

It would be more accurate to say that mathematics is a FEATURE of this universe that we live in, and that in other universes, mathematics might not apply at all.

I imagine pew could answer this better than I, nevertheless let me just say that religion does not posit an old bearded guy, that type of simple straw-man needs to be rejected. Religion knew about and knew personally this "force" that science now posits, long before science posited it.

Whoa horsey...where did these other universes come in? Let's continue to talk about reality not fantasy. Can you really imagine a universe where mathematics might not apply? You should send this idea to Nareed for a truly crazy science fiction book.

Quote: FrGamble

I imagine pew could answer this better than I, nevertheless let me just say that religion does not posit an old bearded guy, that type of simple straw-man needs to be rejected. Religion knew about and knew personally this "force" that science now posits, long before science posited it.

Whoa horsey...where did these other universes come in? Let's continue to talk about reality not fantasy. Can you really imagine a universe where mathematics might not apply? You should send this idea to Nareed for a truly crazy science fiction book.

The difference between science and religion (of all stripes) is that science views that force as a part of the nature of the universe, not created or driven by a sentient being, while religion views it as being sentient, purposeful, anthropomorphic, and capable of and willing to communicate with humans. When religions begin to discuss the details of that, that's when the swords are drawn.

The existence of other universes is in the realm of science, not fantasy. Much of quantum theory suggests that there may be an infinite number of simultaneously existing alternate universes, of which ours is only one. Of course, that flies in the face of Christian dogma, but that's an irrelevant consideration (Christianity only admitted that the earth revolves around the sun in 1994, after all).

And as to what I can or cannot imagine, I refer you to this quote: "...my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose" (J. Haldane, 1927). I prefer this vast unknown to religion's unwavering certainty that it has everything figured out.

Quote: stinkingliberal

The difference between science and religion (of all stripes) is that science views that force as a part of the nature of the universe, not created or driven by a sentient being,

Only scientists that forget the goal and purview of science or are very bad philosophers. The "force" that created the universe is not like the material universe it created otherwise this force would as you say be part of it and therefore subject to the same need for a cause of its existence. It must be totally other. However, we can know some things about this force: it is all-powerful, outside time and space, and spiritual (non-material). You could also argue based on what we know about the universe and our experience in it that this force is intelligent and personal, but that is a big debate. What is not up for debate is that science cannot speak of things it cannot observe or that is not material. That discussion is best left up to philosophy, logic, and theology.

Quote:

The existence of other universes is in the realm of science, not fantasy. Much of quantum theory suggests that there may be an infinite number of simultaneously existing alternate universes, of which ours is only one. Of course, that flies in the face of Christian dogma, but that's an irrelevant consideration (Christianity only admitted that the earth revolves around the sun in 1994, after all).

Okay this does not fly only in the face of Christian dogma it flies in the face of reason and logic. What you are positing has no proof and is actually impossible. You cannot have a "real" infinite of anything made of matter or subject to time. The reasons are well...infinite.

Quote:

And as to what I can or cannot imagine, I refer you to this quote: "...my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose" (J. Haldane, 1927). I prefer this vast unknown to religion's unwavering certainty that it has everything figured out.

I wish I had anything figured out. Do you suppose that the Universe may be so queer as to actually have been created by an allpowerful and loving God who loves you and created you full of meaning, dignity, value, and with an eternal destiny?

Quote: FrGamble

Genocide is not justice.

If metaphysically possible, do remind Jehovah of that when you see him, hopefully many decades from now.

Quote:

I also still notice that you, thank God, maintain that genocide properly understood is a grave evil. As an atheist what grounds this conviction. What if you were Stalin and thought that the extermination of groups of people was beneficial to yourself or the state, what besides the inate goodness of yourself and your conscience would stop you?

The fact that I'm an atheist and won't lean on the crutch of an imaginary all-powerful being or entity to sanction any crime, no matter how heinous.

But, you see, this is why we can't have a civilized discussion. Your assumption is that there cannot be morality without belief in a deity, when we can patently see that such belief matters as much as the character of the person holding it. Or has no Catholic ever done something immoral, like, raping children or launching the inquisition?

I admit it: I have not kicked any puppies, strangled any kittens or cooked any babies in my whole life. I must be a terrible atheist.

Quote: Nareed

But, you see, this is why we can't have a civilized discussion. Your assumption is that there cannot be morality without belief in a deity, when we can patently see that such belief matters as much as the character of the person holding it.

You are perfectly correct and I'm sorry if I am not being more clear on this point. I am sure that you are a more moral person than many Christians I know. You can be morally good without belief in a deity. I know that and have seen examples of this.

My only point is that atheism is no help to living a moral life and taken seriously it can actually be a temptation to not be moral, or at least be diabolically selfish. It is to your credit and many others that while they philosophically hold the illogical position of atheism (sorry I couldn't help myself) they ignore it when they decide how they should live their lives and instead follow the innate goodness and compassionate conscience that has been formed within them.

Quote: FrGamble

My only point is that atheism is no help to living a moral life and taken seriously it can actually be a temptation to not be moral, or at least be diabolically selfish.

So it's not different from religion?