The "right" to... whatever!

[Pallas_Athene]

There’s about 74,000 sites that seem to disagree with you, PA.

If you change the words, there will be about the same number of sites which agree with me. But we are not conducting here a “numbers” game. Science is about what “IS”, while ethics is about what “OUGHT” to be. Not the same question.

You are very Catholic when you say this.

Very kind of you to say it… but I must disagree (much as it pains me to do so). Since part of the ethics is “what the goal of the person is”, it becomes a subjective phenomenon.

 

[PRmerger]

If you change the words, there will be about the same number of sites which agree with me. But we are not conducting here a “numbers” game. Science is about what “IS”, while ethics is about what “OUGHT” to be. Not the same question.

74,000 sites affirm that there is, at least, the concept of ethics being a science.

Very kind of you to say it… but I must disagree (much as it pains me to do so). Since part of the ethics is “what the goal of the person is”, it becomes a subjective phenomenon.

Of course it’s subjective.

Just not ONLY subjective.

There’s that pesky ONLY that needs to be dismissed where it need not poke its little nose.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Jesus said exactly the opposite of this.
See Luke 10:16

Still just a story.

Nary a single academic disputes that Jesus established a church.
That’s simply incontrovertible historically.

There is no historical evidence at all.

Are you saying that the alleged witnesses lied? Why would they do that?
Or were they mistaken? All of them?
Or the writers of the narratives lied? Why would they do that?

Lied? No. They simply copied down a previous story. The usual “liar, lunatic or lord” sorely needs the fourth possibility: “legend”.

And what would have sufficed to bring you back to your faith?

Since nothing ever happened, I cannot comment on what would I have done IF it happened.

But I am not interested in a 2000 years old story. Show me some contemporary evidence, which can be verified.

And how would you know you weren’t hallucinating?

Billions of people all around the world ALL hallucinating the same phenomenon, which is captured on hundreds of millions of recording devices? Recording devices are not subject to “hallucinations”.

Or that aliens hadn’t hijacked the skies and put up a screen with a movie of the stars rearranging?

If some aliens would be able to do that, then they would be “gods”. Not that there is any evidence for any kinds of “aliens”. Also you forget the conversation part, where God - supposedly - explains why the Holocaust was the best thing since sliced bread, and sparing even one individual from their fate would be worse than allowing the atrocities to happen.

You know… you are rather amusing. You accept that the Sun was “dancing” on the sky (Fatima) and consider it a bona-fide “miracle”, but you are skeptical about the physically impossible arrangement I described above. At least you should be somewhat consistent.

Since we veered away from the original topic, I suggest to get back to it.

 

[PRmerger]

Still just a story.

Well there you go.

Another demonstrating that you’ve set up an impossible scenario. “Give me evidence of what God has revealed, except I won’t accept anything as evidence for what God has revealed!”

One has to wonder what it would mean for you to become a believer…

There is such an adamantine obduracy.

I wonder…

There is no historical evidence at all.

Ok, but…

this puts you in the same group as the 6000 year old earthers, the anti-vaxxers and the 911 Truthers.

Just sayin’…

 

[PRmerger]

Lied? No. They simply copied down a previous story. The usual “liar, lunatic or lord” sorely needs the fourth possibility: “legend”.

Legend?

That’s just another way to say “They lied”, isn’t it?

So you’re still back to explaining why folks lied, and went to their gruesome deaths obdurately attesting to this lie.

Do you know anyone who dies willingly for what he knows to be a lie?

Billions of people all around the world ALL hallucinating the same phenomenon, which is captured on hundreds of millions of recording devices? Recording devices are not subject to “hallucinations”.

Well, yeah.

You seem to believe that mass hallucinations are possible, yeah?

So what difference does it make if it’s dozens, hundreds, millions or billions?

Not to mention, it could be, as I already stated, aliens who’ve set up a giant screen.

If some aliens would be able to do that, then they would be “gods”.

Only if you re-define what we’re trying to prove.

We aren’t talking about beings that super-heroes, only more awesome.

We are talking about God–the immaterial, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being who created the world.

Not that there is any evidence for any kinds of “aliens”. Also you forget the conversation part, where God - supposedly - explains why the Holocaust was the best thing since sliced bread, and sparing even one individual from their fate would be worse than allowing the atrocities to happen.

