401. Comment #80973 by Diacanu on October 23, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Smithyboy-
Good point. Thanks for giving me something to consider.

Other Comments by Diacanu

402. Comment #80976 by roach on October 23, 2007 at 7:12 pm

No one really tries to talk to Danielos right?

Other Comments by roach

403. Comment #80978 by Diacanu on October 23, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Well, as a noob, I seem to have learned in record time not to, lol.

Other Comments by Diacanu

404. Comment #80980 by roach on October 23, 2007 at 7:58 pm

that's a cool Vampire Hunter D avatar.

Other Comments by roach

405. Comment #81030 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 23, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Phasmagigas (post 377, or #80873):

Love your enemy I suppose is a nice abstract idea but just what does that mean???

Well, let's first consider the weaker idea that we should not return evil. This is an idea that predates the gospels, indeed it's found in one of Plato's dialogues[1] written five centuries earlier. What this idea means is clear: when somebody hurts you, you should not try to hurt them in return. It's a very powerful idea that we all deep down feel is right (well, not "all": Hitchens is an exception but then Dawkins isn't). But it's an idea that contradicts the behavior that would make sense from an evolutionary point of view, which is based on the optimizing behavior strategy of retribution.

Now, "love your enemy" goes much further still. It says that all people deserve our love even when they hurt us. So it's not only that we should not hurt such people in return, but we should actually sympathize with them (and actually pity them: to hurt others is self-defeating) and therefore try to help them. It's a remarkably revolutionary idea and it's interesting to note how Jesus in the gospels justifies it (see Matthew 5:43-48, and Luke 6:27-36). These are truly splendid moral teachings.

[1]: It's in his dialogue "Crito" where we find Socrates saying this: "Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him"

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

406. Comment #81036 by EastCoastAtheist on October 23, 2007 at 11:43 pm

Sorry to get off topic from this less-than-productive discussion with a couple Theists, but I'm going to comment on the Hitchens/McGrath debate again. In 400+ comments, I don't know if anyone has already observed this:

McGrath said a rather revealing thing in this debate. He said that if there is no God, then we are accountable to nobody. I realize that he was quoting someone when he said it, but he seemed to be using the quotation to make his point.

Most of the people that post here can easily see what a silly statement that is, but I hope people have also asked this question: What does this tell you about McGrath?

Well, McGrath, how about being accountable to your fellow human beings? Or is nobody important enough to you?

Typical Christian arrogance...With an attitude like that, how can you maintain a friendship?

Other Comments by EastCoastAtheist

407. Comment #81038 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 23, 2007 at 11:58 pm

Walk (post 383, or #80886):

If god is omnipotent, having more power than anything in the universe, how is it that our ultra-sensitve sensing equipment which can measure the most minute forces, somehow can't detect the greatest force that exists? The answer, "Well, God exists OUTSIDE the universe" would be an acceptable answer for a deist god, but the theist god supposedly routinely reaches into the real world to manipulate things, and yet, unbelievably, no trace of this immense energy and these real-world interactions has ever been detected.

Ok, let me give you first the standard theistic answer:

God is neither inside nor outside the physical universe; God is what sustains the very existence and behavior of the physical universe. Let's first discuss behavior: We see an apple fall and accelerate towards earth following particular laws. The naturalist believes that these laws that science discovers do not only describe the apple's behavior, but also cause it. So the laws of gravity make the apple behave in this way. The theist on the contrary believes that what makes the apple behave in this lawful way is God's will. Let's now discuss existence: If you ask why the physical world exists the naturalist will say that the existence of the physical world is the fundamental given, it's the deepest fact of objective reality, it's where the buck stops. The theist will say that the physical world exists because God has created it, and that God is the fundamental given, is the deepest fact of objective reality, is where the buck stops.

My own answer is somehow different: I find that for a theist the objective existence of the physical world is a superfluous assumption. What we know is that our experience of the physical world objectively exists, and that this experience is orderly according to the specific laws that science discovers. A theist can explain the existence of that orderly experience as experience directly caused by God's will. This alternative worldview (called "idealism") is simpler and avoids many conceptual problems of the basically dualistic theistic view I described above.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

408. Comment #81040 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 12:15 am

Lauregon (post 385, or #80889):

Sure, as is any other worldview about how objective reality is, including atheism.- Dianelos

False equation. I don't have to imagine that I've burned my hand if I've burned my hand.

Correct, we all, theists and atheists alike, burn our hands if we put it in a flame. The question is what kind of objective reality out there produces this particular experience, as well as the rest of our experience of life, including the very important subjective parts of our experience, as well as the fact that we are experiential beings in the first place. Atheism offers a class of such descriptions of objective reality which are all characterized by the absence of God; theism offers a class of such descriptions of objective reality which are all characterized by the presence of God. I don't see any particular difference as far as both theism and atheism being worldviews about objective reality goes. I suspect you see a difference because you assume or believe that all theistic descriptions of objective reality are "imagination", "deluded", "wishful thinking", "hypothetical", "convoluted", "fantasy", "inescapably obviously false", and whatnot – but what you assume or believe is irrelevant to the fact that both theism and atheism represent worldviews about how objective reality is. And so they are directly comparable. And my thesis is that when one seriously studies what the best versions of both worldviews actually say, and compares them one to the other under the same criteria, it becomes inescapably obvious that theism is much more reasonable than atheism.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

409. Comment #81047 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 12:56 am

Diacanu (post 386, or #80895):

Dianelos Georgoudis-
"Sure, [theism is an invention] as is any other worldview about how objective reality is, including atheism. The question is which worldview makes more sense".

