I claim that today is Sunday, and this is a forum. In your opinion, is that all totally wrong too?
Your ideas on what to do seems to assume there is some other way of knowing, that, if we could stop what we're doing and go look for it, we'd find it.
First things first.
Is there any evidence that the theist vs. atheist paradigm is leading to anything other than an endless repetition of all the same old arguments already made a million times? Is there any evidence that either side of that debate will ever be able to prove anything?
Do you feel that doing the same things over and over and over again while expecting that this will somehow lead to some different result is a good example of reason and quality critical thinking?
So long as you believe, without any evidence at all, that the theist vs. atheist dance is accomplishing something, and that your side is somehow winning, you'll never have any motivation to look for alternatives, and thus will remain stuck on the theist vs. atheist merry-go-round to nowhere. Your call of course. But just maybe you are more interested in the inquiry than to be satisfied with riding that merry-go-round to nowhere.
Your analogy of 12 year olds breaks down because there are 13 year olds. You seem to be acting as some sort of observer who can judge the entire human race. I've been a 12 year old, and I've watched them try to work things out, they get things wrong. I've observed humanity, read its history, they get things wrong. But that's as far as the analogy can go. I know humanity has gotten things wrong because I am privileged to look back on that history with more tools than they had. I can predict there are things we are doing now that will be found to be wrong, but I don't have more knowledge than the sum of all human experience, so I can't know which things those are.
This is what I mean by "wall of vagueness" which you use to try to exhaust me. I've routinely presented you with a very simple question, which you refuse to actually confront.
Is there any evidence that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions?
I really wish you would either address the challenge in a straightforward honest manner, (like for instance, cough up the requested evidence) or put me on ignore and stop wasting my time.
I can even see that human arrogance is a stumbling block to knowledge, but what do you propose we do?
Ah, but then you actually ask an interesting question, and so I'm encouraged to continue. In reply...
We can observe that BOTH theists AND atheists agree that the point of the inquiry should be to create knowledge. And we can observe that both have failed to develop credible knowledge, in spite of the longstanding efforts of some of humanity's brightest minds on all sides of the debate.
When you are repairing your car, and your planned fix fails again and again and again, what do you do? Don't you at some point push back from the job and begin questioning the assumptions your plan is built upon? You don't just keep doing the same failed thing over and over again for centuries, right?
The theist/atheist paradigm is built on the shared assumption that the point of the inquiry should be to develop knowledge. What if that assumption is wrong? Could that perhaps explain the longstanding record of failure?
You also seem to be unaware of the many people who are willing to concede point #2. Stephen J Gould had his non-overlapping magisterium. Neil DeGrasse Tyson prefers the term agnostic. Richard Dawkins has a scale where 7 is pure atheist, certain God does not exist, and he puts himself at 6.7.
Why would I listen to atheist ideologues when they haven't proved the qualifications of their chosen authority, and won't even try? Do you listen to religious clerics who dismiss your challenges with a lazy wave of their hand?
I think you would be better off trying to find partners who think like that, instead of worrying about the people who have created "self flattering personal ideologies", or trying to convince everyone that is what they did, when they haven't.
Um, so you're happy to simply ignore the 100 million posts on the Internuts where atheists brag about how much smarter they are than those stupid theists? What is that if not the ongoing maintenance of a self flattering personal identity?
So long as you believe, without any evidence at all, that the theist vs. atheist dance is accomplishing something, and that your side is somehow winning, you'll never have any motivation to look for alternatives, and thus will remain stuck on the theist vs. atheist merry-go-round to nowhere.
If I thought my side was doing as well as you think it is, I would not bother discussing it with the likes of you. The evangelical vote got us Bush II, then Trump. It took a long time to get gay marriage passed, and it is still being fought. The "nones" may be on the rise, but they have a long way to go before they gain any real power. I fight for human rights, I fight for reason. I even fight for your right to have the ridiculous opinions that you do, but I have an equal right to point them out and say you are wrong.
Half of American Catholics voted for Trump, half did not. Half of American Catholics support gay marriage, half do not. Half of American Catholics want abortion to be illegal, while half want it to be legal.
So by basing your fight for human rights on the issue of religion you illustrate that you are not the solution, but part of the problem.
And, you post was entirely non-responsive to the words of mine you quoted, as usual.
Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Ah yes, the good ole "we merely lack belief" dodge. Seen it at least a million times. And it's all completely wrong.
You don't "merely lack belief in gods". You have a faith based belief in a different chosen authority than theists.Tanny, I think I begin to see why you keep getting banned from forums. You don't pay attention to what people say. Apparently nobody told you that people have minds of their own, and don't necessarily believe what you've decided they're "supposed to" believe. You have developed this comfortable theory about "what atheists believe in", and by God you'll stick to that come hell or high water, no matter what anybody else tells you. It's no wonder that you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over ad nauseam.
What's obstructing you from seeing this overwhelming obvious fact is that you've built a self flattering personal identity out of your faith based beliefs, just as many theists do. You don't want to give that self flattering personal identity up, because it's a pleasing emotional experience for you.
Now this line is incredibly amusing to me, because you seem to be describing yourself to a T. You flatter yourself that you love to "challenge the group consensus", and people hate you for it. Tanny, my sweet. Why don't you start by challenging your own consensus, then get back to us? :)
Now this is important -- atheists do not claim that we know the answers to these hypothetical "largest questions" (whatever they are). We only claim that "God" is NOT a good answer. That's all. That's what "atheist" means -- "God" is not a good answer. How is that "faith"?
"God" isn't a good answer; you're right. The Christian says, the RESURRECTION; He the Lord Jesus is risen from the dead. "God" is in there, but the leading tip of the arrowhead of the Christian answer, is the RESURRECTION. That's the Gospel, that the Christian Church believes.But doesn't the resurrection depend upon the existence of God, and upon whether He had the power to resurrect Himself from death? You yourself said that if the resurrection never happened, then none of the other things that Jesus taught, about God and about Heaven, makes any difference.
Now this is important -- atheists do not claim that we know the answers to these hypothetical "largest questions" (whatever they are). We only claim that "God" is NOT a good answer. That's all. That's what "atheist" means -- "God" is not a good answer. How is that "faith"?
"God" isn't a good answer; you're right. The Christian says, the RESURRECTION; He the Lord Jesus is risen from the dead. "God" is in there, but the leading tip of the arrowhead of the Christian answer, is the RESURRECTION. That's the Gospel, that the Christian Church believes.But doesn't the resurrection depend upon the existence of God, and upon whether He had the power to resurrect Himself from death?Of course there's a whole lot following the tip of the Christian arrowhead, but the tip remains the RESURRECTION; and it is the RESURRECTION that constitutes both the "central" and "crowning" truth of the Christian faith; and it is the belief in the RESURRECTION that constitutes "saving" Christian faith; and it is the belief in the RESURRECTION, and that only and exclusively, that renders one a Christian.
You yourself said that if the resurrection never happened, then none of the other things that Jesus taught, about God and about Heaven, makes any difference.
Correct, and I said that because that's what the Christian Bible itself says.
Half of American Catholics voted for Trump, half did not. Half of American Catholics support gay marriage, half do not. Half of American Catholics want abortion to be illegal, while half want it to be legal.
So by basing your fight for human rights on the issue of religion you illustrate that you are not the solution, but part of the problem.
And, you post was entirely non-responsive to the words of mine you quoted, as usual.
I know (hope) Tanny is gone, but he makes a point worth commenting on here. Looked at from the Tanny perspective, Catholics are debating these important topics among themselves. I'm sure he knows of some liberal Catholics who led the charge on allowing openly gay people to have a few rights. He adds up all those Catholics ignoring the Pope and taking the pill, and compares it to some sort of democracy in action.
Of course it's not a democracy though is it? Popes and their buddies in funny hats go into dark rooms and pretend to talk to God and make decisions to preach to poor people in Africa instead of bringing them proper health care and empowering women to take control of their bodies. The half that are ignoring theses edicts live in modern countries and have secular governments protecting them, not Bishops. The other half are exploited for their labor and used to raise money for Catholic Charities, even though it's the Catholics causing them to have the needs they do.
Half of American Catholics voted for Trump, half did not. Half of American Catholics support gay marriage, half do not. Half of American Catholics want abortion to be illegal, while half want it to be legal.
So by basing your fight for human rights on the issue of religion you illustrate that you are not the solution, but part of the problem.
And, you post was entirely non-responsive to the words of mine you quoted, as usual.
