ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Scott Hebert]

atul said:

But here you have a problem. If you define the opposing opinion (atheism) as Black, and claim your position (theism) as non-Black, exactly which shade of gray it is?

It's not Black. From the standpoint of someone who is claiming Black, does it matter what color it is? Also, this only works if you use White and Black as opposites.

By claiming to represent a wide variety of opinions it becomes easy for you to win a debate (total fanaticism in any direction is misguided, imho), but at what cost? After all, defining the position only by what it isn't (not atheism) dilutes it so much you end up representing nothing.

I think I've defined rather precisely what I represent. I represent the people who believe that God may exist (for the purposes of this argument). This is opposed by the people who say that God cannot exist.

...of course, assuming you don't do some sort of quantum leap in reasoning along the lines of "fanatic atheism disproved -> own belief in god proved". Which was kinda the point of my first post's question...

I don't believe I made a statement like that.

That isn't even circular, you're making a total U-turn there, you know... Anyway, from point "With people denying" on, the whole debate becomes one of semantics, how you define words. Besides, it's faulty logic. See:

1) Holy!=Unholy
2) Unholy=Evil
3) 1)&2) Holy!=Evil
4) 3)=> Holy=Good

Except that 4) does not follow from 3), since you haven't dealt with shades of gray. Ergo, my point stands, you can't define holy from unholy. And I'd like to extend that to the (a)theism debate also.

Actually, the logic is as follows:

Holy and Unholy are opposites.
Unholy is Evil.
Therefore, Holy and Evil are opposites.
Good and Evil are opposites.
Therefore, Holy is good.

This does not apply to the argument about theism vs. atheism. Theism and Atheism are logical inverses of each other (Theism = !Atheism). This is not the same as the above. Unholy and Holy are not logical inverses of each other, for one does not encompass what the other is not. (There are things that are neither Holy nor Unholy.) Therefore, the situations are not the same.

Lim Agnostic -> Atheist
belief->0

Cool. Can you give me the limits (if total convinction in god is 1 and total convinction in opposite is 0) where theist becomes agnostic too? Just to prove my own point from above.

Theist encompasses agnostic, as I've said before.

Well, I've been already told on these forums that hippies like me were better off dead (too bad that particular thread was totally removed, no memento) so what can I say? Bring it on!-p

Ah, hippies.

Anyway, on the original subject of blood Arco, I might say they'd be the first actually 'evil' blood nation... since other nation sacrifices those not of their own kind (Abysia, Jots, Vans), enemy slaves (Mictlan) or heretics (DF Marignon). So far has nation of philosophers fallen, then.

Interesting thought. Of course, with comparative morality, no one has any right to call another being evil.

[Scott Hebert]

Arryn said:
The Egyptians worshipped their gods for more than 2000 years. Longevity of a faith is not proof that you're right. People also make many many interesting claims. Some claim to be able to read minds. Some claim to be able to speak with the dead. Many believe those claims too. Sheer numbers of claims, or numbers of those who believe in them does not constitute valid evidence, either. Valid evidence is that which is measurable or quantifiable in some way. There is more evidence, and by far more solid evidence, for the existence of UFOs than for God. Yet, oddly enough, more people believe in God. It's not so odd when one understands that more people *need* or want to believe in God than they need or want to believe in UFOs.

As interesting as all of this is, how does it answer my question as to why atheism should be the default condition of mankind?

I agree that longevity of belief should not be the primary determinant of a belief's veracity. However, to ignore the fact that human beings have for the vast majority of their history been religious beings who have believed in God, is to court disaster.

Even ignoring history, does anyone know the % of people currently living on this planet who profess belief in some kind of God? I rather believe it will outnumber those who don't. If this is the case, then judging SOLELY by present population, belief in God should be considered the default, with atheism being the one on whom some burden of argument should fall.

