[quote]Sloth wrote:
A rather misguided group of fraudsters in that case. Typically you’re trying to gain something besides persecution and even martyrdom. [/quote]
An excellent point.
What did Saul of Tarsus gain? Would you say it was more or less than he would have gained as a low-ranking Pharisee enforcer?[/quote]
What did St. Paul gain? Genius for one, if he wasn’t one before conversion he certainly was one after. He also loved his job as was at peace and happy. He also gained the Kingdom, which doesn’t mean a whole lot to you I am sure, but it was everything to him.
So it depends on what your definition of ‘gain’ is. He didn’t live a life of luxury, was not waited on hand and foot and had no real possessions.
I say his gain was everything in Christ. You only need to read what he wrote.
He was also one of the most influential people in history, something he never would have been as a Pharisee.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The universe can exist without God? Hawkins says yes.
The universe can exist without moral right or wrong? I’d have to assume Hawkins would say yes. So then what? Hawkins believes in something he himself doesn’t actually believes exist? Now THAT sounds weird.[/quote]
So does his theory for how the universe exists without God. Put simply, the law of gravity just magically existed which was responsible for the rest. All he did was put gravity in the place of God as creator. He never explains where the law of Gravity comes from. Which is further problematic when you figure in nobody knows exactly what gravity is. Like morality we know it exists because of what it does, we don’t know what it is, other than a force.
And I am not sure when the multiverse theory is going to die it’s heat death, but look forward to it.
Rightness undeniably exists in Dawkins’ world.[/quote]
One shred of evidence, since it is “undeniable.” I want to be able to measure it with SI units.
[/quote]
Rectitude is measured in microns.[/quote]
I still await my evidence. The human mind no more makes rightness a reality than it does God.[/quote]
Actually, considering that the rotation of our galaxy and many others, the rotation of the sun, the orbit of the planets and our moon, and the spin of the earth itself are all counter-clockwise, it is safe to say that the universe actually has more leftness than rightness.[/quote]
Push has a point. One who has no religious background or learning does not understand Christianity outside of a few cliche scripture passages can’t hold a Christian’s feet to the fire with regard to the practice of Christianity. If you do not know the Christian faith, you do not know what is or is not permissible for the Christian to do.[/quote]
Sure. It’s a fair argument. One can’t criticize something that they don’t know all that much.
But just how much do you need to learn in order to know enough to call yourself a Christian? What if you’ve been baptized and go to church every week-end and pray before bed and meals and do everything that seems Godly, but you never took the time to really understand what the Bible says?
Can such an individual dare to call out anyone in their church for un-Christian like behavior?
[/quote]
Technically only in the extreme. We’re not supposed to be in the business of casting judgement or gossip. Doesn’t stop it, it still happens.
You may have a point. And it may mean something to me and it may even be right. But it’s not grounded, so it would mean less to you than it would to me, despite how strongly you feel about it.
And if we remove the wooden beam from our own eye?
[quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
We’re all human. Everybody needs criticism, nobody has “the answer”.[/quote]
Christians do, ostensibly speaking.[/quote]
And nobody else? Please.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is some confusion here about the two meanings of “rightness.” We are talking about “rightness” as in “moral goodness,” not “demonstrable correctness.” Your color analogy is creating a sort of porridge of the two. On Dawkinsian atheism, goodness, like a favorite color, exists. It’s just, like favorite colors, arbited in the human mind (the two are unlike in many other ways, which is why they say that all analogies limp). As opposed to god the arbiter. Either way, what “good” is is being decided.[/quote]
The first is the one I’ve been addressing all along. I want it demonstrated that Hawking has rightness in his universe. You can’t because what you’re (Hawking/Dawkins) actually talking about are personal preferences that carry no more weight than having a favorite color. Rightness has no place. It (rightness/wrongness) is left over superstitious, mumbo-jumbo, that these things guys are afraid to let go of. So now we’re left basically debating the existence of the right favorite color. It’s meaningless.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The point being that it is flatly wrong (incorrect) to say that “goodness” does not exist on atheism. It is simply subjective goodness vis-a-vis the human mind rather than subjective goodness vis-a-vis god.[/quote]
Well, if it’s subjective I can’t actually be “wrong.”