Okay, so you grant that theism may be a human invention, yet you ask if it makes sense.

Err, no, that's not what I am actually saying above, is it? :-)

It essentially says "I don't know about myself, but I'm pretty damned sure YOU won't behave properly unless you believe in these fairy tales".

Well, I understand what you are saying there, but two things: First of all it's not a given that theism is a fairy tale; perhaps atheism is a fairy tale. Secondly, whichever worldview turns out to be true, the fact remains that theism is more conducive to moral behavior than atheism - as is easy to see on conceptual grounds and is moreover evidenced by observational facts.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

410. Comment #81048 by epeeist on October 24, 2007 at 1:12 am

Comment #81047 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Secondly, whichever worldview turns out to be true, the fact remains that theism is more conducive to moral behavior than atheism - as is easy to see on conceptual grounds and is moreover evidenced by observational facts.

You have your mantra, I have mine

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.

Put up or shut up. Show us some evidence

Other Comments by epeeist

411. Comment #81052 by Goldy on October 24, 2007 at 1:29 am

First of all it's not a given that atheism is a fairy tale; perhaps theism is a fairy tale. Secondly, whichever worldview turns out to be true, the fact remains that atheism is more conducive to moral behavior than theism - as is easy to see on conceptual grounds and is moreover evidenced by observational facts.
Sorry, had to alter it up a bit. Makes sense now...
Like Epeeist, I too am waiting for this proof. Unsubstantiated facts are easily said but much harder to prove, aren't they?

Other Comments by Goldy

412. Comment #81054 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 1:32 am

Peacebeuponme (post 387, or #80896):

Incidentally, I am not sure ethical beliefs, such as that torturing children for fun is wrong, are based on our genes. Why do you think that such ethical beliefs are gene based? I mean torturing children for fun would not be something our ancestors would with any probability find themselves doing one way or the other, so I can't see what kind of selection pressure could have applied in this case.

So my imagination is restricted by probability for the purposes of your question. Sorry, I wasn't clear on that.

I am not sure what you are saying here. It's an observational fact that virtually all people believe that to torture children for fun is wrong. You claimed that this belief is based on our genes, and I objected to this explaining why. This at least is a clearly scientific question and we can use our knowledge of Darwinism to discuss it.

Just because consensus and our own minds cannot imagine ever condoning fun torture does not make anything objective, and in no way leads you to god.

Well, you don't respond to my argument that in all other cases of non-objective assertions we can easily imagine a state of affairs that would make us change our mind. Also the idea (which I find overwhelmingly obvious) that it's objectively true that we should not torture children for fun (i.e. its truth is not contingent on personal opinion or social convention) does I think lead us to God, at least in the sense that it leads us away from the kind of atheistic worldview that Dawkins described in his book "River our of Eden" and which I quoted in post 355 (or #80775) above.

Atheism does have a serious problem with the argument from morality. If you read the "God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist" you'll see that the argument that the atheist philosopher there has more trouble countering is that argument.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

413. Comment #81056 by passutoba on October 24, 2007 at 1:37 am

Hitchens is devastatingly clear, concise and convincing...love the withering response the first question from the floor.

McGrath,on seemingly countless times, fails to directly address the keys complaints that Hitchens has with the whole evidence/belief system...he waffles, digresses, evades, and here's the rub, i really don't think he believes himself. As a purported 'ex-atheist' i just don't think he has wholly convinced himself of his latter-found faith in the whole absurd set up of christianity. Yes, he throws his head back with confident verbosity, but for me, its just utterly unconvincing.

Other Comments by passutoba

414. Comment #81057 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 1:41 am

"the fact remains that theism is more conducive to moral behavior than atheism -".

Even if that were so (it's not) that isn't a point whatsoever in favor of it being TRUE.

Even if you could prove beyond a photon of a shadow of a doubt religion made people more moral, it still wouldn't offer up any proof of it being TRUE.

What you'd have at best, is a noble lie.
But a noble lie is still a fucking lie.

And I'm saying religion isn't EVEN a noble lie.

In fact, I scoff at the whole notion of noble lies.
That's neocon bullshit.
That's a loophole to excuse any filthy lie, because you can tell yourself it was "good for", the person being lied to.

It's a terrible argument for religion.
You're right back to needing objective evidence.
And sheeple being "noble", lied to is not that objective evidence.

Other Comments by Diacanu

415. Comment #81063 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 1:59 am

Lauregon (post 388, or #80897):

As I have shown in the Lennox thread, what the Parable of the Talents teaches is that the job of servants is to serve the demands of avaricious murderous masters, and that if they don't, they may be slaughtered for failure to comply.

This is a parable, Lauregon. A parable is not supposed to be understood literally but metaphorically, that's why we call it a parable. Above you are suggesting that this parable teaches that God loves money, and in post #80613 in the Lennox thread you suggest it teaches that God wants us to love money :-P What can I say, I find that's really an extremely warped understanding of what I find a perfectly clear parable which teaches that we should actively invest the opportunities we have in our life to increase in virtue – to create the treasure that no thief can steal and no moth destroy. But we are all free to understand the gospel message any way we like. As they say somewhere, let those who have eyes see, and those who have ears hear.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

416. Comment #81066 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 2:07 am

"But we are all free to understand the gospel message any way we like".

Well, if the gospels weren't such a sloppy piece of obfuscationist moosh, there wouldn't be all the arguments.

