Pat, having an honest criticism of religion doesn’t imply you don’t also see benefits to religion. Nor does it imply that all believers are the same. As I said, there are believers who would still serve others without needing to believe a god commanded them to do so.
I do sometimes find the religious beliefs themselves to be irrational (talking donkeys, causing the sun to stand still, turning water into wine, etc.) but moreso I find the stubborn insistence that one’s beliefs MUST reflect reality to be irrational, particularly in contrast to billions of other believers who are equally convinced of their own beliefs. It’s easy to see the irrationality in others, and rare to see it in oneself.
And yes, as I’ve said many times, I admit my own beliefs could very well be mistaken.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, having an honest criticism of religion doesn’t imply you don’t also see benefits to religion. Nor does it imply that all believers are the same. As I said, there are believers who would still serve others without needing to believe a god commanded them to do so.
I do sometimes find the religious beliefs themselves to be irrational (talking donkeys, causing the sun to stand still, turning water into wine, etc.) but moreso I find the stubborn insistence that one’s beliefs MUST reflect reality to be irrational, particularly in contrast to billions of other believers who are equally convinced of their own beliefs. It’s easy to see the irrationality in others, and rare to see it in oneself.
And yes, as I’ve said many times, I admit my own beliefs could very well be mistaken.[/quote]
My comment about your implied sentiments where simply to show that your argument that mutual respect is good enough for good society while simultaneously showing that you had little or no respect for religion or those who practiced it.
I am kind of discussing on two fronts here. One is to assist the OP in his quest for ‘winning’ his class debate. Now for that, it takes good arguments and a keen eye for opposing bad arguments. There is no way of truly ‘winning’ this debate based on fact alone. We have no real world examples to base either potential conclusion. The only real world example is cooperative society made up of both believers and non-believers.
Kam made some good points that even in technically atheist/ secular society, it is not that in practice. That despite trying to oppress religion out of people, religion remained.
Also, that an apparent dip in religious belief in the populous is often replaced by other beliefs like occultism, bastardized eastern meditations, etc. So we have no real world examples to work with.
My argument is that society can get by with out religion at all, but that a society with religious people in it, who adhere to the core tenets of their faith better the society.
Pat, thanks for sharing your insights on metaphysics. Hopefully DD
will see my point that an entire branch of philosophy is dedicated to
understanding metaphysics, including the recognition that both
concrete and abstract objects are real.
DD, here are the definitions you requested.
Exist:
Supernatural:
[quote]1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural;
unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other
unearthly beings; eerie; occult.[/quote]
Note the second definition above re: the supernaturalness of gods.
Per the definition of abstract objects that I provided earlier,
someone’s god would only be an abstract object if it existed outside
space and time (true for most belief systems), and was noncausal
(untrue for most belief systems). Most believers (Christians, at
least) consider their god to be a concrete object, because their god
created the universe and thus is a causal being.
You might want to ask my perspective rather than assuming what I
believe re: faith. I’ve said many times on this board (even made a
post in the past few days specifically on this) that I have faith like
anyone else does. Faith is nothing more than an unproven assumption. I
have faith that I will still be alive tomorrow. I don’t know this, but
there is a pretty high probability that it will be true, so I act as
if it is true. However, I could be wrong, and am the first to admit
that.
I have no problem whatsoever with faith. What I do have a problem with
is the insistence on absolute certitude, as if your faith is actually
knowledge. Are you willing to admit even the remote possibility that
your god is made up? Some believers do get this, and are honest about
the potential incorrectness of their beliefs. But in my experience
people tend to dig their heels in the sand and insist their particular
beliefs MUST be true, and those who disagree with them MUST be wrong.
That makes no sense, and is unwarranted based on what we actually do
know.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for sharing your insights on metaphysics. Hopefully DD
will see my point that an entire branch of philosophy is dedicated to
understanding metaphysics, including the recognition that both
concrete and abstract objects are real.
DD, here are the definitions you requested.
Exist:
Supernatural:
[quote]1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural;
unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other
unearthly beings; eerie; occult.[/quote]
Note the second definition above re: the supernaturalness of gods.
