I am an atheist thread 2

[BlaineTog]

I can’t imagine a real situation such as this, but if the two prisoners agreed, then yes, I think I would help them to escape.

First, only one of the prisoners gets to escape the prison, the other just dies. Second, the prisoner you’re going to kill doesn’t get the chance to agree to anything. Third, the imprisonment is only for nine months, during which time the prisoner you’re going to kill would have spend reading up and training to, say, get his college degree, whereas the prisoner who was going to escape was allowed to continue with her life mostly as normal.

Women will continue to abort fetuses.

This isn’t a reply, it’s merely repetition of what you said before without even altering it to address my objection.

Most of these happen automatically, and often without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.

Then volition isn’t even involved and this has nothing to do with the example.

What if the woman doesn’t believe in your god? Can she take the morning after pill in that case? Do you force these irrational beliefs on others, even if they disagree?

A, what she and I believe is immaterial in comparison to the truth. I’m not trying to assert my belief that the fetus is a child here. I’m only trying to lay the argument flat. Doing so requires assuming each side is correct for the purposes of discussion. If the fetus is a human being, it doesn’t matter what the mother thinks, as killing it would still be wrong. If the fetus is not a human, then it would be wrong to force the mother to carry it to term ever if I disagree.

That is quite a different situation. Are you seriously comparing an 18 year old adult to a clump of cells which might can’t see, hear, feel or think?

sigh

A, once again, you’re parallel arguing. Whether that “clump of cells” is or is not as important to protect as an 18 year old is the very question at hand. When I’m giving the arguments for the pro-life position, I have to assume that it is as important, and when I’m giving the arguments for the pro-choice position, I have to assume it’s not. If you don’t do that, you’re not presenting each side correctly, and the argument goes nowhere.

Once again, and I’ll bold it so it really pops out: I am not saying here that the pro-life position is correct. I am only trying to explain it to you.

Yes, in my line of work, I see what happens when women are forced to keep babies (usually from pressure from religious folk) to term. They keep right on drinking, and then give the baby to someone else to raise.
This seems like a good idea to you?

Better than killing them, yes. But rape is a horrible, horrible wrong; I’m told it’s pretty much the worst thing that can happen to a woman. What makes you think the consequences are all rosy?

How many of these ‘problem children’ have you adopted?

Ad hominem, and an appeal to emotion.

Do you insist that your sperm be cared for just as well as this clump of cells? Or is this just aimed against women?

Strawman, and parallel arguing. A fetus is equal to 1 sperm + 1 egg. It is both. My sperm is no more precious than a woman’s egg (actually, it’s probably a lot less precious, since I never run out). And if it were possible for men to become pregnant, the argument would not change a whit.

I can’t wait until they can remove the fetus and place it in your belly. That will be the only chance you have to put your money where your mouth is.

Ad hominem, and appeal to emotion. And were that to happen, I would carry it to term.

That didn’t make sense to me, but thanks.

You’re welcome. If you have specific questions, I’d be happy to try to answer them for you, as long as you promise to argue in good faith and in an inquisitive, as opposed to argumentative, manner.

 

[BlaineTog]

I have enough evidence for those things which I accept.

Then please, give it. It is something epistemologists have been looking for voraciously and without success. It would make them very happy to finally be able to say “I can definitely trust my senses” without making an appeal to belief.

I use independently verifiable experiments and unbiased observers (generally speaking). If you need specifics, I will need to know a specific example.

This is circular logic. You are using your senses to prove your senses. I’m asking for something other than that, since it doesn’t prove anything.

While it seems that it was lawful according to the catholic church (they never excommunicated Hitler, for example), international law says different.

Wait, what? The Catholic Church has never affirmed the holocaust, and it was obviously a horrible thing. But that’s a historical argument, which I have no desire to get into (history doesn’t interest me, never has – and please resist the temptation to commit an ad hominem fallacy with that little tidbit).

I disagree. Belief is just what you have when you lack knowledge. It can really prevent learning, too. Gotta be careful with that belief.

All knowledge is based on belief, necessarily. Reason without belief is empty, and belief without reason is blind.

 

[ontologysue]

Does this mean that you have evidence, ontologysue?