Aliens again. They could have hijacked all the TV stations and broadcast a pre-recorded show.

You know… you are rather amusing. You accept that the Sun was “dancing” on the sky (Fatima) and consider it a bona-fide “miracle”, but you are skeptical about the physically impossible arrangement I described above.

I am agnostic about the Sun dancing in the sky, PA.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That’s just another way to say “They lied”, isn’t it?

No, it is not. When a child asserts that “Sandy Claws” exists, he does NOT lie, he simply believes in a nonexistent being. A lie is an intentional distortion of what one knows is incorrect. HUGE difference.

So what difference does it make if it’s dozens, hundreds, millions or billions?

A lot of difference. A few disgruntled people are irrelevant. A million disgruntled people create a revolution. Quantitative changes CAN create a qualitative change. A few hundred people can create a working communistic society - where everyone knows everyone else. The same cannot be done on a large scale of millions of people.

Not to mention, it could be, as I already stated, aliens who’ve set up a giant screen.

Those aliens only exist in your imagination. Show me some evidence that they exist.

Any chance to get back to the topic of this thread?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This only shows that even Aquinas made really incorrect observations. And the second part od his utterance is as insulting as it could be.

All Aquinas is saying is something that I suspect you agree with.

Since God is not coming down to Earth to perform a few miracles, nothing short of that would persuade you. And even if God did just that, you would find an explanation that does away with miracles; such as that you temporarily slipped into a drug induced state, or that science sooner or later would explain what was inexplicable, or that someone had fooled you with some clever slight-of-hand.

You see this, don’t you? If you are determined not to believe, there is nothing on Earth, not even God in heaven, who can force you to believe.

As I’ve noticed, this is the sticking point of all your remarks in all the threads that you participate in … that God cannot exist because if he did he would create a perfect world that was incapable of sin and suffering. God would be a tyrant ruling with an iron fist.

Which makes me wonder what kind of a world I would be living in if you were my boss.

 

[guanophore]

 Still just a story.

I submit that the story itself is historical evidence. Regardless of whether one chooses to believe the content, the mere existence of the story is an historical artifact.

There is no historical evidence at all.

I have to admit I find this perspective shocking. Despite the fact that I have read perhaps dozens of posts from atheists, some proposing outrageous requirements of “proofs” to the existence of God, I am still amazed.

The historical evidence around the world, throughout cultures, languages, politics, etc. that Jesus founded a church is irrefutable. Even if you don’t believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be, or the Church is not what He taught that it was, the facts are part of history. Such a statement makes it clear the degree to which one will go to deny the facts to cling to one’s position.

Lied? No. They simply copied down a previous story. The usual “liar, lunatic or lord” sorely needs the fourth possibility: “legend”.

Again, the legend itselff is evidence that something historically occurred, if only that a legend was created and passed down through history.

Since nothing ever happened, I cannot comment on what would I have done IF it happened.

Sure you can. I just read a post where a person proposed that God would appear personally every two years or so to prove He exists and is providing guidance.
The question is a valid one, especially in the light of this staunch denial of historical evidence.

But I am not interested in a 2000 years old story. Show me some contemporary evidence, which can be verified.

No evidence would meet your criteria. Anyone who can deny 2000 years of historical evidence could not possibly be pursuaded by anything else.

Billions of people all around the world ALL hallucinating the same phenomenon, which is captured on hundreds of millions of recording devices? Recording devices are not subject to "hallucinations".

No, this would not work either, since the phenomenon was recorded on the “devices” of the time, clay, papyrus, etc. and it is insufficient. Some exuse would emerge to set aside the evidence.

If some aliens would be able to do that, then they would be "gods". Not that there is any evidence for any kinds of "aliens". Also you forget the conversation part, where God - supposedly - explains why the Holocaust was the best thing since sliced bread, and sparing even one individual from their fate would be worse than allowing the atrocities to happen.

I think you lost me here. How does God’s perspective on the evil that men do become criteria that proves His existence, or not?

Are you suggesting that no Jews were spared the holocaust? Given the degree of history you are willing to ignore, I guess I should not e surpised by that either.

 

[guanophore]

 Legend?

That’s just another way to say “They lied”, isn’t it?

Legends are usually based in some historical events, which is why it is absurd to assert there exists a legend but there is “no historical evidence”.

So you’re still back to explaining why folks lied, and went to their gruesome deaths obdurately attesting to this lie.