Per the definition of abstract objects that I provided earlier,
someone’s god would only be an abstract object if it existed outside
space and time (true for most belief systems), and was noncausal
(untrue for most belief systems). Most believers (Christians, at
least) consider their god to be a concrete object, because their god
created the universe and thus is a causal being.
You might want to ask my perspective rather than assuming what I
believe re: faith. I’ve said many times on this board (even made a
post in the past few days specifically on this) that I have faith like
anyone else does. Faith is nothing more than an unproven assumption. I
have faith that I will still be alive tomorrow. I don’t know this, but
there is a pretty high probability that it will be true, so I act as
if it is true. However, I could be wrong, and am the first to admit
that.
I have no problem whatsoever with faith. What I do have a problem with
is the insistence on absolute certitude, as if your faith is actually
knowledge. Are you willing to admit even the remote possibility that
your god is made up? Some believers do get this, and are honest about
the potential incorrectness of their beliefs. But in my experience
people tend to dig their heels in the sand and insist their particular
beliefs MUST be true, and those who disagree with them MUST be wrong.
That makes no sense, and is unwarranted based on what we actually do
know.[/quote]
what natural law describes or governes rage? or the number 2?
You also claimed to have faith in morality. That is a different kind of faith, though I do agree, pretty much everyone does.
You seem to be arguing that because I can “feel” and “experience” rage that it makes it exist. Can I not also apply the same rule to god? What if I experience god the same way I feel rage?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for sharing your insights on metaphysics. Hopefully DD
will see my point that an entire branch of philosophy is dedicated to
understanding metaphysics, including the recognition that both
concrete and abstract objects are real.
DD, here are the definitions you requested.
Exist:
Supernatural:
[quote]1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural;
unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other
unearthly beings; eerie; occult.[/quote]
Note the second definition above re: the supernaturalness of gods.
Per the definition of abstract objects that I provided earlier,
someone’s god would only be an abstract object if it existed outside
space and time (true for most belief systems), and was noncausal
(untrue for most belief systems). Most believers (Christians, at
least) consider their god to be a concrete object, because their god
created the universe and thus is a causal being.
You might want to ask my perspective rather than assuming what I
believe re: faith. I’ve said many times on this board (even made a
post in the past few days specifically on this) that I have faith like
anyone else does. Faith is nothing more than an unproven assumption. I
have faith that I will still be alive tomorrow. I don’t know this, but
there is a pretty high probability that it will be true, so I act as
if it is true. However, I could be wrong, and am the first to admit
that.
I have no problem whatsoever with faith. What I do have a problem with
is the insistence on absolute certitude, as if your faith is actually
knowledge. Are you willing to admit even the remote possibility that
your god is made up? Some believers do get this, and are honest about
the potential incorrectness of their beliefs. But in my experience
people tend to dig their heels in the sand and insist their particular
beliefs MUST be true, and those who disagree with them MUST be wrong.
That makes no sense, and is unwarranted based on what we actually do
know.[/quote]
what natural law describes or governes rage? or the number 2?
You also claimed to have faith in morality. That is a different kind of faith, though I do agree, pretty much everyone does.
You seem to be arguing that because I can “feel” and “experience” rage that it makes it exist. Can I not also apply the same rule to god? What if I experience god the same way I feel rage?[/quote]
I am sure no atheist has a problem saying god has the same type of existence as an emotion. You might want to tread carefully here as certainly I’d have no problem saying god is the same as a mental state. Its likely the believer that thinks of him as something more.
Its easy to posit moral systems that have nothing to do with faith. Classic utilitarianism. Hedonism. Hell I could even get a lot of believers to agree with Schopenhauer’s idea that all morality must begin with compassion.
The number two has no physical existence its only exists as part of arithmetic. Its a mental construct.
So you believe things that have no material existence aren’t real? This isn’t usually a tact a believer would take. Seems a bit intellectually dishonest in fact. So for you no mental states are real only brain states? There is no soul? If you get angry and punch someone its merely a physical reaction to stimuli and nothing more, in fact we are exactly the same as every other animal? I’d grant that this is surely possible and that things like love, happiness, rage, sadness are all nonexistent and are simply electrochemical reactions in the brain. There is no personality. The feelings parents have for their children are merely consequences of biology and proximity and don’t exist in any other sense than that.
