3 Reasons Why Theism is Wrong.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The idea that moral behaviour requires a divine imperative is nonsense, but i readily agree with you that there are scores of people who’d behave destructively without them.

[/quote]

You and I both know where we diverge on this one, and I don’t think there’s any point in doing all that over again.

I still don’t see where, ultimately, you can hope to derive moral authority, though, outside of cultural agreement and general icky feelings. And we also both know where judgments based solely upon those can finally end up. [/quote]

Why do i need moral authority?

Even you act on an individual basis with regards to morality, regardless of the fact that it’s supposedly divinely inspired. The Catholic Church has acted, in it’s past, contrary to God’s law.

You would not act in any way like the Church did. You would not condone actions that hurt an innocent being, would you? You would not rationalise behaviour that had a direct negative impact on another person or persons, would you?

How you live your life according to how you perceive god’s law is not influenced by the actions of others, even if those other people are people of authority within the same religion. You’d condemn childmolestation by priests even if it was just a isolated incident.

[/quote]

The acts you speak of were certainly not part of the moral standard I am referring to. A priest who molests a child should be hung from tree by the neck until dead, if you ask me.

I’m wary of traveling down this road again, as you and I just go back and forth and end up back at the same place we started. You know that my position is that the moral standard IS God. And without God, well, what I said before applies. We are just reduced to making shit up based upon our always clouded, biased, emotional human reason.

The Church has had and will continue to have her problems. That should not be surprising, even, as Brother Chris often points out far more eloquently than I that Jesus himself appointed Peter as the first Pope of the Church. Peter then went on to thrice deny he knew Jesus at practically the very moment of Jesus’ death. Nobody, not even God himself, ever claimed the Church was going to be perfect. She is composed of men. Men fall and fail, and they need to be helped and guided along. This is tricky stuff, clearly, but the fact that it is so clearly difficult to follow a moral standard speaks, to me, to the fact that left on our own, without any such moral standard, we are certainly doomed.

Anyway what was the point we were working toward, again? :wink:

302

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:

I meant by the second half that in the response, “Can you explain why i experience love, friendship and beauty regardless of my atheism?” It seems you were interpreted as making a claim for a benefit of believing in God; the responder was asking why he has the benefits without the belief in God. At least that’s how I understood it.[/quote]

Yes, that’s correct. I was misinterpreted as stating that an atheist’s existence is cold and robotic, when that is not at all what I was saying.
[/quote]

You are correct, i did misread what you wrote, but guess what: i don’t even disagree with you.

We appreciate what we have more in light of adversity than when we coast through life without a worry.
[/quote]

At the core, I think you and I probably agree with quite a bit more than we disagree with.

You are also very good at honestly challenging me to defend my beliefs. That’s probably why we get along so well even though we spend most of our time arguing with each other! :wink:

303

[quote]Cortes wrote:

The acts you speak of were certainly not part of the moral standard I am referring to. A priest who molests a child should be hung from tree by the neck until dead, if you ask me.

I’m wary of traveling down this road again, as you and I just go back and forth and end up back at the same place we started. You know that my position is that the moral standard IS God. And without God, well, what I said before applies. We are just reduced to making shit up based upon our always clouded, biased, emotional human reason.

The Church has had and will continue to have her problems. That should not be surprising, even, as Brother Chris often points out far more eloquently than I that Jesus himself appointed Peter as the first Pope of the Church. Peter then went on to thrice deny he knew Jesus at practically the very moment of Jesus’ death. Nobody, not even God himself, ever claimed the Church was going to be perfect. She is composed of men. Men fall and fail, and they need to be helped and guided along. This is tricky stuff, clearly, but the fact that it is so clearly difficult to follow a moral standard speaks, to me, to the fact that left on our own, without any such moral standard, we are certainly doomed.

Anyway what was the point we were working toward, again? :wink:
[/quote]

I break commandment 1,3,4 and 5. I don’t think they’re very important commandments if you compare them to not killing, stealing and coveting.

Many a christian killed, stole and coveted inspite of this moral commandment. If i’m a better christian without actually being one, the value of having divine morality is greatly deminished.

Why then demand moral authority?

Why then, on an individual basis, do i need to have a divine backing of my moral ruleset if without one i’m a better person than a lot of christians?

304

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Right, and i’m okay with that, aren’t you?

305

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

The acts you speak of were certainly not part of the moral standard I am referring to. A priest who molests a child should be hung from tree by the neck until dead, if you ask me.