Do you know anyone who dies willingly for what he knows to be a lie?

Well, there are to points here. One, the stories about the martyrdoms are just fictional, the other that, just like today, people believing in untruths and dying for them does not prove anything except that they lost their minds.

Well, yeah.

You seem to believe that mass hallucinations are possible, yeah?

So what difference does it make if it’s dozens, hundreds, millions or billions?

You are forgetting, PR, there really is “no historical evidence” that the Church existed, so you can’t include any of the facts that are embedded in human history. The whole world has been hallucinating fore 2000 years!

Only if you re-define what we’re trying to prove.

I don’t even see that, but a flat refusal to accept the facts.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

All Aquinas is saying is something that I suspect you agree with.

You are wrong. I only agree with the first part. Actually, I say that he did not go far enough. The believers need no evidence, that is true. But the believers would discard any evidence to the contrary. They would explain away by some reference to “free will”, or by some “maybe”. Just look at any thread about the “problem of evil”.

Now the second part is wrong, completely wrong. There can be no skepticism which cannot be “cured” by a good smack on the head. But such radical methods are not necessary. I already gave an example to PR about a situation which cannot be explained away. The laws of physics cannot be changed by us, or by any super-duper advanced space alien race.

I could give some more hypothetical scenarios. It is easy, once one starts to think outside the box. I could be convinced by God, if he so chose. But only by him.

You see this, don’t you? If you are determined not to believe, there is nothing on Earth, not even God in heaven, who can force you to believe.

Nope. I am not determined at all. But I like to use my brain and poke holes into arguments. By the way, if God would present himself, I would not need to “believe”, I would KNOW. There would be no need to “force” to believe. What strange choice of words. You cannot “force” someone to believe, you can only convince one of the error of his ways.

As I’ve noticed, this is the sticking point of all your remarks in all the threads that you participate in … that God cannot exist because if he did he would create a perfect world that was incapable of sin and suffering. God would be a tyrant ruling with an iron fist.

Again, that is not correct. From the actual state of affairs - reality - one can draw two conclusions, either God does not exist, or his attributes are not what you IMAGINE them to be. Definitely not “loving” and “caring”.

Which makes me wonder what kind of a world I would be living in if you were my boss.

It would be a very pleasant world. No rapes, wars, murders would occur. People would be decent, they would not want to commit “bad” acts. Not because I would need to interfere, rather because I would create them with the attitude which prevents negative actions. In other words, they would “police” themselves. This alleged need for constant interference is the sign of inferior design. A good designer creates a good solution up front, not one which needs constant supervision, and tinkering. Some people might call it utopia, and their voice is filled with disdain and contempt. Strange people… what is so desirable about genocide, rape, torture and wars? Not to mention acts of terrorism.

Of course people would have free will, they would simply not WANT to commit those heinous acts which make this world pretty bad - especially for the victims and their families.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It would be a very pleasant world. No rapes, wars, murders would occur. People would be decent, they would not want to commit “bad” acts. Not because I would need to interfere, rather because I would create them with the attitude which prevents negative actions. In other words, they would “police” themselves. This alleged need for constant interference is the sign of inferior design. A good designer creates a good solution up front, not one which needs constant supervision, and tinkering. Some people might call it utopia, and their voice is filled with disdain and contempt. Strange people… what is so desirable about genocide, rape, torture and wars? Not to mention acts of terrorism.

Of course people would have free will, they would simply not WANT to commit those heinous acts which make this world pretty bad - especially for the victims and their families.

So you would re-create the garden of Eden, and just not let anyone have free will? Would your world be populated by robots then?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It would be a very pleasant world. No rapes, wars, murders would occur. People would be decent, they would not want to commit “bad” acts. Not because I would need to interfere, rather because I would create them with the attitude which prevents negative actions. In other words, they would “police” themselves. This alleged need for constant interference is the sign of inferior design. A good designer creates a good solution up front, not one which needs constant supervision, and tinkering. Some people might call it utopia, and their voice is filled with disdain and contempt. Strange people… what is so desirable about genocide, rape, torture and wars? Not to mention acts of terrorism.

Of course people would have free will, they would simply not WANT to commit those heinous acts which make this world pretty bad - especially for the victims and their families.

I rest my case!

You do not want humans with free will. You want well designed robots.