No, he isn’t on record saying such a thing, and he certainly doesn’t have to be. After all, his conception of goodness is at odds with the Nazis’.[/quote]
Oooooh, is it at odds with the rightness of the Nazis? Is his rightness completely contradictory to theirs! Well too bad! They both have rightness on their side! Neither can actually be wrong!
What an absolutely meaningless cluster…The best either could say is that they have preferences and that’s it. He likes green and the Nazis like gray.
[quote]The point is simply that there is demonstrable evidence that subjective “rightness” (moral rightness) exists. Denial of this will lead to one of two inescapable absurdities:
The Holocaust did not happen[/quote]
Wait, how does denying the existence of subjective rightness mean the Holocaust didn’t happen? If anything subjective rightness means it WASN’T, in fact, wrong. One’s position being but a preference, not a correct fact…like having a favorite color.
[quote]or
When the architects of the Holocaust considered their occupation “right” (morally right), they were objectively correct*.[/quote]
???
Or, they were wrong…Though it was their preference.
Sorry, not seeing how atheistic rightness “exists.” You’ve only argued about preferences that can in fact stand in complete contradiction to each other, proving the non-existence of their rightness (like, yet again, choice of the ‘right’ favorite color).
Yet that isn’t my God’s nature. I mean, gravity could have us all rocketing off towards the sun, despite masses and distances remaining the same…
Instead my God is more like a universal force–like Hawking’s creator gravity–who is ultimately inescapable and unassailable. I mean, I can say “gosh, I think I’ll decide to fly off this building without any means of propulsion, lift, and steering” and so jump. But I won’t escape gravity. In the end, I will not escape God either.
In their rightness, rightness is like a pair of socks they could change at any moment, and never actually be wrong.
Rightness undeniably exists in Dawkins’ world.[/quote]
One shred of evidence, since it is “undeniable.” I want to be able to measure it with SI units.
[/quote]
Rectitude is measured in microns.[/quote]
I still await my evidence. The human mind no more makes rightness a reality than it does God.[/quote]
Actually, considering that the rotation of our galaxy and many others, the rotation of the sun, the orbit of the planets and our moon, and the spin of the earth itself are all counter-clockwise, it is safe to say that the universe actually has more leftness than rightness.[/quote]
And I happen to be left-handed. Read into that what you will, just keep it secret, keep it safe.
And, Smh, I leave it at that. That’s my position laid out at as thoroughly as I’d care to do so here. I concede that I may be too dumb to understand you for you to convince me of what is you’re trying to convince me of. What the hell was that sentence? Anyways, my continuing to participate causes me to feel two things;
That at this point I’m badgering a person who clearly doesn’t agree with me, and almost certainly won’t. I don’t want to be that guy. That badgering away, wear them down in order to get the last word guy. Let the reader decide, be respectful, and know when it’s time to let the chips fall where they may.
Boredom where there was initially some interest. I can only gnaw on the same bone for a limited time.
And I happen to be left-handed. Read into that what you will, just keep it secret, keep it safe.[/quote]
How about throwing, catching, jumping?[/quote]
Yep, full on left-sided dominant. In both gross and fine motor skills. Throwing and writing with my right-hand feels so unnatural, weak, and uncoordinated that it may as well be some kind of conjoined individual grafted onto my right side doing said activities on my (our) behalf. A weak, mincing, grafted-on drunk, at that.
And I happen to be left-handed. Read into that what you will, just keep it secret, keep it safe.[/quote]
How about throwing, catching, jumping?[/quote]
Yep, full on left-sided dominant. In both gross and fine motor skills. Throwing and writing with my right-hand feels so unnatural, weak, and uncoordinated that it may as well be some kind of conjoined individual grafted onto my right side doing said activities on my (our) behalf. A weak, mincing, grafted-on drunk, at that. [/quote]
I can use a screwdriver, saw or any tool that have a pivotal point with my right hand, no problem, but using a hammer with the right hand is practically impossible.
[quote]magick wrote:
Just because they cannot carry any real weight to their moral arguments doesn’t mean that they lack morals. It’s simply that their morals don’t have anything “substantial” to back them up.[/quote]
Right, exactly the issue at hand.
Now, the Atheist can claim the same true of the believer. Because “there is no God” there is nothing to substantiate their morals either.
So, at best the Atheist’s only argument is “I don’t like what you’ve done, because I think differently”. Which is fine, however, meaningless. It’s a discussion about feelings.