I’m wary of traveling down this road again, as you and I just go back and forth and end up back at the same place we started. You know that my position is that the moral standard IS God. And without God, well, what I said before applies. We are just reduced to making shit up based upon our always clouded, biased, emotional human reason.

The Church has had and will continue to have her problems. That should not be surprising, even, as Brother Chris often points out far more eloquently than I that Jesus himself appointed Peter as the first Pope of the Church. Peter then went on to thrice deny he knew Jesus at practically the very moment of Jesus’ death. Nobody, not even God himself, ever claimed the Church was going to be perfect. She is composed of men. Men fall and fail, and they need to be helped and guided along. This is tricky stuff, clearly, but the fact that it is so clearly difficult to follow a moral standard speaks, to me, to the fact that left on our own, without any such moral standard, we are certainly doomed.

Anyway what was the point we were working toward, again? :wink:
[/quote]

I break commandment 1,3,4 and 5. I don’t think they’re very important commandments if you compare them to not killing, stealing and coveting.

Many a christian killed, stole and coveted inspite of this moral commandment. If i’m a better christian without actually being one, the value of having divine morality is greatly deminished.

Why then demand moral authority?

Why then, on an individual basis, do i need to have a divine backing of my moral ruleset if without one i’m a better person than a lot of christians?[/quote]

Because you are still falling into the trap of establishing your own morality, and ignoring that one commandment is no less important than another. You can think of the commandments as the stones in an arched bridge. The keystone is the golden rule. All of the other stones make up the body of the arch. The removal of the keystone causes the entire structure to come tumbling down upon itself. The removal of any other stone may not cause the entire bridge to collapse at once, but its structure becomes ever less stable, and it will eventually crumble and fall.

That’s an extremely simplified and possibly strained explanation, but it gets to the heart of why.

306

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Right, and i’m okay with that, aren’t you?
[/quote]

I don’t believe everyone is full of shit. Just the ones who disagree with me :wink:

307

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

The acts you speak of were certainly not part of the moral standard I am referring to. A priest who molests a child should be hung from tree by the neck until dead, if you ask me.

I’m wary of traveling down this road again, as you and I just go back and forth and end up back at the same place we started. You know that my position is that the moral standard IS God. And without God, well, what I said before applies. We are just reduced to making shit up based upon our always clouded, biased, emotional human reason.

The Church has had and will continue to have her problems. That should not be surprising, even, as Brother Chris often points out far more eloquently than I that Jesus himself appointed Peter as the first Pope of the Church. Peter then went on to thrice deny he knew Jesus at practically the very moment of Jesus’ death. Nobody, not even God himself, ever claimed the Church was going to be perfect. She is composed of men. Men fall and fail, and they need to be helped and guided along. This is tricky stuff, clearly, but the fact that it is so clearly difficult to follow a moral standard speaks, to me, to the fact that left on our own, without any such moral standard, we are certainly doomed.

Anyway what was the point we were working toward, again? :wink:
[/quote]

I break commandment 1,3,4 and 5. I don’t think they’re very important commandments if you compare them to not killing, stealing and coveting.

Many a christian killed, stole and coveted inspite of this moral commandment. If i’m a better christian without actually being one, the value of having divine morality is greatly deminished.

Why then demand moral authority?

Why then, on an individual basis, do i need to have a divine backing of my moral ruleset if without one i’m a better person than a lot of christians?[/quote]

Because you are still falling into the trap of establishing your own morality, and ignoring that one commandment is no less important than another. You can think of the commandments as the stones in an arched bridge. The keystone is the golden rule. All of the other stones make up the body of the arch. The removal of the keystone causes the entire structure to come tumbling down upon itself. The removal of any other stone may not cause the entire bridge to collapse at once, but its structure becomes ever less stable, and it will eventually crumble and fall.

That’s an extremely simplified and possibly strained explanation, but it gets to the heart of why.

[/quote]

The slippery slope-argument was used even back then, eh? There’s a flaw in this line of reasoning though Cortes:

Because the commandments are an external set of rules and have to be imposed on people in order for them to follow the rules, it makes sense that, if one rule is ignored, gradually the whole set of rules may become ignored.

However, because I do not have these rules imposed on me, but instead I follow an internal set of rules based on experience, conviction and conscience, it’s damn hard to ignore even one of my rules.

That doesn’t mean i never justify side-stepping them once in a while, but it’s never to the detriment of someone else.

308

900×688 154 KB

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Right, and i’m okay with that, aren’t you?
[/quote]

I don’t believe everyone is full of shit. Just the ones who disagree with me ;)[/quote]

I believe we all stumble through life clutching at straws trying to make sense of it all.