How do you reconcile these beliefs of yours with God? I’d think you’d be rather firmly in the atheist camp since nothing immaterial exists for you.
[quote]groo wrote:
I am sure no atheist has a problem saying god has the same type of existence as an emotion. You might want to tread carefully here as certainly I’d have no problem saying god is the same as a mental state. Its likely the believer that thinks of him as something more.
Its easy to posit moral systems that have nothing to do with faith. Classic utilitarianism. Hedonism. Hell I could even get a lot of believers to agree with Schopenhauer’s idea that all morality must begin with compassion.
The number two has no physical existence its only exists as part of arithmetic. Its a mental construct.
So you believe things that have no material existence aren’t real? This isn’t usually a tact a believer would take. Seems a bit intellectually dishonest in fact. So for you no mental states are real only brain states? There is no soul? If you get angry and punch someone its merely a physical reaction to stimuli and nothing more, in fact we are exactly the same as every other animal? I’d grant that this is surely possible and that things like love, happiness, rage, sadness are all nonexistent and are simply electrochemical reactions in the brain. There is no personality. The feelings parents have for their children are merely consequences of biology and proximity and don’t exist in any other sense than that.
How do you reconcile these beliefs of yours with God? I’d think you’d be rather firmly in the atheist camp since nothing immaterial exists for you.
[/quote]
You need to read all my posts. I do believe in the existance of the non-physical. It’s forelife that denies all things supernatural but believe rage is a real thing with an existence. There is no thing called rage. Show me quantifiable evidence of such a thing.
And I never compared god being like an emotion. I was asking if experience of an emotion means it exists, why can’t the same be said of god. If a table exists because I can stub my tow on it, so does a car tire, but that doesn’t mean a table and a car tire are alike.
And no, things like utilitarinaism are as faith based as anything. It’s based on a universal belief in good and bad. Same as any others. Anything using any sort of value assesment is faith based.
Please prove to me that anything non-physical exists. Or just show me some evidence. Any evidence.
[quote]groo wrote:
I am sure no atheist has a problem saying god has the same type of existence as an emotion. You might want to tread carefully here as certainly I’d have no problem saying god is the same as a mental state. Its likely the believer that thinks of him as something more.
Its easy to posit moral systems that have nothing to do with faith. Classic utilitarianism. Hedonism. Hell I could even get a lot of believers to agree with Schopenhauer’s idea that all morality must begin with compassion.
The number two has no physical existence its only exists as part of arithmetic. Its a mental construct.
So you believe things that have no material existence aren’t real? This isn’t usually a tact a believer would take. Seems a bit intellectually dishonest in fact. So for you no mental states are real only brain states? There is no soul? If you get angry and punch someone its merely a physical reaction to stimuli and nothing more, in fact we are exactly the same as every other animal? I’d grant that this is surely possible and that things like love, happiness, rage, sadness are all nonexistent and are simply electrochemical reactions in the brain. There is no personality. The feelings parents have for their children are merely consequences of biology and proximity and don’t exist in any other sense than that.
How do you reconcile these beliefs of yours with God? I’d think you’d be rather firmly in the atheist camp since nothing immaterial exists for you.
[/quote]
You need to read all my posts. I do believe in the existance of the non-physical. It’s forelife that denies all things supernatural but believe rage is a real thing with an existence. There is no thing called rage. Show me quantifiable evidence of such a thing.
And I never compared god being like an emotion. I was asking if experience of an emotion means it exists, why can’t the same be said of god. If a table exists because I can stub my tow on it, so does a car tire, but that doesn’t mean a table and a car tire are alike.
And no, things like utilitarinaism are as faith based as anything. It’s based on a universal belief in good and bad. Same as any others. Anything using any sort of value assesment is faith based.
Please prove to me that anything non-physical exists. Or just show me some evidence. Any evidence.[/quote]
If you already believe non physical things exist there is no need to prove it to you. This would be taking a somewhat intellectually dishonest position for you to assert it needs done. That is we agree on unstated premises and you will stay quiet so long as the conclusions are those you agree with, but the minute they differ you suddenly want those premises to be justified.