I'll gladly get my philosophy from authors who deliver their message plainly, without recourse to impenetrable allegories to wheat harvesting.

Hell, better still, I'm smart enough to think for myself, to heck with philosophers altogether.

Other Comments by Diacanu

417. Comment #81067 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 2:09 am

Phasmagigas (post 389, or #80905):

I mean torturing children for fun would not be something our ancestors would with any probability find themselves doing one way or the other, so I can't see what kind of selection pressure could have applied in this case.

im sure that activities like this are suprisingly common across time where groups are at war, its probably happening right now.

You are sure that torturing children for fun is common where groups are at war? Why do you think that?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

418. Comment #81068 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 2:14 am

Thomas Paine was right, it's like giving medicine to the dead.
I'm done with you, DG.
Good night.

Other Comments by Diacanu

419. Comment #81070 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 2:22 am

Goldy (post 391, or #80910):

Quick check to see if DG answered my question...nope. OK then...

But I did: You asked if I can give "irrefutable proof" for an assertion I had made, and in post 351 (#80790) I answered your question with "No, I can't". I think that's a clear answer.

Can you, for example, provide irrefutable proof that you are a human being, and not, say, some extraterrestrial zombie visiting Earth for research purposes? Or that American astronauts walked on he moon? Or that Julius Caesar was a historical person? Or that the world was not made five minutes ago? Or that objective reality exists?

Yep, nope, the astronaut that came to my school was very convincing (though a total religious nut. Irving, think his name was) but I can read a conspiracy story like the rest of us, yep - more than one reference to him, nope, yes.
Proof - ask wife for first, sixth and seventh question, DON'T ask her about 2nd question (I hope she'd agree with me, but you never know!). Astronauts and JC I shall refer you to better sources than me because, funnily enough, they are available (these are silly questions, by the way)

I am confused. Is the above your idea of "irrefutable proof"? And which are the sixth and seventh questions? And if my questions are silly the more easier it must be to give irrefutable answers to them.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

420. Comment #81073 by irate_atheist on October 24, 2007 at 2:29 am

393. Comment #80914 by Veronique -

He is the infamous Father Dougal McGuire.

I will let you do your own research at http://www.fathertedonline.ukf.net/

Other Comments by irate_atheist

421. Comment #81074 by Goldy on October 24, 2007 at 2:35 am

DG, yes it is. I defy you to refute it. :-) And count the questions - not hard. Anyway, they didn't answer my question and were totally immaterial. The onus was not on me to answer your questions, it was on you to answer mine. I gave your silly answers that are irrefutable.
Anyway, by your own admission you can't prove your assertion (I just skimmed over your answers so missed your "I can't" - my apologies - work etc) and yet you go and, with the same confidence, say again that athiests are less moral than theists.
If you can't prove it, modify your assertion. Or don't assume it.
Off to bed now - g'nite.

Other Comments by Goldy

422. Comment #81083 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 3:14 am

SRWB (post 396, or #80932):

Can you imagine any state of affairs that would make you change your opinion into actually believing that torturing children for fun is right?

No, but it's also an irrelevant question, as most (all) of us will not agree that torturing children (or adults), for fun or otherwise, is OBJECTIVELY right, wrong or true.

What I don't understand though is why you believe that's not an objective precept, or, in other words, that it only a expresses something about about personal opinion or social convention. And if you really believe it's only a matter of personal opinion or convention, how do you explain the fact that you can't even imagine a state of affairs that would make you change your mind? After all, in all other cases of beliefs about personal opinion or convention and which do not refer to something objective it's easy to imagine a state of affairs that would make us change our mind.

(indeed your God allowed the sacrifice of his only child after he was tortured). Now, while we can agree that being sacrificed to a god is not necessarily the same as torture, I would defy you to suggest that the individual, whose life is about to be extinguished, doesn't feel intense dread, and severe physical pain and mental suffering - the very definition of torture.

Well, it's not fair to call the God who asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, "my God", for I have never claimed that my understanding of God is guided by everything that's written in the Bible. But anyway let me tell you what I think about this particular story. Some of the writers of the Bible had clearly very little moral sense, and in any case were more motivated by the desire to create a nationalist mythology rather than to teach ontological truth. So in this story the writer's objective was clearly to convey the idea that God's commandments must be obeyed blindly and no matter what - with the clear implication that the commandments of God's representatives, namely the priestly class to which this writer almost certainly belonged, should also be blindly obeyed. So we have this morally repugnant story in an ancient and in many places very primitive document, and we can easily explain how this story came to be written there by noting how clearly self-serving it was. So why exactly should we give that story so much relevance? Surely not because religious fundamentalists give it much relevance. After all, since when should reasonable people follow unreasonable people in their judgment of what is relevant?

In short, it's obvious to anybody having just a tiny bit of intellectual freedom to realize that the God as described in many parts of the Bible does not exist. So, that idea of God is easily discarded. Why then should people interested in truth waste so much time bringing up the same old dusty bits out of the Bible? I mean who cares? The truth of theism does not in any way shape or manner entail the truth of every word written in the Bible. That's an obvious strawman, and it does not evidence atheism's strength when atheists constantly and predictably quote from the Bible.

Does your God condone torture of "children" for fun or any other reason, i.e. like saving the rest of mankind?