309

900×688 154 KB

310

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Pat, you rejected my means of proving a claim by using a [infrared] camera, remember?

It was a verification in a scenario where there was none available. The point is, as stated before, is that physical reality is proven by consensus. It the table example, the infered camera is fine, so long as no third party was there to back up on of the two claims. But let’s say you, who did not see the table, and the other guy who did see the table, still observed the same things with the inferred image. I.E. you saw no table, and he saw the table in the inferred image? Who is right?[/quote]

Fine, within this unlikely and far from rational scenario there’d be no sure way of ascertaining who is right and who is wrong. Congrats.
[/quote]
Correct. Hypotheticals aren’t necessarily designed to be real, they are designed to illustrate a point. The basal point is that empirical reality, requires the verification of others in order for facts to be established. This actually happens a lot in the cutting edge of science. Theories, to be accepted, need consensus. What further muddies the waters then is how bias, personal beliefs, paradigm can color scientific observation.
To break it down, empiricism is built on the flawed perceptions of people. We reduce but not eliminate errors based on consensus. That is why it can never be 100% wholly reliable.

I am not sure I explained it well, do understand what I am getting at?

[quote]

[quote]
Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. Life - definition of life by The Free Dictionary

All these functions depend on the brain.

All of which describe the difference between living and non-living things, not what life actually is.
Plants don’t have brains, are they therefore dead?[/quote]

As a mammal i wasn’t thinking of plants, but no, plants aren’t dead inspite of the absence of a brain.

That’s actually an interesting way of looking at it. Like you need a radio to pick up the waves that make music. But that’s not actually how we do it…We build on clues to determine these ‘things’ are and that is how we tap into the metaphysical ‘network’…

[quote]

All I am getting at here is what is ‘Life’ what is it that makes you, you. If I took your body and supported all your systems with machines, we could make all your mechanisms work, but you ain’t there.

311

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sense of justice built into the brain

Perhaps metaphysical concepts aren’t that metaphysical to begin with?[/quote]

In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]

Mind-body isn’t in the realm of psychology. It’s like trying to study Moby Dick with algebra…It’s not in the scope.

312

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]Well bless my soul it’s settled then =]
[/quote]

Alteration of the brain through chemicals, injuries, and illness can cause changes in personality, memory, speech, etc. If the mind were separate from the body then why would these things be affected?
[/quote]
That’s not really what the mind-body problem is. The mind-body problem in a nut shell is that things exist that cannot be sensed by the body but are still in fact true. Like a mathematical principle.
It’s the physical vs. the metaphysical.

But to answer your question, you are only changing perception and understanding, not reality.

313

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

The acts you speak of were certainly not part of the moral standard I am referring to. A priest who molests a child should be hung from tree by the neck until dead, if you ask me.

I’m wary of traveling down this road again, as you and I just go back and forth and end up back at the same place we started. You know that my position is that the moral standard IS God. And without God, well, what I said before applies. We are just reduced to making shit up based upon our always clouded, biased, emotional human reason.

The Church has had and will continue to have her problems. That should not be surprising, even, as Brother Chris often points out far more eloquently than I that Jesus himself appointed Peter as the first Pope of the Church. Peter then went on to thrice deny he knew Jesus at practically the very moment of Jesus’ death. Nobody, not even God himself, ever claimed the Church was going to be perfect. She is composed of men. Men fall and fail, and they need to be helped and guided along. This is tricky stuff, clearly, but the fact that it is so clearly difficult to follow a moral standard speaks, to me, to the fact that left on our own, without any such moral standard, we are certainly doomed.

Anyway what was the point we were working toward, again? :wink:
[/quote]

I break commandment 1,3,4 and 5. I don’t think they’re very important commandments if you compare them to not killing, stealing and coveting.

Many a christian killed, stole and coveted inspite of this moral commandment. If i’m a better christian without actually being one, the value of having divine morality is greatly deminished.

Why then demand moral authority?

Why then, on an individual basis, do i need to have a divine backing of my moral ruleset if without one i’m a better person than a lot of christians?[/quote]

Because you are still falling into the trap of establishing your own morality, and ignoring that one commandment is no less important than another. You can think of the commandments as the stones in an arched bridge. The keystone is the golden rule. All of the other stones make up the body of the arch. The removal of the keystone causes the entire structure to come tumbling down upon itself. The removal of any other stone may not cause the entire bridge to collapse at once, but its structure becomes ever less stable, and it will eventually crumble and fall.

That’s an extremely simplified and possibly strained explanation, but it gets to the heart of why.