Utilitarianism would be based more like reducing suffering is moral. Increasing suffering is immoral. The devil is in the details of course as some actions aren’t easy to determine. And some asshole always brings up Hitler’s medical research or some such.
Hedonism would say personal pleasure is good which I suppose is a value judgement. I’d more call it a redefinition of what most people call good.
There has also been work done in trying to derive ethical principles from biology.
I think you misunderstand the nature of intangible things if you want physical evidence of their existence. Some do hold the position you are arguing though that there are no intangible things. I would say you can discern the results of intangible things but thats not a proof of their existence empirically though you will never have that. Your demand for physical proof for them is nonsensical as by definition these things are not physical.
Largely though if I understand most denominations of Christianity correctly you are saved or what have you through faith in God. Now if you have an empirical proof of God if God were suddenly proven to absolutely exist it would render faith meaningless.
So if you really want to hold that intangible things don’t exist because there is no physical proof. You may as well extend the argument to hold that nothing exists since there is no certain proof of physical objects existing in the state they appear to our senses. So there is no reason to believe anything exists, though we certainly do behave as if things do. So really there are only two types of things, those we mostly agree exist that do exist and those we don’t which don’t exist. You could say that largely its irrelevant on earth if God actually exists if people believe he does and act on this belief its the same thing as existing except eschatologically.
I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.
If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?[/quote]
No, emotions don’t exist in any way shape or form. They are abstract concepts.
So, they exist somehow. Okay. Prove the number 1. Prove happy. Prove beauty. Prove right.[/quote]
If rage doesn’t exist, then what is it? An illusion?
Emotions, numbers, letters, concepts, values, attitudes, theories, etc. all exist but they are abstract rather than concrete objects. It’s tempting to think that because something is abstract it isn’t real or it isn’t natural, but in metaphysics that isn’t the case.[/quote]
No, they do not exist. They are not a part of the physical universe. Period. Please define your words like I asked. I don’t think you honestly know what they mean.
No abstract concept is, in any way, real.
What you fail to realize is that Being minus the supernatural equals the physical and only the physical. Value is not a thing. It is not defined or governed by any component of the universe. There are only passing electrons in your brain. Without god, we are chemical machines indistinct from a metal rod oxidizing into rust. You are a pretty smart guy and I’m torn between believing your lack of realization about your own beliefs is willful ignorance or if you are just barely short on introspection.
There is no rational distinction between believing an abstract concept ACTUALLY exists and believing that a God does. You start throwing around blatant contradictions claiming things exist, but not in the universe, and they aren’t supernatural. You then use terminology to try to hide the contradiction and refuse to actually assign definitions to that terminology, I can only assume because that would reveal the contradiction. You actually believe in the number 2 independently from electrical pulses in your brain? The number 2 exists? Not 2 apples, or 2 nickles, but the number itself.
I do honestly believe that religion in the past has been harmful to you. But I also think your hatred for it has made you obtuse and close minded about God. You absolutely refuse to let any light in for fear it would betray your ideological revenge on anything related to God.
I know I don’t really open up about my own personal belief as much as some on this board. I normally keep my dogma to myself and speak on these things in very general terms, but I really do pray for you. You must have been deeply wounded in the past to build up your wall as fully as you have.[/quote]
If your emotions don’t exist, what are they? Are you saying you don’t
have emotions? I’m not understanding your perspective here.
I was hoping Pat would chime in re: metaphysics, abstract/concrete
objects, etc. I’m not making this up, it is basic metaphysics. Maybe
coming from a fellow believer you would give him more credibility.
[/quote]
Okay, okay…you are right. Metaphysics, abstracts, etc. are not unreal things, but very real things. They are not material but I would hardly argue that material is the end all, be all of all existence. Further, I would actually argue the stuff of metaphysics is actually more real. What I mean by that is that you can make better arguments for their existence than you ever could for anything physical. It’s not that physical things aren’t real, it’s that our senses are an best flawed measuring utensils. We cannot rely on them for completely accurate information and we cannot ever rule out deception. It’s an epistomological limitation. Not only are metaphysical entities real, but for many metaphysical objects you can make pretty strong and nearly infallible deductive arguments for their existence. You cannot do the same for material objects.