No. But I think atheist ethics would condone the torture of children for some specific reasons. Indeed, Sam Harris in his "The End of Faith" bravely concedes the difficulty he faces realizing that torturing not only suspected terrorists but even their family appears to be ethically justified.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

423. Comment #81084 by irate_atheist on October 24, 2007 at 3:23 am

424. Comment #81083 by Dianelos Georgoudis

The truth of theism

Oh, how I laughed when I read that phrase!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

424. Comment #81086 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 3:27 am

Dr Benway (post 397, or #80935):

When I was a wee thing, my grandmum explained to me that when people talk about their feelings, what they like and don't like, they're talking about themselves.

But when I say that it is wrong to torture children for fun I am not talking about myself and not talking about the conventions of the society. Rather it is overwhelmingly obvious to me that to torture children for fun is wrong independently of how I am, or what I think, or what society's conventions are, or what philosophers think, or what is written in this or that religious book.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

425. Comment #81096 by Dr Benway on October 24, 2007 at 4:30 am

Dianelos: But when I say that it is wrong to torture children for fun I am not talking about myself...

Prove that statement is based upon something other than personal feeling.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

426. Comment #81123 by SRWB on October 24, 2007 at 7:20 am

DG

I think our wires are crossed. I am not talking about Abraham and Isaac, but I agree it's a bizarre and "morally repugnant" story. However, to my question "does your God condone torture of "children" for fun or any other reason, i.e. like saving the rest of mankind?" you answered "no". Are you sure? I was referring to the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus. Wasn't he a "child" who was tortured? And you do believe in him, do you not?

Why muddy the waters by bringing Harris into the debate again? Does he really say that "torturing not only suspected terrorists but even their family appears to be ethically justified." I will check and get back to you. I think that Harris is at least being honest about the issue of torture based on the fact that it is no less morally objectionable than dropping bombs and other tactics of modern warfare. The difference is that he is at least able to admit the dichotomy and speak about it intelligently.

Other Comments by SRWB

427. Comment #81140 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 8:40 am

Phil Rimmer (post 401, or #80970):

Thanks for the answer; I found that an interesting post. Nevertheless it seems to me you are not so much explaining what sense it makes for an atheist to believe that one should love one's enemies, but rather what sense it makes that one should not return evil, or maybe what sense it makes to pretend to love one's enemy. These are two different precepts: Indeed it makes sense to act in ways that would break the violence-begets-violence vicious circle, as you explain - even though it's not clear that not returning evil is effective in breaking that circle; some might argue that such behavior instigates violence; Hitchens would probably argue that only utterly destroying our enemies breaks that circle. But in any case, in order to break that circle you need not actually love your enemies. My question was what sense to love one's enemies has in an atheistic worldview, in other words what's the sense to actually love and therefore try to help one's enemies. And if somebody takes away our coat then offer them our shirt also – not out of fear or out of contempt - but out of love: this kind of loving behavior. I can't help but think that Hitchens was being candid when he called such behavior "deranged" and "suicidal"; indeed when I put myself in the shoes of an atheist and apply cold reason to the issue it seems to me that what he says makes sense. Can you explain where he and I are wrong?

Some specific comments to your post:

so I am really curious to understand how two atheists could arrive at such diametrically opposed moral beliefs.

Your God, you're right! How is it people unfettered by dogma and proud to be free thinkers could arrive at a different set of moral beliefs?? Is it possible that atheism isn't actually a set of beliefs after all??

Well, I see what you are saying here, but atheists pride themselves that they decide all their beliefs by following objective reason, scientific principles, and corroborative evidence (in contrast to religious people who let emotions or even self-contradictory scripture affect their beliefs) – so I think I am justified in being surprised that atheists would arrive at such diametrically opposed moral beliefs.

I see also from the tone of your post that you doubt my sincerity. That speaks volumes....

To challenge the reasoning behind your assertions does not imply one doubts your sincerity you know. People do mistakes all the time without being insincere. For example I believe that many of Harris's and Dawkins's thoughts are fallacious but I also believe they are both eminently, perhaps admiringly, honest people. So what I challenge you to do is to explain why an atheist would follow reason to conclude that they should lover their enemies – for I really cannot understand that (and neither does Hitchens). But if have given offence then I apologize.

It is a Wildean paradox that smacks you in the face and sticks in the brain.

The Wildean paradox is "Always forgive your enemies, nothing annoys them so much." – but I fail to see how this explains why we should love our enemies; at best it says why we should pretend to love them.

Its roots lie in the live-and-let-live, reciprocal philosophies of Epicurus and Confucius.

There is nothing "reciprocal" in the precept to love our enemies. Reciprocal would be "love your friends and hate your enemies; help your friends and hurt your enemies".

I simply discovered that by imagining my enemies as friends they could often become so.

This sounds to me like a fine and effective philosophy Phil, but still imagining loving someone is not the same as loving them.

Killing my enemy makes my son his son's enemy.

Right, but here you explain what sense it makes not to return evil. To avoid killing your enemy (because of all the good reasons you mention) you don't have to actually love them.

Loving the man and hating the poison in his head makes perfect sense.

What sense? What logical sense does loving our enemies make within an atheistic understanding of reality?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

428. Comment #81145 by walk on October 24, 2007 at 8:54 am

DG 409 - Sure, whatever, but why don't you answer my question?

Other Comments by walk

429. Comment #81146 by irate_atheist on October 24, 2007 at 8:56 am

429. Comment #81140 by Dianelos Georgoudis -

Let's be candid. It makes no sense however you look at it. More lunatic than moral, frankly. It is yet one more example of the absurdity of religion.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

430. Comment #81155 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 9:43 am

Epeeist (post 412, or #81048):

Secondly, whichever worldview turns out to be true, the fact remains that theism is more conducive to moral behavior than atheism - as is easy to see on conceptual grounds and is moreover evidenced by observational facts.