[/quote]

The slippery slope-argument was used even back then, eh? There’s a flaw in this line of reasoning though Cortes:

Because the commandments are an external set of rules and have to be imposed on people in order for them to follow the rules, it makes sense that, if one rule is ignored, gradually the whole set of rules may become ignored.

However, because I do not have these rules imposed on me, but instead I follow an internal set of rules based on experience, conviction and conscience, it’s damn hard to ignore even one of my rules.

That doesn’t mean i never justify side-stepping them once in a while, but it’s never to the detriment of someone else.

[/quote]

I thought you would say this, and I was actually going to add an addendum to my last post stating exactly this: I think you are a good guy and I believe this to be true. Problem is that you are not representative of the majority of humanity, and as a general rule, society as a whole needs every rule to continue to thrive and succeed and provide the most peace and happiness for the most people.

The other side of it, that I’m certain you will disagree with, is that the willful, knowledgeable defiance of any of the commandments is a mortal sin, that which separates us from God. Now, as an atheist and from a human standpoint, you may find it ridiculous that not taking the Lord’s name in vain is put on equal footing with not murdering, but they aren’t human laws, they are God’s.

314

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I thought you would say this, and I was actually going to add an addendum to my last post stating exactly this: I think you are a good guy and I believe this to be true. Problem is that you are not representative of the majority of humanity, and as a general rule, society as a whole needs every rule to continue to thrive and succeed and provide the most peace and happiness for the most people.

The other side of it, that I’m certain you will disagree with, is that the willful, knowledgeable defiance of any of the commandments is a mortal sin, that which separates us from God. Now, as an atheist and from a human standpoint, you may find it ridiculous that not taking the Lord’s name in vain is put on equal footing with not murdering, but they aren’t human laws, they are God’s.
[/quote]

Hadn’t even thought about that, but thenagain, you’re not a representative of the bible thumping, fire and brimstone yelling subset of believers we have on this board either.

But let’s be honest here: that this is an issue in your homeland in the 21 century is truly baffling to me.

315

Pat:

I think so, but that doesn’t mean i agree ofcourse.

Really? You’re gonna go with this? Okay then.

If you would clone my body, grow in a lab until it’s biological age would match mine then the mind of that clone is blank. It would not even have the mind of a baby. The clone’s body functions, it may even register brainwaves and have it’s heart beating, but it’s mind is not there.

I think you’d agree. The reason for the mind not being there is the lack of experience. And even if the clone would’ve been raised in a family from infancy, then still it’s mind would be different from mine because of different variables experienced during childhood.

There may be similarities, like identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in different families but find that they share likes and dislikes, but that the genetic component that drives certain preferences.

Do you believe that when you were born you were born with an imprint of who you are now?

316

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]Well bless my soul it’s settled then =]
[/quote]

Alteration of the brain through chemicals, injuries, and illness can cause changes in personality, memory, speech, etc. If the mind were separate from the body then why would these things be affected?
[/quote]
That’s not really what the mind-body problem is. The mind-body problem in a nut shell is that things exist that cannot be sensed by the body but are still in fact true. Like a mathematical principle.
It’s the physical vs. the metaphysical.

But to answer your question, you are only changing perception and understanding, not reality.
[/quote]

The mind = soul and without proof I can understand I will not agree that the soul exists. I have no problem dismissing things beyond my perception and the perception of machines(or whatever) as not existing.

317

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sense of justice built into the brain

Perhaps metaphysical concepts aren’t that metaphysical to begin with?[/quote]

In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]

Mind-body isn’t in the realm of psychology. It’s like trying to study Moby Dick with algebra…It’s not in the scope.
[/quote]

To me the mind is not real. How do you study something that doesn’t exist?

318

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Right, and i’m okay with that, aren’t you?
[/quote]

I don’t believe everyone is full of shit. Just the ones who disagree with me ;)[/quote]

I believe we all stumble through life clutching at straws trying to make sense of it all.

[/quote]

I’m okay with not knowing, it makes things more interesting. :slight_smile:

319

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< beyond my perception >>>[/quote]Define perception please. By what criterion do you pronounce… whatever, as falling under the purview of your perception? Or not?

320

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< beyond my perception >>>[/quote]Define perception please.
[/quote]

Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the process by which an organism attains awareness or understanding of its environment by organizing and interpreting sensory information.[1][2] All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs.[3] For example, vision involves light striking the retinas of the eyes, smell is mediated by odor molecules and hearing involves pressure waves. Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but can be shaped by learning, memory and expectation.[4][5]

Wikipedia

???