Yes. I have. On the philosophical level I’ve been sharing that with you on this thread. I think my arguments are more rational than yours, and are backed up by a long history of philosophers, saints and scientists. In my opinion you’re arguing outmoded ideas, ie materialism and relativism and secularism. These are all old tired arguments that modern science, philosophy and theology are debunking.

I also have existential and experiential evidence.

Because it looks like the other poster is basing their belief (or lack of it) on evidence, where you have based it on *faith *(as far as I can tell).

There is no evidence that proves God does not exist. Others have already alluded to that. Others could certainly come to a different conclusion, but, I would not place much credibility in their conclusion if they had not done some rather extensive research, **with an open mind. **

Most Atheists, myself included, in that peiod of my life, have some kind of psychological “baggage” that is influencing them, and most never go to any great lengths to give Christianity an intellectually fair hearing. Atheists, who have, like C. S. Lewis, and Malcolm Muggeridge, have usually converted.

 

[phooney]

@BlaineTog

Hi there,

Thanks for joining in the thread.

What you seem to be talking about, if I understand you correctly when you mention epistemologists, is the problem of induction, right?

I agree with you when you say that we can’t really say “I can definitely trust my senses” without making an appeal to belief. Also, such things as the statement “I exist” is only true if I actually exist, and then we start going into all the brain in a vat and ‘what if we are just living in the mind of a big person while they are having a dream’ kind of ideas.

However, whilst the problem of induction certainly must not be forgotten, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to put some rational limitations or methodology into our belief-forming processes, as inductive reasoning does tell us that the present and future will (at least) usually resemble the past. If we don’t think that the present and future will resemble the past, there is no way to learn anything at all. I submit to you that evidence gathered by our senses (and the various tools we make) is the cornerstone of this process. Nobody has ever been able to describe a better way to me yet.

Living practically and functioning with the problem of induction in the back of your mind only needs to entail that you realise it is possible for evidence against even your most fundamental and iron-clad beliefs to turn. Absolute certainty is technically impossible, but reasonable expectations about what is real is within our grasp.

The way you seem to be wording your posts almost looks like you are saying that since we can’t trust our senses, there is no reason to put any kind of filters on what we believe. I’m not sure if I have completely misunderstood you or what.

As the evidence mentioned is what I consider to be the cornerstone of a rational belief forming system I find forming beliefs (other than the axiomatic ones I am forced to form in order to learn anything) with a lack of evidence to be contradictory to my goals of knowing truth and avoiding error. The definition of ‘faith’ I gave in a previous thread was “believing with a lack of or insufficient evidence” I was told by all the theists that this wasn’t an accurate definition, but nobody gave me a better one, and the way they used the word fit in precisely with my definition. This might as well have been the “thesaurus forums” when they gave me different words for faith like “grace” “grace from god” “god’s gift” “somebody else can tell you more eloquently” but nobody gave any working definition.

That being the case, arguments where the flow of knowledge begins at something, other than such axiomatic things I mentioned, that must be taken on faith rather than on evidence, is an empty argument in my opinion.

I have been much more interested in talking about the evidence that some people here claimed to have, and attempting to correct their understanding of science with my meagre abilities, or present simpler options also indicated by the evidence.

Any way, it is getting late. I know I haven’t done this particular topic justice in this post, but I’m getting sleepy!

 

[_A]

First, only one of the prisoners gets to escape the prison, the other just dies. Second, the prisoner you’re going to kill doesn’t get the chance to agree to anything. Third, the imprisonment is only for nine months, during which time the prisoner you’re going to kill would have spend reading up and training to, say, get his college degree, whereas the prisoner who was going to escape was allowed to continue with her life mostly as normal.

You have gone to a ridiculous length to ask me if I would abort a fetus. Yes I would (if I had the training). I can’t, due to lack of training, so I support a womans right to choose instead.

A, what she and I believe is immaterial in comparison to the truth. I’m not trying to assert my belief that the fetus is a child here. I’m only trying to lay the argument flat. Doing so requires assuming each side is correct for the purposes of discussion. If the fetus is a human being, it doesn’t matter what the mother thinks, as killing it would still be wrong. If the fetus is not a human, then it would be wrong to force the mother to carry it to term ever if I disagree.