You have your mantra, I have mine
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.

Put up or shut up. Show us some evidence

Have done so already in the Lennox thread. See for example post 643 (or #80487) there.

And if you are asking for specific objective evidence, Harold Koenig's "The Link between Religion and Health" and Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares" quote dozens of scientific studies that document both the physical and ethical benefits of religious belief. Let me quote from page 34 of the latter book:

But the evidence leaves no room for doubt: Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people. In years of research, I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people.[snip] In 2000, religious people - who, per family, earned exactly the same amount as secular people, $49,000 - gave about 3.5 times more money per year (an average of $2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).

And, incidentally, I wonder: is that the royal "us" you are using? ;-)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

431. Comment #81156 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 9:47 am

Goldy (post 413, or #81052):

the fact remains that atheism is more conducive to moral behavior than theism

Can you - or anybody else here - give any evidence for this assertion?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

432. Comment #81157 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 9:49 am

DG-

See, this is why I got tired of you last night, you tuned me right out like a zombie.

I don't CARE how happy it makes people, it doesn't point to religion being TRUE.

I'll go so far as to say I don't care if it can cure cancer (it doesn't), it still doesn't make it true.

A delusion that erases tumors is still a delusion.

You still have all your work cut out for you to prove "goddidit!".

Other Comments by Diacanu

433. Comment #81160 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 9:53 am

Diacanu (post 416 or #81057):

"the fact remains that theism is more conducive to moral behavior than atheism -".

Even if that were so (it's not) that isn't a point whatsoever in favor of it being TRUE.

I have already dealt with this point in post 345 or #80767 in this thread.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

434. Comment #81163 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 10:00 am

Diacanu (post 418 or #81066):

"But we are all free to understand the gospel message any way we like".

Well, if the gospels weren't such a sloppy piece of obfuscationist moosh, there wouldn't be all the arguments.

Well, taking into account that Jesus was teaching 2,000 years ago among simpleminded (actually illiterate) people, I think he did a great job. And taking into account that his teaching was recorded in writing many years after his death, and then edited and re-edited by many people with various motives, the gospels as a whole manage to convey Jesus's moral sense pretty well I think.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

435. Comment #81164 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 10:05 am

DG-

Okay, let's look at post 345.

Your argument seems to hinge on this point...whatever it is...

"Well if the world is religiously ambiguous, i.e. if reasonable people can adopt both a religious and non-religious understanding of how objective reality is, then theism's superiority as far as morality goes will be reason enough for reasonable people to adopt a religious worldview".

...huh???

This says nothing whatever about whether there's a god or not, and seems to say exactly what I've been objecting to.

If I interpret you correctly, in a world were everything is meaningless, including atheism and theism, then theism is better because it's more moral.

Which amounts to "believe religion even if it's bogus, because it's so lovely".

If this isn't what you're saying, please correct me.

Other Comments by Diacanu

436. Comment #81166 by epeeist on October 24, 2007 at 10:06 am

Comment #81155 by Dianelos Georgoudis

And if you are asking for specific objective evidence, Harold Koenig's "The Link between Religion and Health" and Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares" quote dozens of scientific studies that document both the physical and ethical benefits of religious belief. Let me quote from page 34 of the latter book:

But the evidence leaves no room for doubt: Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people. In years of research, I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people.[snip] In 2000, religious people - who, per family, earned exactly the same amount as secular people, $49,000 - gave about 3.5 times more money per year (an average of $2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).

It is an interesting quote, but I wonder whether the author is committing a sin of omission.

Religious organisations are of course charities. I would be interested to see a more detailed breakdown of the figures. How much did the average church goer donate to their church (effectively a tithe) and how much to, say, Medecin sans Frontiers? How many times did they volunteer to take Sunday school outings, and how many times did they volunteer as amateur sports coaches? How does this compare with people who profess to be secularists?

Other Comments by epeeist

437. Comment #81174 by Teratornis on October 24, 2007 at 10:38 am

In reply to comment #81140 by Dianelos Georgoudis:

The Wildean paradox is "Always forgive your enemies, nothing annoys them so much." – but I fail to see how this explains why we should love our enemies; at best it says why we should pretend to love them.

Of course this whole discussion suffers mightily from the lack of any solidly objective definition of "love" - how does one distinguish between doing something vs. pretending to do it, if one cannot even define it? Some people have inflicted harm on other people, while claiming as their motivation "love" - for example, a parent may spank a misbehaving child, in an attempt to shape the child's behavior in ways the parent believes will benefit the child. The Grand Inquisitor may have felt that by torturing heretics to save their souls, he did a "loving" act, since the torment of hell would be far worse. However, the misbehaving child and the torturned heretic may not have felt loved, so on top of the inherent subjectivity of "love," one would have to ask whether "Love your enemy" includes convincing the enemy that you love him.

The Greeks had three different words for "love." We have even more words for "money," a subject whose definition is considerably more solid.

An analogy might help. Once upon a time, our ancestors had to contend with predatory animals. Big cats, for example, prey routinely on primates, and occasionally a big cat may take a human. When such kills were commonplace, it must have been natural for at least some humans to hate big cats, because hatred is the natural human emotional reaction to things which threaten a human's interests.