When it comes to materialism, we basically understand material reality by consensus. I see an object and call it a chair, you see an object and call it a chair, we agree it’s a chair, therefore it’s a chair. If you have disagreement then you need a third party for verification. If you have a disagreement and have no consensus, you cannot identify things. Further, I have no way of knowing that the object I identify as a chair appears the same to you or not, whether we agree on what it is or not.
Metaphysics doesn’t suffer from the paradigm of human observation. It’s existence is discovered by reason and logic, rather than physical observation.
More about physical objects, the more you drill down on them, the less physical they become. If you could make youself smaller than an atom your world would be ruled by charges and forces. So even at their core, physical objects aren’t really all that physical, they just look and feel that way.
I am afraid DD, forlife is correct. Metaphysical reality is still reality even if not physical. I know what you mean, but your wording is poor. Further, by the same logic, you would render God himself not real. He is, by and large, not material.
I’m working from his own premise that the supernatural is dumb. I’m trying to get him to acknowledge the blatant contradictions in his own belief system.[/quote]
Yeah, I don’t think you’re going to ‘get’ forlife with the line of reasoning you are using. We’ve had these type discussions many times and he does get the difference between physical and metaphysical existence. He understand the logic of material and immaterial things and he does not deny their existence.
Where FL is at, the last I remember was questioning the validity and truth of deductive logic itself. It’s an interesting take.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for sharing your insights on metaphysics. Hopefully DD
will see my point that an entire branch of philosophy is dedicated to
understanding metaphysics, including the recognition that both
concrete and abstract objects are real.
DD, here are the definitions you requested.
Exist:
Supernatural:
[quote]1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural;
unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other
unearthly beings; eerie; occult.[/quote]
Note the second definition above re: the supernaturalness of gods.
Per the definition of abstract objects that I provided earlier,
someone’s god would only be an abstract object if it existed outside
space and time (true for most belief systems), and was noncausal
(untrue for most belief systems). Most believers (Christians, at
least) consider their god to be a concrete object, because their god
created the universe and thus is a causal being.
You might want to ask my perspective rather than assuming what I
believe re: faith. I’ve said many times on this board (even made a
post in the past few days specifically on this) that I have faith like
anyone else does. Faith is nothing more than an unproven assumption. I
have faith that I will still be alive tomorrow. I don’t know this, but
there is a pretty high probability that it will be true, so I act as
if it is true. However, I could be wrong, and am the first to admit
that.
I have no problem whatsoever with faith. What I do have a problem with
is the insistence on absolute certitude, as if your faith is actually
knowledge. Are you willing to admit even the remote possibility that
your god is made up? Some believers do get this, and are honest about
the potential incorrectness of their beliefs. But in my experience
people tend to dig their heels in the sand and insist their particular
beliefs MUST be true, and those who disagree with them MUST be wrong.
That makes no sense, and is unwarranted based on what we actually do
know.[/quote]
what natural law describes or governes rage? or the number 2?
You also claimed to have faith in morality. That is a different kind of faith, though I do agree, pretty much everyone does.
You seem to be arguing that because I can “feel” and “experience” rage that it makes it exist. Can I not also apply the same rule to god? What if I experience god the same way I feel rage?[/quote]
I am sure no atheist has a problem saying god has the same type of existence as an emotion. You might want to tread carefully here as certainly I’d have no problem saying god is the same as a mental state. Its likely the believer that thinks of him as something more.
Its easy to posit moral systems that have nothing to do with faith. Classic utilitarianism. Hedonism. Hell I could even get a lot of believers to agree with Schopenhauer’s idea that all morality must begin with compassion.
[/quote]
Neither of those systems are properly functional in all scenarios. Second, what is morality and where did it come from?
No it’s not. It’s a metaphysical construct. A mental construct would imply that arithmetic is unique to each individual and it’s not. It’s transcending. If you do it different than somebody else, one of you is doing it wrong.