Basically, I object to the stated belief that atheism should be able to get by with nothing more than the judging of claims of theism.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:
BigDaddy,

The arguments you use are dogma whether you realize it or not. You are not demonstrating proof, just parroting what you've been told or have read (in sources that are themselves not proof). Quantum Mechanic's post summed it up nicely: what you take as "proof" is a story with eyewitnesses. What they thought they saw is what's been taken as "fact" for 2000+ years, nevermind any political agendas the authors of said book had in determining what to write. Jesus is a documented historical figure. We know this not because the Bible tells us so, but because Roman records confirm that someone by that name existed when and where the bible said he did. But those same records make no mention of the fantastical claims attributed to that individual. In a modern court of law what the Bible claims is called "hearsay" evidence, which isn't admissible in and of itself. The moment you go from saying Jesus existed to saying he had divine powers you step out of the realm of fact and into the realm of ... belief. Newsflash: otherwise sane people also believe in voodoo, astrology, palm-reading, etc. but that doesn't make them any more right in their beliefs than those who've accepted a certain 2000-year old story as unvarnished truth.

Look, I realize there is a "step" after the known arguement, and I am more familiar than you know with the way this works. TYPICALLY, similar historic accounts with more than 1 source are considered to be likely true. Because of the miraculous nature of this story it is only WIDELY accepted.

Knowing this, I was leading you in a direction to see if you even cared why he was executed. If you did and actually looked into the issue you may have been surprised at the unlikelyhood of these things transpiring. Especially if you just start with the primary reason for the execution as given in the bible which parallels the undenied facts. He was executed for "civil disobedience" basically. This gives no reason not to believe the historic account, and leads to a "slippery slope" if you even accept that there is some truth in the Gospels.

Arryn said:
Question: if God is omnipotent and omniscient and infallible, why is it that the God of the New Testament is about love while the God of the Old testament is about fear and wrath? Why would an almighty all-knowing infallible being need to change tactics? Shouldn't said being have known in advance that His tactics weren't going to work on His imperfect creation and employed the supposedly better tactics from the beginning?

Jesus is a different aspect of God. He is about the love of God for imperfect man.
God is about Power, Purity, etc (which decidedly human have difficulty understanding - true power -true purity).
Jesus was used to help us do what was impossible without him, that is pleasing God.

Arryn said:
"Atheism is a fool's bet"? Hardly. Religious belief is. Same logic that people use when asked why they play the lottery: "If you don't play you can't win". If you don't play you won't lose is the real truth, which lottery promoters want you to ignore so that they can continue to profit from people's wishful thinking and gullibility. In the case of government-run lotteries, it's a tax on the stupid. As someone said earlier in this thread, religion is about maintaining power over people. It's also a psychological crutch for those that need one. Crutches come in all types. Some are more pernicious than others. Whether faith is less dangerous to one's health than alcohol depends on where you live in this Gods-forsaken world.

Actually, its been proven that religious people benefit from their faith by being less likely to die. Besides, I'll use religion as a "crutch," because it does not weaken me, it makes me stronger. I am stronger in my conviction. More likely to take calculated risks. Etc.

Arryn said:
You're using similar logic to defend your position as what caused countless women to be killed a few hundred years ago: tie the alleged witch up Houdini-style and throw her in the lake. If she drowns she's innocent. If she doesn't she's wicked. Alas for the poor lass, she's f***ed either way. Might as well toss a coin and say "heads I win, tails you lose". You're saying "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, damned, or worse". That's not proof. I'm still waiting for some.

I'm not sure I know which comment you're talking about.

Arryn said:
Oh, and accusing Quantum of "fearing or misunderstanding ..." is a cheap shot. Pointing out the flaws in your "thesis" isn't an act of fear or ignorance, but your reaction sure is. Seeking the truth, to use your words, requires that one search for proof. The printed word, or someone's sermon, isn't proof. I assure you that our lack of belief isn't due to a lack of will in our efforts. The prosecution (believers) have failed to make their case due to lack of evidence.

He said, "It is only when you say that everything he is supposed to have said and done is the absolute truth that things start seem a little rickety."

Which intends that an omnipotent being can't do whatever it likes. Therefore, if that was the "heart" of his arguement, a misunderstanding was made about what is possible. Or possibly a "fear" of admitting that something that powerful AND kind might exist. I honestly meant no cheap shot.