Today, humans have extirpated big cats from most of their former range, and attacks on humans are less common. Accordingly, fewer humans are likely to have been emotionally scarred by cat attacks on themselves or on their family members, so humans have less cause to hate big cats now. Indeed, many humans appear to "love" them. Big cats really are magnificent creatures, when humans can view them with proper protection.

Replacing our (probable) ancestral hatred of cats with something more akin to love involved first defeating them. Thus one cynical interpretation of "Love your enemy" might be: "Transform your enemy, by force if necessary, into something you can love."

We see much the same thing in the change in attitude by European-Americans toward Native Americans. Back in colonial days, when the two groups often took turns killing each other, there probably wasn't a lot of love between them. One side eventually prevailed. After moving the vanquished off the warpath and onto reservations, the victors then had the luxury of beginning to feel guilty. Of course the guilt never rises to such an intensity that the victors decide they should return the continent to its previous inhabitants.

Other Comments by Teratornis

438. Comment #81177 by Teratornis on October 24, 2007 at 10:53 am

In reply to comment #80751 by Dianelos Georgoudis:

Nice try, but it's quite obvious that Dawkins calling atheism a belief system was not some kind of slip of tongue. He really considers atheism to be a belief system, so Irate_atheist's claim in post 301 (#80100) that anybody who knew the first thing about atheism would know that it is not a belief system is in fact false.

Would you consider my disbelief in Santa Claus to be a "belief system"?

If so, what would you gain by labeling it so? Would you imagine that by calling my disbelief in Santa Claus a "belief system," you had somehow increased the probability that Santa Claus exists? Or would you imagine that a belief in Santa Claus was then on the same "evidentiary basis" as a disbelief in Santa Claus?

Playing word games doesn't change the underlying facts: there is no conclusive evidence for Santa Claus, just as there is no conclusive evidence for God. Therefore, believing in either one just now is an unreasonable belief.

I happen not to believe in Santa Claus at the moment, but if you can produce conclusive evidence for his existence, I will then become unable to rationally disbelieve in Santa Claus. That is, if I were to reject the conclusive evidence, then my rejection would be irrational.

By disbelieving in Santa Claus, I am not believing that Santa Claus cannot possibly exist. Of course an all-powerful Santa Claus could conceal all evidence of his existence, if for some reason he were so shy. I am merely saying that I have no reason to believe Santa Claus exists.

Most people can think clearly about Santa Claus because there is no multi-billion-dollar industry brainwashing successive generations of children to believe in Santa Claus despite the lack of conclusive evidence. There are no soaring cathedrals testifying to the wonder of Santa Claus; no priestly class conferring human authority to the belief; and above all, no social community trading on the currency of this belief. When we think about Santa Claus, we only think about the evidence for Santa Claus, and there isn't any action attributable to Santa Claus which doesn't have an equally good natural explanation.

You can think clearly about Santa Claus because your ability to think rationally in this instance hasn't been systematically, deliberately destroyed by the God Industry (the Religio-Illogico Complex, to butcher a phrase from Gen. Eisenhower).

Other Comments by Teratornis

439. Comment #81178 by BMMcArdle on October 24, 2007 at 10:55 am

It makes more sense to support your delusions with delusion, not rationality and reason.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

440. Comment #81187 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 11:16 am

This is a parable, Lauregon. A parable is not supposed to be understood literally but metaphorically, that's why we call it a parable. - Dianelos

Yes, it's supposed to be a parable. Why mundane advice about using one's innate talents would require such elaborate obfuscation remains a mystery. One might wonder from whom the ho-hum advice was being concealed.

Above you are suggesting that this parable teaches that God loves money, and in post #80613 in the Lennox thread you suggest it teaches that God wants us to love money :-P

What I said was that this parable purports to describe the kingdom of heaven, then goes on to paint a hideous vignette of what happened to a terrified servant who didn't serve the demands of his thieving, rapacious, and murderous master---and to others who understandably despised the master. What I didn't say is that many theists I've encountered have argued that the master in the story represents "God." You appear to be among them.

What can I say, I find that's really an extremely warped understanding of what I find a perfectly clear parable which teaches that we should actively invest the opportunities we have in our life to increase in virtue – to create the treasure that no thief can steal and no moth destroy. - Dianelos

The highly detailed and bloody fabric of the parable doesn't support such a banal understanding. There is no corollary whatsoever to virtue in the story. You can come to such an understanding only by tossing out the contents of the story and inserting an invention.

But we are all free to understand the gospel message any way we like. - Dianelos

Clearly demonstrating the folly of taking seriously the claims of humans positing personal knowledge of the mind of "God."

As they say somewhere, let those who have eyes see, and those who have ears hear. - Dianelos

What's to be seen here is a clear example of the process by which you've invented your personal ontology and theology.

Other Comments by Lauregon

441. Comment #81192 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 11:37 am

I don't see any particular difference as far as both theism and atheism being worldviews about objective reality goes. I suspect you see a difference because you assume or believe that all theistic descriptions of objective reality are "imagination", "deluded", "wishful thinking", "hypothetical", "convoluted", "fantasy", "inescapably obviously false", and whatnot – but what you assume or believe is irrelevant to the fact that both theism and atheism represent worldviews about how objective reality is. And so they are directly comparable. And my thesis is that when one seriously studies what the best versions of both worldviews actually say, and compares them one to the other under the same criteria, it becomes inescapably obvious that theism is much more reasonable than atheism. - Dianelos

Well, we see how you've dealt with the parable of the talents, that is, by fabricating a teddy bear from a bloody shroud.