Then we just need to correct your mistaken definition of human.
To me, if the fetus can survive without relying on, and feeding off, one persons body, then it is a human. Before that, it is part of the woman who is pregnant, and her decision entirely.

A, once again, you’re parallel arguing. Whether that “clump of cells” is or is not as important to protect as an 18 year old is the very question at hand.

Answer is, a person it is not, until it can survive independantly of it’s host.

When I’m giving the arguments for the pro-life position, I have to assume that it is as important, and when I’m giving the arguments for the pro-choice position, I have to assume it’s not. If you don’t do that, you’re not presenting each side correctly, and the argument goes nowhere.

Once again, and I’ll bold it so it really pops out: I am not saying here that the pro-life position is correct. I am only trying to explain it to you.

Oh I understand it. It is horrible the way that some folks try to ‘guilt’ a woman into keeping a fetus which she doesn’t want.

Better than killing them, yes. But rape is a horrible, horrible wrong; I’m told it’s pretty much the worst thing that can happen to a woman. What makes you think the consequences are all rosy?

I never said any such thing, but a minor medical procedure can alleviate much of the suffering of the rape victim.
The fetus is not a human unless it is allowed to mature by the host.

Ad hominem, and an appeal to emotion.

No, I really wonder. If your caring has stopped even *one * abortion, then you are responsible for bringing a baby into this world. Have you addressed this responsibility?

Strawman, and parallel arguing. A fetus is equal to 1 sperm + 1 egg. It is both.

You forgot one thing - a womb willing (or forced) to nurture this growing clump of cells.

Those who stand against abortion are not considering the rights of the mother.
The fetus has no rights until it is a person in it’s own right. I understand the law differs from place to place, but I say it is not a person until it can survive on it’s own.
Even then, I would not deny a woman the medical care she requested - what would be the point?

 

[_A]

Then please, give it. It is something epistemologists have been looking for voraciously and without success. It would make them very happy to finally be able to say “I can definitely trust my senses” without making an appeal to belief.

There is a lot of evidence that the law of gravitation is accurate. Have you ever seen an airplane take off or land? That is evidence that the calculations are working (even where they may not be correct).

This is circular logic. You are using your senses to prove your senses. I’m asking for something other than that, since it doesn’t prove anything.

Are you a solipsist? Is that what your position is?

Wait, what? The Catholic Church has never affirmed the holocaust, and it was obviously a horrible thing. But that’s a historical argument, which I have no desire to get into (history doesn’t interest me, never has – and please resist the temptation to commit an ad hominem fallacy with that little tidbit).

I am also not much of a student of history, but I know that the family of Gallileo had to work long and hard to get his excommunication reversed. He was guilty of investigating and reporting the honest facts in his world.
Hitler was never excommunicated.
Gallileo must have been the larger criminal. Or perhaps, he was threatening the church’s long-held beliefs (always dangerous)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you said that you would hate all Italians? Yes, I would call it bigotry. I am not the spitting kind, though. The verse mentions gods race-hate, not a hatred of one person.

Actually, the people of Judah and the people of Israel were of the same race. They were all descendants of Jacob, and so they were all Jewish. You could not rightly call their God a racists bigot.

The question is why was God forever angry with the people of Judah but said he’d cease to remain angry with the people of Israel? Once you and i know why, then we will be in a better position to judge whether his anger is equitable, i think.

What do you say, my good A? Shall we find God guilty without giving him a chance to say anything in his defense? or shall we hear him out so that we can then say we gave him a fair trial and he could not defend himself beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[_A]

Yes. I have. On the philosophical level I’ve been sharing that with you on this thread. I think my arguments are more rational than yours, and are backed up by a long history of philosophers, saints and scientists. In my opinion you’re arguing outmoded ideas, ie materialism and relativism and secularism. These are all old tired arguments that modern science, philosophy and theology are debunking.

I also have existential and experiential evidence.

I hate to break it to you, but philosophy is only evidence of philosophers.
Theists and saints, well, they start with the assumption that one or another gods exist. That is not science, it is theology (I think ‘theology’ means the study of nothing)

There is no evidence that proves God does not exist. Others have already alluded to that.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. You have offered none here, just poetry and chastisement for not reading the books you tell me to.