[Scott Hebert]

What happens to the rightous non-believer is an interesting question.

Yes. It certainly is.

Does living a good and holy life suddenly count for nothing if you don't believe in God at the end? Its a question that i've wondered about, and even made into a short parable a long time ago:

Lewis gave his own answer to this in The Last Battle, but it sounded a little like a cop-out to me.

I think my own answer would be that, when you finally see God, you will recognize Him as the one who inspired your 'good and holy life', and will choose to stay with Him.

>>Two old men give money to an Orphanage (a good thing); both get their names on plaques and receive credit from the community. One does it out of the goodness of his heart, the other for a tax break. One modestly rejects recognition for his deeds out of true humility, the other feigns modesty hoping to cast a favorable light on his character.<<

I assume that there is no overlap? Absolutely none? That is a rather contrived circumstance, were it so. Even if I give money for altruistic reasons, I can also benefit in the long term, and do it for other reasons. For the record, though, I believe that the second has more to fear than the first.

Both old men's actions had the same result, but different intentions. So, do those intentions matter? To society, individuals or even God?

The results are the same, but the ends are different. Intention does matter; in Catholic theology, it CERTAINLY matters.

God, of course, knows your intentions. Whatever the society or other individuals see, God sees and judges by your heart.

Does the wicked old man receive an equal share in the heavenly reward - since his actions are the same as those of one who was rightous, but his intentions were not. And so, does he "buy" his way into heaven with rightous acts but selfish desires?

Again, there is this idea of 'receiving' Heaven or Hell. How anyone can be selfish and want to be in Heaven, I'm not sure...

Certain Protestant denominations insist that the only thing that matters is whether you believe Jesus was the Savior and Son of God - everything is secondary. I find this intellectually repelling. It says that all our actions and struggles in life are meaningless, and that the wicked and saints all have a "get out of jail free card".

You've just found my biggest concern with Protestants.

Its the Hitler As Saint problem. If you belive all you need to get into heaven is belief, there is the *chance*, however unlikely, Hitler saw the error of his ways and became a Christian, say, 10 seconds before he died. The idea that Hitler is sitting at the Right Hand of God, a blessed saint, is not a pretty one! And one that a God-given intellect would naturally find repelling and wrong - and thus the interpretation that lead to that conclusion.

I'll do you one better (and this was told to me by a Dominican priest). Try Judas Isacariot. He betrayed Jesus, and then committed suicide. Can you be SURE he's not in Heaven? There really is no way to know if he is or not. And if he was forgiven, do you think that God will not forgive us if we ask?

And what will you do, if you find Hitler in Heaven? Will you argue with God over another person's salvation? You know God is good. Literally, goodness incarnate. If He finds Hitler's repentance genuine, can you accept any less? If you cannot, then you are guilty of the sin of Pride, and that Pride will lead you into denouncing God and living apart from Him.

Lucifer's sin.

[Scott Hebert]

Arryn, BigDaddy, don't let this get out of hand. So far, we've had an amazingly amicable discussion. Let's not spoil it, okay?

[BigDaddy]

Uh, here you go. Worldwide, these are people who claim the positions of:

Christians 32.71% (of which Roman Catholics 17.28%, Protestants 5.61%, Orthodox 3.49%, Anglicans 1.31%), Muslims 19.67%, Hindus 13.28%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.38%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 13.05%, non-religious 12.43%, atheists 2.41% (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/xx.html

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:

He said, "It is only when you say that everything he is supposed to have said and done is the absolute truth that things start seem a little rickety."

Which intends that an omnipotent being can't do whatever it likes. Therefore, if that was the "heart" of his arguement, a misunderstanding was made about what is possible. Or possibly a "fear" of admitting that something that powerful AND kind might exist. I honestly meant no cheap shot.

There is a huge difference between if an omniscient being could do something, and having evidence that they did take a particular action.

