How do you feel about atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter punisherthunder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JD1789 said:
I at this point, I need to get back to studying. Ultimately I can’t get past this.
  1. There is at least some evidence that God can exist.
  2. I want God to exist.
  3. If God doesn’t exist then I then do not have a soul nor do I have free-will but rather everything is determined by physics including my desires.
  4. If God does exist, my free-will choice to believe in Him and follow him to the best of my abilities matches my desire for His existence.
  5. So the way I see it, either I randomly desire God’s existence and believe in Him by the same material mechanism that causes me to desire him or he is real and I have chosen to believe in him after seeing the high probability that he exists.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the chat, enjoy the studying, I have the same fate awaiting me tomorrow :D.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Evolutionary psychology explains the origins of morals though the interaction of cooperative societies, however in the case of Kolbe there is certainly even more at work. I would argue that his sacrifice involves more than simply a discussion on morality. We are not just talking about a moral outlook but an entire worldview. I am not sure I would even describe his sacrifice as being moral in the sense we are discussing. Brave, compassionate, yes; even defiant.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Morality implies an obligation.

I don’t believe that anyone would have been obligated to do what Kolbe did. Thus it was not, in the strictest sense of the word, the “moral” thing to do.

It was a supreme act of agape.

And you need to explain this from an “evolutionary psychological” POV.

It makes no sense for any human being to do such an act of agape.

What is your explanation, MrE?
As far is evolutionary origins, giving ones life for anther can be seen throughout the animal kingdom and it is one of the most fundamental instincts, think how fiercely kin protect each other. However, before we open that tin of worms there is a much cleaner way of debunking Kolbe as evidence for deity installed morals, for if we are moral creatures due to a god infusing us with the same moral compass how can it be that for every case of a Kolbe there were literally millions of people slaughtered by other humans?
Click to expand...
You still have to explain why there is a Kolbe. And why we view what he did as positive (i.e. “brave” and “compassionate”).
 
MrEmpiricism said:
The only people claiming something came from nothing are the religious. Abiogenesis is what you are referring to and it is supported by plenty of empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
What is your position? Something *can *come from nothing?
 
PRmerger said:
You still have to explain why there is a Kolbe. And why we view what he did as positive (i.e. “brave” and “compassionate”).
Click to expand...
Because we can reflect on the situation and understand he stood up against people who were harming innocents.
 
JD1789 said:
Then again, belief in science as the only way to know something cannot be empiracally verified.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It is, ironically and amusingly, a position of FAITH.

“The only way to know something is if it’s empircally verifiable!”

How do you know this?

“I accept it on…faith, I guess. I don’t have any empirical data that demonstrates that it’s the only way to know something.”

:hmmm:
 
PRmerger said:
What is your position? Something *can *come from nothing?
Click to expand...
No, if faced with two choices I can reject A without accepting B. My position is nothing is a concept and until someone demonstrates otherwise I remain undecided. Like I said before it might not even be possible for there to be nothing.
 
PRmerger said:
Indeed. It is, ironically and amusingly, a position of FAITH.

“The only way to know something is if it’s empircally verifiable!”

How do you know this?

“I accept it on…faith, I guess. I don’t have any empirical data that demonstrates that it’s the only way to know something.”

:hmmm:
Click to expand...
Another straw man, that is twice now. where have I ever said the only way to know something is through edit: empirically verifiable evidence?
 
PRmerger said:
Well, good.

We have made a step forward and established you do believe in moral absolutes.

Well, to be precise, you do believe in 2 moral absolutes.
Click to expand...
Not by the common understand of the words…

“Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular** actions are intrinsically right or wrong**. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good.”

Not that it makes any real difference.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
They don’t need to be, without them there would be no such thing as empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
So there are some things that “don’t need to be” verified empirically.

Interesting…

Do you have a list of things that you believe that “don’t need to be” verified empirically?

And how do you come to know which things are part of this category? What tool do you use to obtain this list?
 
PRmerger said:
If you can have discussions about infinity (and you seem to suggest that you can), then, logically, I can infer that you can have discussions about the concept of nothing.
Click to expand...
Yep as a concept like infinity not an actual thing. I could also think about a giant green universe making rabbit, but I am not going to waste my time doing so.
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Because we can reflect on the situation and understand he stood up against people who were harming innocents.
Click to expand...
What part of this is explained by “evolutionary psychology”? :confused:

Natural selection, in this case, is thwarted by the fact that…well, this good behavior is selectively…destroyed.

This action seems to actually CONTRAVENE this theory of evolutionary psychology, don’t you think?
 
PRmerger said:
So there are some things that “don’t need to be” verified empirically.

Interesting…

Do you have a list of things that you believe that “don’t need to be” verified empirically?

And how do you come to know which things are part of this category? What tool do you use to obtain this list?
Click to expand...
No you have completely misunderstood my position, I said that I cannot accept evidence that I cannot verify as without the process I have no way of knowing if the evidence is valid. Empirical evidence just happens to be the best method we know of to do this, that does NOT mean it is the only one. If you have other methods of validation I will be more than happy to use them, providing the can be independently verified of course…
 
MrEmpiricism said:
Yep as a concept like infinity not an actual thing. I could also think about a giant green universe making rabbit, but I am not going to waste my time doing so.
Click to expand...
Right.

And “nothing” is also a concept.

You seem to be able to grasp abstract concepts, as it applies to infinity.

So I’m puzzled by your apparent inability to grasp another abstract concept, such as “nothing.”
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
The problem, from my perspective (so take as you will), is that when asked for some specifics that a person in a neutral position would find convincing you have been steadfast in not providing it.

Regarding insulting God (the Christian version) and Scripture, I think this is the big question:

Do you think someone can state that they doubt God (the Christian version) and Scripture without it being insulting?
Click to expand...
Actually the problem from my perspective is the inability of any non believer to explain how something came from nothing , how life came from nonlife . They ask us accept these two events on blind faith .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top