Other Comments by Lauregon

442. Comment #81194 by Teratornis on October 24, 2007 at 11:40 am

In reply to Comment #80765 by bluejway:

My view is that natural science, despite its tremendous success,

My view is that science is the only tool which has notably succeeded at much of anything. Without science, we'd still be in the Bronze Age, or perhaps in the Stone Age as the Native Americans were when Columbus arrived to plunder and enslave, and any success as we could then boast of would have been built on the backs of slaves.

We certainly wouldn't be using the products of science (computers, in this case) to talk about whether we still need God to explain anything.

is not the kind of tool that will help us adjudicate on the supernatural. We cannot have it both ways. That is, we can't presuppose there is no supernatural, and then use science to then show there is no supernatural. The presupposition negates the use of the tool in that way.

Science is not about presupposition. For example, once upon a time, scientists knew nothing about X-rays. Or about black holes. Or about genes. Or about almost everything else that science discovered before humans had imagined it. Therefore, cautious scientists tried to refrain from presupposing about them.

Scientists did not discover all these previously unknown things by "presupposing" anything. They discovered things by going out and looking, by building ever-more-sensitive equipment, and by constructing careful experiments. Even when scientists do succumb to the natural human tendency to let their imaginations get ahead of the evidence, when they find some evidence of something, then their thinking eventually comes into line with the evidence.

Back before scientists understood, say, magnetism, many people considered the behavior of lodestones to be supernatural. Mercury was called "quick"silver because it seems to have a living quality. The ability of bats to fly in the dark was due to demons. Lightning struck buildings according to God's displeasure, and it was therefore blasphemous to install lightning rods. And so on. The definition of "supernatural" in these examples turned out not to be that these phenomena were "above" or "outside" nature, but rather that they were outside the human understanding of nature at the time.

Back then, the habitat for the God of the Gaps was much roomier than it is now. It seems a good bet that further progress of science will further squeeze the God of the Gaps.

So then, the question becomes, do you suppose there are some things which must forever remain outside the reach of science? Which is equivalent to asking, do you believe science must ultimately reach the point where it has discovered all it can discover? If so, where do you draw your line in the sand?

Bear in mind that religious people down through history repeatedly drew such lines, only to have the bulldozer of science plow right through them. Does the scientific enterprise show any signs of running out of steam yet? Are graduate students having trouble coming up with thesis topics? Granted, it does seem hard to imagine there will be many more individual scientists overturning whole fields like Darwin and Einstein did, but the same was hard to imagine before those guys showed up. (At some point, progress in artificial intelligence might produce a great scientist who is not human - and in fact that might turn out to be necessary to tackle some problems that look really tough today.)

From a practical standpoint, just being able to draw a line means you understand enough of something to define it clearly. For example, back when Christians were sure the Bible was correct on the geocentrism issue, they had a clear enough idea of what geocentrism meant for the theory to be testable. Then it was just a matter of time for technological progress to give scientists the tools to test the idea.

A currently popular place to draw lines in the sand is at the realm of human consciousness. Consciousness is currently a tough problem, maybe even tougher than figuring out geocentrism vs. heliocentrism before the invention of telescopes. When astronomers only had their naked eyes to work with, there was no solid evidence to rule out geocentrism, so the Biblical claims that the Earth does not move seemed believable.

Of course, once science squeezed that particular Gap out of existence, religious people quickly adjusted their belief in God and forgot all about their error. As long as one Gap remains for God, some people will continue to believe in God. It won't matter to them how many times the God belief failed in the past.

However, it does seem to matter a bit more to smart people, as belief in God correlates negatively with IQ, and the progress in science will probably cause the negative correlation to become even sharper. Consider how much mental effort a smart person must expend right now to remain a Young Earth Creationist, for example. At some point in the future, it may be equally difficult for a smart person to believe in a supernatural explanation for consciousness.

Other Comments by Teratornis

443. Comment #81195 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 11:43 am

SRWB (post 428, or #81123):

DG I think our wires are crossed. I am not talking about Abraham and Isaac,

Right, my mistake.

However, to my question "does your God condone torture of "children" for fun or any other reason, i.e. like saving the rest of mankind?" you answered "no". Are you sure?

Yes, quite.

I was referring to the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus. Wasn't he a "child" who was tortured?

Oh, I see. If you mean "condone of" in the sense of "agree with" or "approve" then surely it's not like God agreed with Jesus' torture and crucifixion – surely nobody in their right minds thinks that, do they? How could God agree with violence done to anybody? But if you mean "condone of" in the sense of "allow to happen", then of course God does allow for all moral as well as natural evil to happen (including the torture of crucifixion of Jesus), but this it seems to me is a different issue. Or maybe you mean that by allowing evil (including natural evil) to happen God is breaking the precept "you should not torture sentient beings for fun" – but then you see the problem: That God does allow evil to happen does not of course entail that God does this for fun. The key question of theodicy is indeed to explain why God allows evil to happen. I think the best answer is the Irenaean theodicy, which we may discuss if you wish.

And you do believe in [Jesus], do you not?

Yes, but the truth about Jesus is not the central issue of ontology. The central issue is whether the whole of our experience of life can be understood better by postulating a non-religious or a religious description of objective reality. More specifically what interests me to discuss is whether theism or naturalism are more reasonable descriptions of objective reality. If one thinks that naturalism is the correct description of reality then, obviously, all discussion about Jesus or Christianity is irrelevant. Nevertheless if you care to know about my personal beliefs about Jesus then let me know.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

444. Comment #81196 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 11:45 am

Even if you could prove beyond a photon of a shadow of a doubt religion made people more moral, it still wouldn't offer up any proof of it being TRUE.