 

[frangiuliano115]

You are wrong. I only agree with the first part. Actually, I say that he did not go far enough. The believers need no evidence, that is true. But the believers would discard any evidence to the contrary. They would explain away by some reference to “free will”, or by some “maybe”. Just look at any thread about the “problem of evil”.

Now the second part is wrong, completely wrong. There can be no skepticism which cannot be “cured” by a good smack on the head. But such radical methods are not necessary. I already gave an example to PR about a situation which cannot be explained away. The laws of physics cannot be changed by us, or by any super-duper advanced space alien race.

I could give some more hypothetical scenarios. It is easy, once one starts to think outside the box. I could be convinced by God, if he so chose. But only by him.

Nope. I am not determined at all. But I like to use my brain and poke holes into arguments. By the way, if God would present himself, I would not need to “believe”, I would KNOW. There would be no need to “force” to believe. What strange choice of words. You cannot “force” someone to believe, you can only convince one of the error of his ways.

Again, that is not correct. From the actual state of affairs - reality - one can draw two conclusions, either God does not exist, or his attributes are not what you IMAGINE them to be. Definitely not “loving” and “caring”.

It would be a very pleasant world. No rapes, wars, murders would occur. People would be decent, they would not want to commit “bad” acts. Not because I would need to interfere, rather because I would create them with the attitude which prevents negative actions. In other words, they would “police” themselves. This alleged need for constant interference is the sign of inferior design. A good designer creates a good solution up front, not one which needs constant supervision, and tinkering. Some people might call it utopia, and their voice is filled with disdain and contempt. Strange people… what is so desirable about genocide, rape, torture and wars? Not to mention acts of terrorism.

Of course people would have free will, they would simply not WANT to commit those heinous acts which make this world pretty bad - especially for the victims and their families.

You know, I check in every now and then and read the weirdest stuff.

Like your last sentence up there.

You know not all acts that make the world a bad place are heinous. Some are very subtle.

Like, why do you WANT to come here and go on about how God is mean, doesn’t do things your way, and all that other stuff you say. It’s obvious you’re not really searching or really want to listen or absorb anything.

They say charity starts at home. Maybe you could figure out why you WANT to argue unceasingly. Is it to upset people? Make them doubt their faith? How about if you began with yourself to make this world a better place?? By being charitable with people who don’t agree with you. You like to use your brains. Are we not using our brains? Insults are not heinous but they are not nice, nonetheless.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You know, I check in every now and then and read the weirdest stuff.

Like your last sentence up there.

You know not all acts that make the world a bad place are heinous. Some are very subtle.

Like, why do you WANT to come here and go on about how God is mean, doesn’t do things your way, and all that other stuff you say. It’s obvious you’re not really searching or really want to listen or absorb anything.

They say charity starts at home. Maybe you could figure out why you WANT to argue unceasingly. Is it to upset people? Make them doubt their faith? How about if you began with yourself to make this world a better place?? By being charitable with people who don’t agree with you. You like to use your brains. Are we not using our brains? Insults are not heinous but they are not nice, nonetheless.

Good point. How could she create a harmonious world with such an angry accusing attitude !

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So you would re-create the garden of Eden, and just not let anyone have free will? Would your world be populated by robots then?

You do not want humans with free will. You want well designed robots.

Is Pope Francis a “well-designed” robot? Was Gandhi another “well-designed” robot? If so, they would be excellent “prototypes” for the population of my hypothetic world.

Which part of “they do not WANT to commit rapes, murders, etc…” are you unable to comprehend?

You know not all acts that make the world a bad place are heinous. Some are very subtle.

I only concentrate on the violent acts. And it seems that even such a simple approach is too complicated for some to understand.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sure looks like this thread also went to hell in a hand basket. Oh well…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Sure looks like this thread also went to hell in a hand basket. Oh well…

Well you know what they say, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions…”!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is Pope Francis a “well-designed” robot? Was Gandhi another “well-designed” robot? If so, they would be excellent “prototypes” for the population of my hypothetic world.

Neither could be a well designed robot because both had free will.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Neither could be a well designed robot because both had free will.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Neither could be a well designed robot because both had free will.

Just like the proposed inhabitants of my hypothetic world. They would be created to be free to choose rapes and such, but would not WANT to do it.

Let me hope that you will now explicitly abandon your “well designed robot” argument… though I will not hold my breath.