Others could certainly come to a different conclusion, but, I would not place much credibility in their conclusion if they had not done some rather extensive research, **with an open mind. **

Would you say that the bible was right about creation, or the theory of evolution by natural selection?

Most Atheists, myself included, in that peiod of my life, have some kind of psychological “baggage” that is influencing them, and most never go to any great lengths to give Christianity an intellectually fair hearing. Atheists, who have, like C. S. Lewis, and Malcolm Muggeridge, have usually converted.

No, they haven’t. I have not made a study of religions, but how about Dan Dennet? Is he just not informed about the subject? How about Richard Dawkins? Is he just imagining things?
Would you say that Christopher Hitchins is poorly informed about matters of faith?

There are PLENTY of people who understand christianity, yet don’t believe. (me for one). You use the ‘no true Scotsman fallacy’ to say that I don’t, but really, it isn’t that hard to understand what is being asserted. It is simply too ridiculous to believe.

 

[_A]

This might as well have been the “thesaurus forums” when they gave me different words for faith like “grace” “grace from god” “god’s gift” “somebody else can tell you more eloquently” but nobody gave any working definition.

I had a decent definition offered to me recently. An historian (hobbyist) I know said that the word originally meant ‘action based on belief’.
I have been using it since, and no-one seems to have taken issue with it.
It seems more useful to me than many of the others I have heard.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif 4a) However, examples of binary code, such as the programs written that comprise a Windows operating system, or even the simple BIOS of a ROM chip on a computer motherboard, are too complex to be the result of natural circumstances

I disagree. There are some things which are much more complex than a rom chip which are not too complex to have been the result of natural (selection) circumstances. …

Don’t you recall, A, that you earlier agreed with me on this point?

When i asked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

I’m astonished! Are you saying that something as complex as a Windows Vista Ultimate operating system could be produced by a completely random random arrangement of ones and zeros, and without the contribution of even one programmer? I must be misunderstanding you, or you are being facetious?


you answered:

No, I am simply pointing out that it could not have been a different number base because of the limits of the natural world.forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3162705&postcount=672

That is, i asked if you really believed any code as complex as the binary code of a Windows operating system could be produced without the work of intelligent beings. Your answer, in a word, was NO.

Are you now changing your mind?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

therefore100a) While the binary numbering system might be explained by natural circumstances, examples of binary code must be the creation of the intelligent human beings who wrote them

Here I disagree again.

There is an art and a science to the philosophical discipline of logic, Mr. A. It’s an art because the more you use logic, the better you get at it. It is a science, because there are certain rules and methods one must follow to think logically.

One rule of logic is that you cannot prove your point by merely denying a conclusion. To prove a conclusion wrong, you must either:

(A) Show that at least one of the premises is falseor

(B) Demonstrate that the premises do not support the conclusion
These are the only two options logic (or rational thought) leave you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

With these rules of logic in mind, rational A, please tell me: (A) which of these premises are false and why, or (B) how it is that the premises do not support the conclusion:

Premises:

1a) Machines, such as computer processors, have two settings within their circuits, which are electrical current on, and electrical current off 2a) Machines, such computer processors, use binary code to receive instructions from computer programs3a) Hence, the binary numbering system itself might be the product of natural circumstances rather than the creating of intelligent beings 4a) However, examples of binary code, such as the programs written that comprise a Windows operating system, or even the simple BIOS of a ROM chip on a computer motherboard, are too complex to be the result of natural circumstances5a) We have many examples of complex binary code created by computer programmers and computer science engineers6a) There is not even one example of complex binary code created by natural circumstances**Conclusion:**100a) Therefore, while the binary numbering system might be explained by natural circumstances, examples of binary code must be the creation of the intelligent human beings who wrote them

 

[_A]

Don’t you recall, A, that you earlier agreed with me on this point?

When i asked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

I’m astonished! Are you saying that something as complex as a Windows Vista Ultimate operating system could be produced by a completely random random arrangement of ones and zeros, and without the contribution of even one programmer? I must be misunderstanding you, or you are being facetious?


you answered:

No, I am simply pointing out that it could not have been a different number base because of the limits of the natural world.forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3162705&postcount=672

That is, i asked if you really believed any code as complex as the binary code of a Windows operating system could be produced without the work of intelligent beings. Your answer, in a word, was NO.