[johan osterman]

BigDaddy said:
Johan,

It's very interesting that you brought that up. It is the belief of Catholics that those who live a clean life (living the way they know is right) can be "saved by grace." Good people aren't necessarily sent to hell. Particular religions that have beliefs in clean living are Buddhism, most christian religions, and Islam. The real point here is just to be true to yourself, and do what you honestly believe is right. It helps, of course, if you have moral guidance of some type.

Well, that still leaves the problem that the only way to choose between the set of possible behaviours is to presuppose that one of the betting outcomes is going to obtain. In essence you have a betting situation where you have an infinite set of possible bets and possible states, and you have no information availible by which to discern what state is likely to obtain, besides from information you gain by presupposing that one particular state will obtain, which is question begging. Not only that, you also have no information what the reward will be for each bet dependent on the state that obtains is, besides, once again, any info you come by by presupposing the state you are betting on.

[Scott Hebert]

Arryn said:
BigDaddy,

The arguments you use are dogma whether you realize it or not. You are not demonstrating proof, just parroting what you've been told or have read (in sources that are themselves not proof).

All right. Let's try this. Can you give me PROOF that Julius Caesar ever existed? All you have are stories about him, and maybe a tomb where somebody (who you claim was Julius Caesar) was buried. If you rely on the stories, then you're just 'parroting' things.

And what is wrong with dogma? All because I believe what the Catholic Church believes, and has believed for milennia, does not mean that I accept it blindly, or without investigation. To assume I do is an insult to my intelligence.

Question: if God is omnipotent and omniscient and infallible, why is it that the God of the New Testament is about love while the God of the Old testament is about fear and wrath? Why would an almighty all-knowing infallible being need to change tactics? Shouldn't said being have known in advance that His tactics weren't going to work on His imperfect creation and employed the supposedly better tactics from the beginning?

Why do you smack a child's hand instead of explaining to him the rather involved idea of personal property? Just like in matters of the intellect, you have to learn to walk before you can learn to run, in moral matters.

Besides, the idea that God was a 'hard-***' in the Old Testament and suddenly became 'meek and mild' in the New Testament is a fallacy.

When God gave the commandment 'an eye for an eye', it was a command of mercy, not necessarily justice. Yes, it was (and is) fair. Yes, it was (and is) just. However, the common practice at the time was not. If you took out my eye, I would kill you. If you killed me, my family would kill you and your entire family in retaliation. When you start to think about the commandments from such a perspective, you will realize that the Biblical accounts show a gradual teaching of moral law, which Christ fulfills.

That's not proof. I'm still waiting for some.

Are you aware of Aquinas's arguments regarding the existence of God?

Seeking the truth, to use your words, requires that one search for proof. The printed word, or someone's sermon, isn't proof. I assure you that our lack of belief isn't due to a lack of will in our efforts. The prosecution (believers) have failed to make their case due to lack of evidence.

May I ask what you do consider proof, if printed words and personal testimony isn't enough? If you're holding out for a personal vision of God, I'm afraid you're not likely to receive one. People have in the past (and still do, in the present), but they are only a handful.

If you want us to give evidence, please let us know what you would consider evidence.

Also, please be advised that I will ask you to prove various things by the same standards that you give to me regarding God, to ensure that the standards you set are fair.

[Scott Hebert]

BigDaddy said:
Uh, here you go. Worldwide, these are people who claim the positions of:

Christians 32.71% (of which Roman Catholics 17.28%, Protestants 5.61%, Orthodox 3.49%, Anglicans 1.31%), Muslims 19.67%, Hindus 13.28%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.38%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 13.05%, non-religious 12.43%, atheists 2.41% (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/xx.html

With these numbers (and only using the Christian, Muslim, and Jews), 52% of the world believes in a God. (I ignore Hindus, Buddhists, and others because the argument can be made that they do not believe in God, as such.)

Therefore, I reiterate. Would those who believe atheism is the default state of belief for mankind please give your own evidence and/or arguments as to why that should be so. I have data here showing that 52% of human being believe, not just that God could exist, but that believe in a single God as the creator of the Universe.