What you'd have at best, is a noble lie.
But a noble lie is still a fucking lie.

And I'm saying religion isn't EVEN a noble lie.

In fact, I scoff at the whole notion of noble lies.

That's neocon bullshit. - Diacanu

Diacanu whacks the ball right out of the park.

Other Comments by Lauregon

445. Comment #81223 by Goldy on October 24, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Epeeist (post 412, or #81048):

Secondly, whichever worldview turns out to be true, the fact remains that theism is more conducive to moral behavior than atheism - as is easy to see on conceptual grounds and is moreover evidenced by observational facts.

You have your mantra, I have mine
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.

Put up or shut up. Show us some evidence

Have done so already in the Lennox thread. See for example post 643 (or #80487) there.

I believe the most recent answer was

But I did: You asked if I can give "irrefutable proof" for an assertion I had made, and in post 351 (#80790) I answered your question with "No, I can't". I think that's a clear answer.

the fact remains that atheism is more conducive to moral behavior than theism

Can you - or anybody else here - give any evidence for this assertion?

Still waiting for your answer since you yourself have disregarded your ignorance to reassert the same theism theory of yours regarding morality. You first, then we'll counter. And no, it's not a royal we....

Other Comments by Goldy

446. Comment #81340 by phil rimmer on October 24, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Dianelos,

(429. Comment #81140 )

I'll try and join the dots for you.

Pretense is an interesting issue. C.S.Lewis was all for it. Answering, "How does one become a Christian?", he replies, "First pretend. Going through the motions of what it is to be a Christian, you will wake up one morning to discover you are no longer pretending." This is how we might change any aspect of our lives. We first imagine ourselves with a skill, with a lover, with a more peaceful life…The seeds of a desire are strengthened and refined through our ability to imagine this future state. This is pretense with an earnest intention to become.

There are enough clues in my few sentences to show that sham doesn't and will never "cut it" for me. It is not sustainable in a relationship. A good life, the life we would wish for ourselves, flows. Lies as much as enemies create turbulence and steal quality, and a dishonest desire will as like bring a dishonest response.

"I wish to be loved. I will hate my enemy." This is reciprocal??

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If this is only for in-group as you imply, then it's a pretty tarnished Rule.

Why strive for love when something lesser will do? Many answers, but try these-

1)To truly fix the problem for my children's children I must end up in a relationship with my enemy that is "inheritable" by our respective descendants. The stronger the relationship, the better the result.
2)It takes love to approach something truly repellent.
3)Love, or at least, desiring it, is disarming, indeed shocking to the potential object of your desire.
4)To be loved.

Hitchens sees a (metaphorical) mad axe-man running at his wife and kids. He may be right. His argument is routed in a specific instance. Mine is quite general encompassing enemies from individuals to nations and supra-national groupings. The differences hinge as much on a perception of available time. Other "Goods" are to be done apart from striving to love your enemy. Given the complexity of trying to balance these, his best and my best will inevitably differ.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

447. Comment #81376 by phil rimmer on October 24, 2007 at 4:26 pm

439. Comment #81174 by Teratornis

What could be more loving than bringing people to their maker.

"Onward, Christian soldiers. Mete out that tough love!"

"Love thine enemy", always seemed a scary prospect on the lips of a religite. I hope less so from an aging hippy who, as a student, had THAT picture of a flower in a gun barrel on his wall.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

448. Comment #81381 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Oh, I see. If you mean "condone of" in the sense of "agree with" or "approve" then surely it's not like God agreed with Jesus' torture and crucifixion – surely nobody in their right minds thinks that, do they? How could God agree with violence done to anybody? - Dianelos

Oops. There goes the entire doctrine of salvation from "God's" wrath by means of Jesus' vicarious atonement, i.e., the whole substance of Christian orthodoxy. Not to mention Jesus' threats of eternal punishment for non-belief in and non-compliance with his teachings.

Other Comments by Lauregon

449. Comment #81439 by SRWB on October 24, 2007 at 6:08 pm

...then surely it's not like God agreed with Jesus' torture and crucifixion – surely nobody in their right minds thinks that, do they?

Lauregon has beaten me to it. Apparently nobody in their right mind thinks that, but God and his Christian friends do! Are you now taking the untenable position that this key tenet of Christianity is no longer true or valid? Or did we once again misunderstand the whole of your objective reality?

Other Comments by SRWB

450. Comment #81589 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 24, 2007 at 11:57 pm

Walk (post 430,or #81145):

Oops, sorry, here goes the direct answer. Your question again was:

If god is omnipotent, having more power than anything in the universe, how is it that our ultra-sensitive sensing equipment which can measure the most minute forces, somehow can't detect the greatest force that exists?

Consider again the falling of an apple. Science discovers that the falling of the apple can be described by specific scientific laws. As we saw in post 409 (#81038) above, the naturalist believes that the same laws not only describe that falling but actually make the apple fall this way, whereas the theist believes that God's will makes the apple fall this way. But science cannot help us decide who of the two is right. Why not? Because the use of ever more ultra-sensitive instruments can only help science discover ever more ultra-exact scientific laws, but both the naturalist and theist agree that these laws exist. The question if whether the laws themselves or else God's will make the physical world behave as it does. And to answer this question the use of scientific instruments is irrelevant, you see that.



Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis