Closer to Apes Than They Thought?

[R_McGeddon]

Here we go again.

Does it ever occur to you that the reason we think we are too special to die forever is that this sense is planted in us by God?

Nothing of the sort occurs to me.

If that is so, egotism has nothing to do with it. We are merely following God’s will … and humbly as possible if we know what’s good for us.

Religion adds fuel to the fire of the ego, there’s no humility there.

Rather, it strikes me as unbelievable arrogance to suppose that one can dismiss God with a flick of the intellectual wrist.

This statement supposes, incorrectly, that god is an undeniable fact in the first place.

 

[John_Henry]

Nothing of the sort occurs to me.

Fair enough. But note: you are in the overwhelmingly vast minority of human beings in this regard, both currently and historically. Mayhaps there’s a subtle little egoistic joy in thinking that the “intelligent few” have finally cracked the code, while the vast hordes of benighted humanity carry on in their laughable dreamworlds. Don’t lecture me on egoism!

 

[R_McGeddon]

Socrates and Plato came to the rational conclusion that the Human soul is eternal. Their thinking was dispassionate and analytical. From a Scientific point of view their hypothesis is just as good as the alternative. To dismiss them and their thinking as somehow irrational by calling them egotistical seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.

There is nothing conclusive about a soul, it isn’t even a fact that they exist at all.

Therefore, Socrates and Plato both formed an opinion.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Simple, you believe that you are far too special to cease existing when you die. That is egotistic.

Following a religion of any kind is stroking that ego.

Hello R McGeddon,

I don’t know if you’ll even buy this or not, but personally I have struggled with my faith to the point of near obsession. I’m a veteran so I am definitely sure of my mortality and I was actually agnostic throughout my entire service time and years afterword.

My life would be much simpler if I could disregard the idea of God and just accept life just is and when I’m dead I’m gone. I’m dead anyway so why would I care?

Faith to me is 100 times harder than being agnostic. I’m not sure if I am accurately expressing what I’ve gone though or not, but I felt I should comment.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Yea. It would be more interesting if the Atheist/Agnostics could come up with some better arguments.

I just can’t get over the irony of this statement.

I thought the American lack of a sense of irony was a myth, it seems I was wrong.

 

[Maranatha]

There is nothing conclusive about a soul, it isn’t even a fact that they exist at all.

Therefore, Socrates and Plato both formed an opinion.

An opinion is a belief for which there is insufficient proof. The logical arguments coherently presented by Socrates and Plato are sound. Each person can follow their logic for themselves and decide if the logic surpasses “reasonable doubt.”

 

[R_McGeddon]

Fair enough. But note: you are in the overwhelmingly vast minority of human beings in this regard, both currently and historically.

Maybe I’m just one of the vocal minority of a bigger, silent number than you realise.

Bear in mind that a lot of people celebrated the new millennium at the start of the year 2000. They were ALL a full year premature, so strength in numbers means nothing.

Mayhaps there’s a subtle little egoistic joy in thinking that the “intelligent few” have finally cracked the code, while the vast hordes of benighted humanity carry on in their laughable dreamworlds.

I don’t take any joy, nor do I think of myself as one of the “intelligent few”.

Don’t lecture me on egoism!

You’d know if I was lecturing you.

 

[R_McGeddon]

An opinion is a belief for which there is insufficient proof.

Exactly, and there is no proof that a soul exists. If there was it would have been presented by now.

The logical arguments coherently presented by Socrates and Plato are sound. Each person can follow their logic for themselves and decide if the logic surpasses “reasonable doubt.”

Again you’re right, and the logic for the existence of a soul doesn’t surpass reasonable doubt.

 

[Maranatha]

Exactly, and there is no proof that a soul exists. If there was it would have been presented by now.

Again you’re right, and the logic for the existence of a soul doesn’t surpass reasonable doubt.

Any reasonable reading of the arguments comes to a different conclusion. The only way to logically escape the conclusion is to demand scientific proof.

If settled scientific proof was the only proof acceptable in a court of law, then most murderers would not be convicted. As any defense attorney can tell you, most scientific proof can be interpreted in more then one way. Demanding settled scientific proof is therefore unreasonable.

 

[John_Henry]

Maybe I’m just one of the vocal minority of a bigger, silent number than you realise.

Uh. I don’t think so.

Bear in mind that a lot of people celebrated the new millennium at the start of the year 2000. They were ALL a full year premature, so strength in numbers means nothing.

Bear in mind I didn’t say numbers “meant” anything. I was just pointing out the temptation to egoism inherent in your position. That you have resisted that temptation is laudable.

I don’t take any joy, nor do I think of myself as one of the “intelligent few”.

So now you know what it’s like to have someone tell you what they believe…

You’d know if I was lecturing you.

Excellent.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Any reasonable reading of the arguments comes to a different conclusion. The only way to logically escape the conclusion is to demand scientific proof.

Scientific proof is irrefutable, that is its strength.

If settled scientific proof was the only proof acceptable in a court of law, then most murderers would not be convicted.

Are you saying that they are currently being convicted by faith in their guilt?

As any defense attorney can tell you, most scientific proof can be interpreted in more then one way.

Really? examples please.

Demanding settled scientific proof is therefore unreasonable.

You’d think differently if settled scientific proof backed you up.

 

[Saint_Michael]

This thread has turned into a patronization fest…

 

[R_McGeddon]

Uh. I don’t think so.

Also, you don’t know so.

Bear in mind I didn’t say numbers “meant” anything. I was just pointing out the temptation to egoism inherent in your position. That you have resisted that temptation is laudable.

I agree.

So now you know what it’s like to have someone tell you what they believe…

I get it all the time.

 

[Maranatha]

Scientific proof is irrefutable, that is its strength.
Are you saying that they are currently being convicted by faith in their guilt?
Really? examples please.

DNA evidence is found at the scene of a crime. The DNA evidence implicates a single individual. It looks like the scientific proof is strong right?

If a person is convinced upon the testimony of a eye witness then the jury has found the witness credible. That is another way of saying the jury had faith in the testimony of the witness.

You’d think differently if settled scientific proof backed you up.

Yes. If there was scientific proof of God, then everything would be different. I would not need faith. Without faith there is no love.

 

[R_McGeddon]

DNA evidence is found at the scene of a crime. The DNA evidence implicates a single individual. It looks like the scientific proof is strong right?

That seems reasonable.

If a person is convinced upon the testimony of an eye witness then the jury has found the witness credible. That is another way of saying the jury had faith in the testimony of the witness.

You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Eye witness testimony alone is rarely enough, even from multiple witnesses.

Yes. If there was scientific proof of God, then everything would be different. I would not need faith. Without faith there is no love.

So you would stop loving God if there was proof of existence??

That seems rather strange.

 

[nucatholic]

I am disappointed with many of the assertions on this thread. I have just as much or more love for my friends, family and humanity now as an atheist as when I was a Christian. Atheism is not equivalent to egoism and materialism. Some atheists/agnostics do subscribe to egoism and do live lives of materialism but not all and not even most. Most atheists/agnostics I know are Secular Humanists who recognize the beauty and progress of humanity, the need for ethical behavior/ research and the importance of family and friends. Most are extremely intelligent and honestly search for the truth with a spirit of open mindedness and understanding. Scientific inquiry has proven itself time and time again as opposed to beliefs arrived at by faith. This is not dogmatism, this is simply an honest observation. Please try to meet a few kind and genuine atheists/agnostics before you make sweeping generalizations about a group of people.

 

[Maranatha]

That seems reasonable.

If the DNA evidence was left at the scene before or after the crime took place then the scientific evidence is irrelevant to crime. Scientific proof is always subject to interpretation. It’s left up to the jury to determine if the proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Eye witness testimony alone is rarely enough, even from multiple witnesses.

Many, perhaps even most, convictions come from circumstantial evidence and the faith juries put in witnesses.

So you would stop loving God if there was proof of existence??That seems rather strange.

That’s not what I wrote at all. I said, without faith there is no love.

 

[John_Henry]

I am disappointed with many of the assertions on this thread. I have just as much or more love for my friends, family and humanity now as an atheist as when I was a Christian. Atheism is not equivalent to egoism and materialism. Some atheists/agnostics do subscribe to egoism and do live lives of materialism but not all and not even most. Most atheists/agnostics I know are Secular Humanists who recognize the beauty and progress of humanity, the need for ethical behavior/ research and the importance of family and friends. Most are extremely intelligent and honestly search for the truth with a spirit of open mindedness and understanding. Scientific inquiry has proven itself time and time again as opposed to beliefs arrived at by faith. This is not dogmatism, this is simply an honest observation. Please try to meet a few kind and genuine atheists/agnostics before you make sweeping generalizations about a group of people.

Any comments about the “egoism” of atheists was merely theorized as a potential temptation. We’ve already established that no atheists in this thread whatsover are egoists in the slightest bit. Whatsoever. Especially that English guy, who, armed with the force of reason and deadly logic, only manages to make smart-*** remarks.

 

[Maranatha]

I am disappointed with many of the assertions on this thread. I have just as much or more love for my friends, family and humanity now as an atheist as when I was a Christian. Atheism is not equivalent to egoism and materialism. Some atheists/agnostics do subscribe to egoism and do live lives of materialism but not all and not even most. Most atheists/agnostics I know are Secular Humanists who recognize the beauty and progress of humanity, the need for ethical behavior/ research and the importance of family and friends. Most are extremely intelligent and honestly search for the truth with a spirit of open mindedness and understanding. Scientific inquiry has proven itself time and time again as opposed to beliefs arrived at by faith. This is not dogmatism, this is simply an honest observation. Please try to meet a few kind and genuine atheists/agnostics before you make sweeping generalizations about a group of people.

While I agree that there may be the occasional example to the contrary I tend to agree with George Washington in his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. (emphasis added)

 

[ribozyme]

If the DNA evidence was left at the scene before or after the crime took place then the scientific evidence is irrelevant to crime. Scientific proof is always subject to interpretation. It’s left up to the jury to determine if the proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Many, perhaps even most, convictions come from circumstantial evidence and the faith juries put in witnesses.

That’s not what I wrote at all. I said, without faith there is no love.

There’s no such thing as “scientific proof” but there is scientific evidence.