That’s not what I glean he is doing. It looks like he’s trying to point out that things do exist even if not physical, but assuming that atheist naturally adhere to empiricism. The problem is that it’s already acknowledged.
[quote]groo wrote:
I am sure no atheist has a problem saying god has the same type of existence as an emotion. You might want to tread carefully here as certainly I’d have no problem saying god is the same as a mental state. Its likely the believer that thinks of him as something more.
Its easy to posit moral systems that have nothing to do with faith. Classic utilitarianism. Hedonism. Hell I could even get a lot of believers to agree with Schopenhauer’s idea that all morality must begin with compassion.
The number two has no physical existence its only exists as part of arithmetic. Its a mental construct.
So you believe things that have no material existence aren’t real? This isn’t usually a tact a believer would take. Seems a bit intellectually dishonest in fact. So for you no mental states are real only brain states? There is no soul? If you get angry and punch someone its merely a physical reaction to stimuli and nothing more, in fact we are exactly the same as every other animal? I’d grant that this is surely possible and that things like love, happiness, rage, sadness are all nonexistent and are simply electrochemical reactions in the brain. There is no personality. The feelings parents have for their children are merely consequences of biology and proximity and don’t exist in any other sense than that.
How do you reconcile these beliefs of yours with God? I’d think you’d be rather firmly in the atheist camp since nothing immaterial exists for you.
[/quote]
You need to read all my posts. I do believe in the existance of the non-physical. It’s forelife that denies all things supernatural but believe rage is a real thing with an existence. There is no thing called rage. Show me quantifiable evidence of such a thing.
And I never compared god being like an emotion. I was asking if experience of an emotion means it exists, why can’t the same be said of god. If a table exists because I can stub my tow on it, so does a car tire, but that doesn’t mean a table and a car tire are alike.
And no, things like utilitarinaism are as faith based as anything. It’s based on a universal belief in good and bad. Same as any others. Anything using any sort of value assesment is faith based.
Please prove to me that anything non-physical exists. Or just show me some evidence. Any evidence.[/quote]
If you already believe non physical things exist there is no need to prove it to you. This would be taking a somewhat intellectually dishonest position for you to assert it needs done. That is we agree on unstated premises and you will stay quiet so long as the conclusions are those you agree with, but the minute they differ you suddenly want those premises to be justified.
Utilitarianism would be based more like reducing suffering is moral. Increasing suffering is immoral. The devil is in the details of course as some actions aren’t easy to determine. And some asshole always brings up Hitler’s medical research or some such.
[/quote]
Utilitarianism functions on the premise that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. Hence the ‘utility’ of a moral construct is what makes it right or wrong. And Hitler’s medical research does illuminate a striking problem with the basis of utilitarianism. I can only imagine a person bringing up the problem would be an asshole to a strict utilitarian.
Yeah, but I would hardly consider ‘Survival of the fittest’ a proper moral compass. Moral ‘catagories’ is a moving target. As soon as you come up with a moral philosophy, a circumstance is put forth where that philosophy doesn’t apply…
For instance, if you are divvying out hurricane aid, utlitarianism is a fine model to follow. Getting the aid to the most people possible is the right way to handle that. But a neighbor, should not leave another neighbor trapped in a house to go help handing out water and food to a bunch of people.
If the proof were empirical it would still be largely based on probability and hence still based on faith with a greater probability of being true.
[quote]
So if you really want to hold that intangible things don’t exist because there is no physical proof. You may as well extend the argument to hold that nothing exists since there is no certain proof of physical objects existing in the state they appear to our senses. So there is no reason to believe anything exists, though we certainly do behave as if things do. So really there are only two types of things, those we mostly agree exist that do exist and those we don’t which don’t exist. You could say that largely its irrelevant on earth if God actually exists if people believe he does and act on this belief its the same thing as existing except eschatologically. [/quote]
There is reason to believe things exist, there is little reason to believe they exist as we believe they do.
I am sure no atheist has a problem saying god has the same type of existence as an emotion. You might want to tread carefully here as certainly I’d have no problem saying god is the same as a mental state. Its likely the believer that thinks of him as something more.