Now if the Atheist was to turn around and claim their moral code was built upon “is there a victim”. Suddenly we have measure, we have substantiation, and we have objectivity (at least to a degree.)
[quote]
I still don’t get why you’re capitalizing atheists as if it means anything.[/quote]
Because keeping you frustrated with it keeps you engaged, lol.
[quote]
Well, there is a reason why I wrote “man enough”. A person will frequently know that they did wrong/argued poorly/w.e., but attempt to put up a facade to save face. A “man” in my book is someone who, among many other things, refuse to do this. They accept when they’re wrong.[/quote]
The bait I’m trying leave here is the "there is no god, so their is no difference between an Atheist and a believer when it comes to answering for mistakes and short comings.
[quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What’s worse:
a) Be crushed by the will of millions whom disagree with you
b) Abandon your faith to conform, and face those consequences?[/quote]
Lots of Christians got fed to lions back in the old days over their belief.[/quote]
Yeah… And there is a couple billion believers today…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, Smh, I leave it at that. That’s my position laid out at as thoroughly as I’d care to do so here. I concede that I may be too dumb to understand you for you to convince me of what is you’re trying to convince me of. What the hell was that sentence? Anyways, my continuing to participate causes me to feel two things;
That at this point I’m badgering a person who clearly doesn’t agree with me, and almost certainly won’t. I don’t want to be that guy. That badgering away, wear them down in order to get the last word guy. Let the reader decide, be respectful, and know when it’s time to let the chips fall where they may.
Boredom where there was initially some interest. I can only gnaw on the same bone for a limited time.[/quote]
I am going to resist the urge to counter your last post out of respect for this. All I’ll say is that I still see a lot of disconnect between us and most of it continues to issue from “rightness” (moral goodness) v. “rightness” (correctness as achieved by some logical proof or unquestionable authority). We should have said “goodness” from the start (we’ll remember it for next time).
But I hope that this…
[quote]
I concede that I may be too dumb to understand you for you to convince me of what is you’re trying to convince me of.[/quote]
Was never the implication you took from me, my tone, or my posts.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The point being that it is flatly wrong (incorrect) to say that “goodness” does not exist on atheism. It is simply subjective goodness vis-a-vis the human mind rather than subjective goodness vis-a-vis god.[/quote]
That goodness would certainly have to be dubious seeing how it arrived vis-a-vis such a flawed character as man.[/quote]
Indeed it is dubious.
None of that from me. Man is spectacularly flawed.
By the way, I’m arguing about “on atheism,” not “on smh’s actual view of the world.” I believe – or choose to believe – that objective morality exists.
[quote] Sloth wrote:
I concede that I may be too dumb to understand you for you to convince me of what is you’re trying to convince me of.
smh_23 wrote:
Was never the implication you took from me, my tone, or my posts.[/quote]
Oh, no, no. Never get that impression from you. Was just me humbly excusing myself, while letting you know you argued well. And, further, that any misunderstandings/disconnects could very well be from my end. I won’t sit here and insist it just couldn’t possibly be the case! No, it’s just some gracious humility. I’m trying to practice it more and more. It’s a journey.
And I happen to be left-handed. Read into that what you will, just keep it secret, keep it safe.[/quote]
How about throwing, catching, jumping?[/quote]
Yep, full on left-sided dominant. In both gross and fine motor skills. Throwing and writing with my right-hand feels so unnatural, weak, and uncoordinated that it may as well be some kind of conjoined individual grafted onto my right side doing said activities on my (our) behalf. A weak, mincing, grafted-on drunk, at that. [/quote]
I can use a screwdriver, saw or any tool that have a pivotal point with my right hand, no problem, but using a hammer with the right hand is practically impossible. [/quote]
Yeah, see, that’s just completely alien to me. For any action/tool if I have the option to use my left-hand, there is no question question that I’ll be doing just that. Heh, you know that stereo-typical ‘girl throw?’ That’s me throwing with my right-hand. I might as well be Taylor Swift throwing out the first pitch. I even have to bite down on a urge tom make a feminine unnh-tee-hee sound I as make a right-handed throw. Then for a short time after a right-handed throw I have this desire for my friends and I to go to the restroom together as a group so we can get in some juicy gossip time.
