ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Scott Hebert]

quantum_mechani said:

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

Um, did you mean 'omnipotent' there?

And I will also put the question to you. What would you consider evidence?

[Arryn]

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

The default condition of mankind is to fear what it doesn't understand, and to invent superstitions to explain away what is as yet unknown. What *should* be the default condition, as opposed to what is, should be enlightened reason. However, I'm afraid that the faithful's understanding of the words "enlightened" and "reason" likely differ markedly from my own.

Scott Hebert said:
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.

How so? And can the disaster be any worse than what's been happening on this world in the name of God for the past 2000+ years? I hardly think so. Also, for the *vast* majority of our history we have worshipped sun and weather-related gods, not God. As humanity matures, and grows in its understanding of the universe and our place in it, we have less and less need for superstition.

Scott Hebert said:
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.

The burden, as I've repeatedly stated, is upon those making fantastical claims. The skeptics aren't the ones who should prove things. Skeptics aren't making fantastical claims. Atheists don't have a belief, they have a *lack* of belief. You're asking them to prove their lack of belief in your claims, which of course is impossible. It's also a convenient way for the faithful to dodge any sort of responsibility for answering probing questions of their beliefs that they find awkward or distasteful. If faith was subject to examination in a court of law, under standard evidenciary rules, the burden would be upon the plaintiff (the faithful) to convince the court (non-believers) that they're correct. You're working under the mistaken notion that faith is the defense, not the plaintiff. The defense is logic. The plaintiff (faith) must overcome logic with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't. Because all the "evidence" that's presented is hearsay and anecdotal at best. There is no solid evidence.

If theism makes a claim, why is it bad for others to question those claims? If you're right, you should be able to prove it. You'd demand such scrutiny of any psychic or self-proclaimed prophet.

A major problem is that what the faithful take as "proof" is no such thing at all.

[Zen]

Just a quick interjection.

Don't ask hard questions if you don't want hard answers. It would also be advisable if you are particularly passionate about this particular subject, you put on your thick skin and don't get offended for wading into this discussion. This is not targeted at anyone just a friendly reminder.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:

Um, did you mean 'omnipotent' there?

And I will also put the question to you. What would you consider evidence?

Yes, I did mean omnipotent. The difference between my acceptance of Julius Caesar, and my skepticism of a guy named jesus performing miracles is that one requires no change to the detected laws of physics. So, I am much more willing to believe accounts of Julius's existence. If the bible were filled only with an account of what jesus ate for breakfast everyday, I would have little cause to doubt it.

Since so many things do fit in with physic's model of the universes, and the only thing going against it is few thousand year old accounts, I'm inclined to side with the former. Note that this has nothing to do with the existence of a god, merely one particular group of peoples opinions as to what a god's attributes should be.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
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.

Im not basing my entire life off Caesars existence. I could care less if he actually existed. You, however, seem to think its the most important thing in the world that god exists.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
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.

Well, then I guess I am insulting you. I mean, why would you accept what a really old document and a ton of people say without any real evidence unless you were blindly following the masses? I cant see anyone having any reason to believe in any particular god of their own accord. Are you saying that if nobody ever told you anything about the catholic god you would still come to believe his existance on your own? I doubt that. You would have been just as likely to believe in Greek gods, if not more so due to their more tangible nature (i.e. god of the sun, god of the moon).

[Arryn]

Scott Hebert said:
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.

Neither I nor anyone else is claiming the Julius was/is a deity. Jews believe that Jesus existed (as I also accept), but they do not accept (AFAIK) his alleged divinity. Yet they, as do the Christians, believe in the *same* God. I do not doubt that most (if not all) of the *events* in the Bible took place. Where I differ is in the interpretation of their causes and/or meaning. An ignorant peasant (or even a "learned" scholar) from 2000 years ago, not knowing what a comet or nova is, would see such an event as a portent or devise some other supernatural explanation for what they didn't understand. Hypothetically speaking (because time travel may or may not be possible), if we were to take a person back 2000 years, equipped with many of the technological tools we have today and with today's understanding of science, they would be able to wow the locals of the time with their "godlike" knowledge and "godlike" powers. Something simple like CPR would have been seen as a divine miracle 200 years ago, nevermind 2000. To assume that the stories in the Bible do not have what's termed "observer bias" is dangerous. People see (and pass along) what they *thought* they saw or what they wished to see. It's not necessarily what really happened.

People think they see Elvis, or Bigfoot. Doesn't mean they're right. No matter how many of them there are, or how loudly they tell their stories.

Scott Hebert said:
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.

Dogma is an established opinion (see M-W definition #1). There is a huge difference between dogma and fact. Dogma may or may not be based upon facts, but dogma must not be used *in place of* facts. That's what makes dogma dangerous (in my opinion): that people often use it to explain things, rather than objective facts. Dogma, by definition, is subjective, since it's an *opinion*.

I haven't assumed you don't question your faith. If I've given you such an impression, I apologize for that wasn't the intent.

BTW, in case you're the slightest bit curious, I was raised Roman Catholic by devout parents. The more I dug beneath the surface of what I was being taught, the less sense it made. Eventually, when I dug deep enough that priests told me I had to "take it on faith", since they could not (or would not) provide the answers I sought, I knew I'd exhausted reason and had entered the realm of mythology and superstition. It's no more tolerable as an adult to get such an answer as it is for a child when she asks her parents "why?" and they respond "because we say so". It's not a real answer. It's just a means used to control you.

Scott Hebert said:
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.

Why? Because it's quick and convenient. It's also terrible parenting if you fail to explain *why* you smacked him/her. All you're doing is instilling fear. The purpose of the smack is to reinforce the lesson, not be the lesson in and of itself. If you're saying that religion gives us just the smack and that we're too immature to be able to learn morals by reason, then no thanks, I'll pass on religion as a means of education.

Scott Hebert said:
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.

You missed my point. The supposed authoritative work on morality, and which alleges an infallible and all-knowing deity, contradicts itself all over the place.

Scott Hebert said:
Are you aware of Aquinas's arguments regarding the existence of God?

Yes, I am.

Scott Hebert said:
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.

Good questions. BTW, the Egyptians had their own written works and "testimony", as did the Greeks and Norse. How many Ra, Zeus, or Odin worshippers are there today? Printed words and testimony aren't proof, as I said. What is proof is not a "personal" vision of God (a la Joan of Arcadia). That would just be more hearsay (except, perhaps, to the recipient, assuming they don't consider themselves to have gone mad). It's a recordable vision of God, or some divine act (indirect, yet solid evidence) that cannot be explained by anything short of His existence.

Scott Hebert said:
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.

Of course. Just be advised that my ability, or inability, to prove something does not justify any other claims. At best it can justify, or fail to justify, the claim I'm asked to prove. In other words, just because I may be unable to meet the standards I've set doesn't make a position on God any less (or more) valid. Another way of looking at it is that if I can or cannot prove an apple is red has no bearing on whether an orange is sweet. That must be proved separately. So asking me to prove something, using my own standards, accomplishes nothing. It's merely an attempt to cloud or dodge the issue of proving claims.

Analogy: you say you saw me attempt to rob a store. You have friends who also say they saw me. There is no video of me being there. There are no fingerprints. Nothing was taken. Was I there? Testimony says 'yes'. Hard evidence says 'no'. My fate will rest upon whether the witnesses are credible. If you and your friends were all stoned at the time (and thus cannot be sure of what they saw or thought they saw), or are known to hate me (thus have an agenda in telling their story), the jury will likely dismiss the testimony. The analogy comes in that witnesses in the Bible had political motivations for telling their stories, as did the clerics who decided which stories to include in the compilation known as the Bible. History is written by the victors (and the Roman Catholic church was ultimately and for a very long time victorious), and inconvenient facts tend to be downplayed at best or outright expunged.

[BigDaddy]

johan osterman said:
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.

Johan,
Really you are making things too difficult. Most religions have a set of rules that shows a proper moral path, which Catholics believes can allow you to be saved by grace.

But it is even simpler than that. Do you KILL people? Do you CHEAT on your spouse? Do you STEAL? Do you LIE? Do you WORSHIP the things you have or that other people have such that you are consumed by greed or rage?

Admittedly, we are ALL GUILTY of some of these things. Now ask yourself: Do I try not to do these things? Do I feel guilty when I do these things?

That is the law of God.

If you are a student of philosophy, which I suspect you might be, you will easily find another arguement! Likely one concerning pleasure on earth, or the existence of heaven. A mass murderer had an excellent grasp of philosophy and could successfully defend his theory that murder was good (can't remeber off hand which murderer).

[Zen]

If you are a student of philosophy, which I suspect you might be, you will easily find another arguement! Likely one concerning pleasure on earth, or the existence of heaven. A mass murderer had an excellent grasp of philosophy and could successfully defend his theory that murder was good (can't remeber off hand which murderer).

Of course, the other side is amusing. That a faithful devotee of religion could also successfully "defend" his theory that religion is good.

Awfully high on that pedestal.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:

But it is even simpler than that. Do you KILL people? Do you CHEAT on your spouse? Do you STEAL? Do you LIE? Do you WORSHIP the things you have or that other people have such that you are consumed by greed or rage?

Admittedly, we are ALL GUILTY of some of these things. Now ask yourself: Do I try not to do these things? Do I feel guilty when I do these things?

That is the law of God.

Do you not think it is possible that an aversion to such things might be ingrained by society and/or (and I hesitate to take the discussion in this direction) evolution?