I know (hope) Tanny is gone, but he makes a point worth commenting on here. Looked at from the Tanny perspective, Catholics are debating these important topics among themselves. I'm sure he knows of some liberal Catholics who led the charge on allowing openly gay people to have a few rights. He adds up all those Catholics ignoring the Pope and taking the pill, and compares it to some sort of democracy in action.
Of course it's not a democracy though is it? Popes and their buddies in funny hats go into dark rooms and pretend to talk to God and make decisions to preach to poor people in Africa instead of bringing them proper health care and empowering women to take control of their bodies. The half that are ignoring theses edicts live in modern countries and have secular governments protecting them, not Bishops. The other half are exploited for their labor and used to raise money for Catholic Charities, even though it's the Catholics causing them to have the needs they do.There is no democracy when it comes to what is moral and what is immoral, for the Church that Jesus Christ Himself actually built upon St. Peter, that it true.
There is no democracy when it comes to what is moral and what is immoral, for the Church that Jesus Christ Himself actually built upon St. Peter, that it true.
Yeah. I'm trying to get you to explain how that works in the "Is Murder Wrong" thread.
There is no democracy when it comes to what is moral and what is immoral, for the Church that Jesus Christ Himself actually built upon St. Peter, that it true.
Yeah. I'm trying to get you to explain how that works in the "Is Murder Wrong" thread.If there is no God, nobody would (nor should, IMO) care what the Catholic Church teaches.
There is no democracy when it comes to what is moral and what is immoral, for the Church that Jesus Christ Himself actually built upon St. Peter, that it true.
Yeah. I'm trying to get you to explain how that works in the "Is Murder Wrong" thread.If there is no God, nobody would (nor should, IMO) care what the Catholic Church teaches.
That's rather trivially true.
back to the book that is sort of the topic of this thread…
I like the book, although this review covers a lot of what I didn’t like, I think very fairly. The bonobo and the atheist-basher, part 2 – Why Evolution Is True In the next to last chapter, he takes to bashing “Neo-Atheists" again, without much nuance and seeming to sometimes attempt to miss the point. He mentions “Lord of the Flies" and theorizes about children forming society. He invokes some evidence that shows they use moral language and have a tendency to form hierarchy, more along religious lines. He evaluates science and how difficult it was to develop it to where it is now and maintain it.
He doesn’t say much about our natural ability to desire evidence. He never mentions early attempts to develop science that were thwarted by military dictatorships that partner with religious authority to control their populace. I’m not sure if it occurs to him that nature will demand that we understand it, or we will suffer the consequences. These are real consequences, unlike hell or any other form of smiting.
I agree with him that if our collective memories were wiped out today and we couldn’t read any of our science or religion, some form of religion would quickly develop. But it seems he hasn’t considered that it would look nothing like any religion we have now. Even with the symbols lying around, completely different myth and dogma would surround it. Not unlike the scene in Planet of the Apes II, where they are worshiping the bomb. Facts however, remain facts. No matter what form science took, or how it developed, it could only discover nature as it is.
Then why did I have to say it.
I don't know. I already knew it. Why did you think I didn't know it? I jumped into your part of the conversation when you said "moral relativism". You said either you have an objective source, i.e. God or the Catholic Church, or you have moral relativism. A) There are other ways to look at morality], B) The Church and Bible change with time and culture. The Church claims its authority stems from the miracle of Christ. You've said nothing that explains how that works or why I should accept it.
There is no democracy when it comes to what is moral and what is immoral, for the Church that Jesus Christ Himself actually built upon St. Peter, that it true.
Yeah. I'm trying to get you to explain how that works in the "Is Murder Wrong" thread.If there is no God, nobody would (nor should, IMO) care what the Catholic Church teaches.
It has nothing to do with whether there is a god or not. As long as people,believe there is god with no evidence whatsoever they will care what the Catholic Church teaches--and what all other religions teach.
Until people come to their senses regarding the possibility of god they will always be hopelessly entangled in religion and religious authorities. There is no way out except to drop the irrational belief in god(s) and other supernatural entities.
There is no way out except to drop the irrational belief in god(s) and other supernatural entities.
I'd be OK with them if they'd just respect my position and quit pushing their religion at me and others. It's not boring, it's aggravating. But maybe that's their intent.