[/quote]
I would think said atheist would argue that what ever the experience, was largely illusory though. I seriously doubt a proper atheist would acknowledge the legitimacy of a religious experience. The mistake however, is the belief that such experience is rooted in emotion and it’s not. Though it can be emotional at times.
Guy, seriously…stimulate the right regions of the brain, and you can have any moral system you want! With enough pharmaceutical advancement you’ll have lived the life of saint, without ever having to get off the couch!
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, thanks for sharing your insights on metaphysics. Hopefully DD
will see my point that an entire branch of philosophy is dedicated to
understanding metaphysics, including the recognition that both
concrete and abstract objects are real.
DD, here are the definitions you requested.
Exist:
Supernatural:
[quote]1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural;
unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other
unearthly beings; eerie; occult.[/quote]
Note the second definition above re: the supernaturalness of gods.
Per the definition of abstract objects that I provided earlier,
someone’s god would only be an abstract object if it existed outside
space and time (true for most belief systems), and was noncausal
(untrue for most belief systems). Most believers (Christians, at
least) consider their god to be a concrete object, because their god
created the universe and thus is a causal being.
You might want to ask my perspective rather than assuming what I
believe re: faith. I’ve said many times on this board (even made a
post in the past few days specifically on this) that I have faith like
anyone else does. Faith is nothing more than an unproven assumption. I
have faith that I will still be alive tomorrow. I don’t know this, but
there is a pretty high probability that it will be true, so I act as
if it is true. However, I could be wrong, and am the first to admit
that.
I have no problem whatsoever with faith. What I do have a problem with
is the insistence on absolute certitude, as if your faith is actually
knowledge. Are you willing to admit even the remote possibility that
your god is made up? Some believers do get this, and are honest about
the potential incorrectness of their beliefs. But in my experience
people tend to dig their heels in the sand and insist their particular
beliefs MUST be true, and those who disagree with them MUST be wrong.
That makes no sense, and is unwarranted based on what we actually do
know.[/quote]
what natural law describes or governes rage? or the number 2?
You also claimed to have faith in morality. That is a different kind of faith, though I do agree, pretty much everyone does.
You seem to be arguing that because I can “feel” and “experience” rage that it makes it exist. Can I not also apply the same rule to god? What if I experience god the same way I feel rage?[/quote]
If emotions, numbers, and other abstract objects didn’t exist, it would be impossible to be aware of them or manipulate them. Unless you’re claiming to be from Vulcan, I’m pretty sure you experience emotions just like everyone else.
Or course, that doesn’t imply emotions are concrete objects. Just because you’re aware of an emotion inside your head doesn’t mean it physically exists in the universe, any more than being aware of a god inside your head means it physically exists in the universe. Buddha, Jesus, and Thor exist as abstract objects, but it doesn’t make them real in a material sense.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If emotions, numbers, and other abstract objects didn’t exist, it would be impossible to be aware of them or manipulate them. Unless you’re claiming to be from Vulcan, I’m pretty sure you experience emotions just like everyone else.
Or course, that doesn’t imply emotions are concrete objects. Just because you’re aware of an emotion inside your head doesn’t mean it physically exists in the universe, any more than being aware of a god inside your head means it physically exists in the universe. Buddha, Jesus, and Thor exist as abstract objects, but it doesn’t make them real in a material sense.[/quote]
No one experiences emotions the same. But I claim I don’t, and you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Ah, so god exists. Why do you choose to believe and have faith in some abstract concepts and not others?
Seriously OP, you will win when the opposition admits that he doesn’t know that rape is evil. You don’t build societies on such weak-kneed virtues. We all know it. Some don’t want to admit they know as much, and so look silly or deranged. “I don’t know pedophilia is evil.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pedophilia is evil.
Adultery is evil.
Abandoning infants with birth defects to the cold wilds is evil.
Supernatural faith, get some.[/quote]
There are many people that don’t think adultery is evil can kinda be shown by their actions I’d say.
I agree fully with you on pedophilia though I don’t particularly believe in Evil with a capital E, but you have many even on this site that don’t think its that big of a deal. Also it certainly is somewhat cultural and arbitrary.
Eugenics has and has had many proponents. Its certainly easier to discern defects prior to birth now and abort which is definitely done.