Are you now changing your mind?

No, you are putting words in my mouth (I hope accidentally).
I think that there are many things, quite complicated, and without a designer.
The whole quote, (which, for some reason, you cut after the word you wanted to hear) was as follows…

I’m astonished! Are you saying that something as complex as a Windows Vista Ultimate operating system could be produced by a completely random random arrangement of ones and zeros, and without the contribution of even one programmer? I must be misunderstanding you, or you are being facetious?

No, I am simply pointing out that it could not have been a different number base because of the limits of the natural world.

Do go on.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
There is not even one example of complex binary code created by natural circumstances

DNA

Please explain, Mr. A, why you believe the genetic code of any living being is merely the product of natural circumstances, with no intelligence involved in its creation. I don’t understand the reasons why you believe this (but i’m willing to learn)!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No, you are putting words in my mouth (I hope accidentally).
I think that there are many things, quite complicated, and without a designer.
The whole quote, (which, for some reason, you cut after the word you wanted to hear) was as follows…

I’m astonished! Are you saying that something as complex as a Windows Vista Ultimate operating system could be produced by a completely random random arrangement of ones and zeros, and without the contribution of even one programmer? I must be misunderstanding you, or you are being facetious?

No, I am simply pointing out that it could not have been a different number base because of the limits of the natural world.

Do go on.

I actually did quote your full response. Please forgive me if i misunderstand you, for your answers are often quite brief.

Please help me understand you: Are you saying you do, or you do not, believe that the binary code of a Windows operating system can possibly be the result of natural circumstances?

 

[_A]

There is an art and a science to the philosophical discipline of logic, Mr. A. It’s an art because the more you use logic, the better you get at it. It is a science, because there are certain rules and methods one must follow to think logically.

One rule of logic is that you cannot prove your point by merely denying a conclusion. To prove a conclusion wrong, you must either:

(A) Show that at least one of the premises is falseor

(B) Demonstrate that the premises do not support the conclusion
These are the only two options logic (or rational thought) leave you.

You asked me if I agreed, I do not. I can elaborate a little, but I don’t really know much about computer programming.
A computer can create a bunch of that code from automatic (name removed by moderator)uts like cameras, or microphones, and use that data to write new codes…
Sorry if I can’t express my disagreement more thoroughly than this, but I am not trained in logic, just a hobbyist, I suppose.

I think you are looking for some agreement that this code is used exclusively by human designers. I wont agree to that, because there is not enough evidence available to me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You asked me if I agreed, I do not. I can elaborate a little, but I don’t really know much about computer programming.
A computer can create a bunch of that code from automatic (name removed by moderator)uts like cameras, or microphones, and use that data to write new codes…
Sorry if I can’t express my disagreement more thoroughly than this, but I am not trained in logic, just a hobbyist, I suppose.

I think you are looking for some agreement that this code is used exclusively by human designers. I wont agree to that, because there is not enough evidence available to me.

Then we have something in common, for i cannot hack my way out of a paper sack! (Sorry for the Geek humor, there.)

Gotta go. Talk with you later!

 

[_A]

Please explain, Mr. A, why you believe the genetic code of any living being is merely the product of natural circumstances, with no intelligence involved in its creation. I don’t understand the reasons why you believe this (but i’m willing to learn)!

I have barely scratched the surface of it myself, S4J, but it is called the theory of evolution by natural selection, and there has been much written about this.
It is a lot simpler than presuming the existence of a god, then having to explain how the god got there (infinite regression).

 

[_A]

I actually did quote your full response. Please forgive me if i misunderstand you, for your answers are often quite brief.

Please help me understand you: Are you saying you do, or you do not, believe that the binary code of a Windows operating system can possibly be the result of natural circumstances?

Yes, of course.
Those circumstances included humans evolving from more primitive life forms, evolving intelligence, and (naturally) making the world around them better for surviving and reproducing.

 

[_A]

I actually did quote your full response.

You certainly did.
I am sorry.