There also would be biological arguments that could be proposed pro and con on all these issues if we wanted to try to base a biological ethics.
Or we could posit moral absolutes existing without god.
To Pat I am not entirely certain that what a number is is common to all people. Certainly the vast majority of people on this forum for example couldn’t define a number or might not even know what that definition entails. I would have to look to others work to adequately do it and I absolutely guarantee there would be no agreement on it. People don’t understand math at all and you could look at cracked.com the other day to see some examples.
Lets throw one out there that people that don’t know what math is disagree with intuitively…and are wrong. .999…=1 is a true proposition. Every mathematician will agree with this. The vast majority of laymen will not.
To speak to evil as you use it in the proposition. A=Evil. I don’t think many sophisticated religious people are going to claim that evil exists in the sense of some transcendent force.
Or are you simply equating evil with things I find personally repugnant. And then cherry picking things that there should be somewhat universal agreement on, but there is not.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pedophilia is evil.
Adultery is evil.
Abandoning infants with birth defects to the cold wilds is evil.
Supernatural faith, get some.[/quote]
There are many people that don’t think adultery is evil can kinda be shown by their actions I’d say.
I agree fully with you on pedophilia though I don’t particularly believe in Evil with a capital E, but you have many even on this site that don’t think its that big of a deal. Also it certainly is somewhat cultural and arbitrary.
Eugenics has and has had many proponents. Its certainly easier to discern defects prior to birth now and abort which is definitely done.
There also would be biological arguments that could be proposed pro and con on all these issues if we wanted to try to base a biological ethics.
[/quote]
Pro and con still requires a value assesment.
Then morals are your god.
.999 with a repetend is a concept, or process, not a number. And it approaches 1, doesn’t actually equal it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pedophilia is evil.
Adultery is evil.
Abandoning infants with birth defects to the cold wilds is evil.
Supernatural faith, get some.[/quote]
There are many people that don’t think adultery is evil can kinda be shown by their actions I’d say.
I agree fully with you on pedophilia though I don’t particularly believe in Evil with a capital E, but you have many even on this site that don’t think its that big of a deal. Also it certainly is somewhat cultural and arbitrary.
Eugenics has and has had many proponents. Its certainly easier to discern defects prior to birth now and abort which is definitely done.
There also would be biological arguments that could be proposed pro and con on all these issues if we wanted to try to base a biological ethics.
[/quote]
Pro and con still requires a value assesment.
Then morals are your god.
.999 with a repetend is a concept, or process, not a number. And it approaches 1, doesn’t actually equal it.
Is rape wrong? yes or no.[/quote]
Rape is wrong because it increases suffering. And I do hold that compassion is one of the bases of morality. I’d say that is one of the better yardsticks I’ve found. Your man Jesus seemed big on it too. He wasn’t running around much condemning homosexuals and such. So is it immoral for someone to condemn homosexuality as evil? I’d say so. How about you?
Seems pretty out of touch with the new testament, but what do I know I’m a heathen.
.999…=1, you have to take math to be an engineer anymore?
Thanks lads, some great stuff here, yeah I guess it was kinda foolish of me to hope that debate wouldn’t break out here but there ya go. side note, the debate isn’t for class it’s EC
Hopefully I will be first prop speaker so I can use some of this stuff to prebut alot of what might be said.
E.G
Gonna try prebut the argument that religion and the church in particular have held back scientific advancements in the past by saying that it is society and not religion that held it back and use an example from today by saying hat this guy http://www.theoriginofspeciousnonsense.com/index-1.html (he went to the same university as us so it should add some weight) is ridiculed by society and not religion for going against was is commonly believed. will probably give a quote from him but won’t dwell on it as we don’t want it to get into an evolution debate
I like using the idea of religion being the origin of good and evil as a prebutal to the idea that a person can be good without religion
want to pre but Marxism with what pat said about religion being the harder road than people who aren’t religious
I’m still not really too sure how to prebut religous wars, will it be enough to say that organised religions are against war and that most wars aren’t religious
Should i make a point of how irish monks saved western education by spreading christianity and setting up monastaries throughout Europe after the fall of the roman empire??