Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by sonship
I don't think I am as wild as RJHinds was.

Neither do I, although in terms of the ideology you both espouse, it's all more or less much of a muchness. You both promote an incoherent "moral" notion of a God figure who is a depraved torturer, for instance. But as for your faculties as a person engaging in discourse, you are obviously superior to RJHinds who was, more often than not, content to play the oaf. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead

Yet interestingly he didn't choose to start a war.

BRILLIANT !!

Watch he work, you fellow atheists.

I know some guys who didn't CHOOSE to make a woman pregnant with their child. But they "triggered" the event.

The word "triggered" in the Wiki article is appropriate. You're suppose to be big on science cause and effect. The assassin triggered or was a cause of WWI, and whether he thought that would be the result of his action or not.

I thought atheists and humanists were supposed to be big on taking RESPONSIBILITY.
What is this pick and choose selectively your philosophy as it scores against theism ?


He chose to do something, that started a war. Of course it was a war waiting to happen and the real intentional part of it was the people that used that as an excuse.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument can be made that the real cause goes back further and further to something or someone else.

Other than the inconvenience of saying a man can start a war, I see no reason for denying that the man STARTED the war, or TRIGGERED it into happening.

You're a humanist type. You should be touting the great importance to a man's decisions. This one was a bad one. It triggered World War One.


It is reasonable to state that a war could be started by the free choice of a man carrying out an act, as is the case with World War I.

Yes, it is most definitely reasonable to state that, and that doesn't contradict anything I have said, as you well know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can make assertions just as easily. Watch!

It contradicts your assertion that a man cannot start a war - And You Know It.

See? Its not hard.


If twhitehead reasons that a man cannot start a war,

Except twhitehead never reasoned any such thing. Sonship needs to improve either his reading comprehension or his honesty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think some amount of improvement on reading comprehension will bring me around to agree with most of the crap you write, its not happening.

I understand that if one is incapable of writing anything but BS he would at least like his BS to be well comprehended.




If sonship had been paying attention, instead of being so upset about being called out for lying,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By pass the minutia. What is YOUR evidence proving God does not exist ?
Do you have a formula ?
Do you have an equation ?
Do you have some other solid evidence ?

Other than you don't like the idea, I doubt you can do any better than the Amazing Atheist, who has the sense to say Evidence for Atheism isn't there.

No. What you are going to PROBABLY do is say all the BURDEN for evidence of theism is on the theist. You probably say no burden in on you to provide evidence.

No position is the easiest to defend, always.


sonship would know that twhitehead's argument is that it is not necessary that a person be able to start a war for them to have free will.

Therefore anyone who says that God allows wars because he desires for us to have free will has some more explaining to do. It is noted that sonship is unable to provide this explanation which is why he has instead chosen to deliberately and maliciously misrepresent what I have actually argued.


It is noted that you never asked me.
I recall you asking some questions to Fetch.

It is noted that you are generalizing with a hope to bundle all Christian posters together as always saying exactly the same thing. It is noted that you use the word "unable" dishonestly, since I was never asked to provide answer to your question.


But for the record, since the fall of man, sure, God has let us see what consequences can occur from the human decision to be alienated from the life of God. And He has allotted quite a substantial amount of time for us to get that point.

That's really not a hard problem to solve.
God has allowed human history to testify to humans what human life alienated from God can produce.

And it is not only bad.
The choice, after all was "the knowledge of good AND evil".


You can begin to discern my replies from those of Fetchmyjunk. Everything he said, i might not say. And there might be some things he says I would say.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I mention nothing about in heaven or going to heaven.
Note it.

Now, briefly back to the READING COMPREHENSION thing which you have loved to repeat.

Question: Who on this forum are, say, the THREE most skillful posters in your opinion with reading comprehension ?

Googlefudge, sonhouse, stella ?
LemonJello, ToO, FMF ?

Who are you THREE favorite posters for really good reading comprehension ?
I'm curious.

Originally posted by sonship

Yet interestingly he didn't choose to start a war.

BRILLIANT !!

Watch he work, you fellow atheists.

I know some guys who didn't CHOOSE to make a woman pregnant with their child. But they "triggered" the event.

The word "triggered" in the Wiki article is appropriate. You're suppose to be big on science cause and effect. ...[text shortened]... ?

Who are you THREE favorite posters for really good reading comprehension ?
I'm curious.

Look, this is really simple.

Let us imagine the fictional society of "The Culture" as imagined by Ian M. Banks.

In The Culture you have sentient strong AGI's [Artificial General Intelligence's] in
the form of 'drones' and 'Minds'... The drones are small human intelligence level
AGI's that live with and work with the humans, they are typically of the form or
size of a floating briefcase or football, and often have original functions like translators
or combat/espionage. Minds are the super AGI's that run the [space] ships and habitats
that people live on... They basically run the civilisation.

Now the humans in this society are just as free to make choices as we are, and so if you
believe that we have free will [we don't] then these humans would also have the same free
will.

However, these humans cannot start a war. ALL weapons and warships are run by sentient
AGI and they simply will not let any single [or group] of humans start a war with another
civilisation. Accidentally or intentionally.

It's also almost impossible to murder someone, as everyone has a terminal that gives them
a direct link to the local Mind and one scream will bring a split second response drone team
that can literally save you from beheading if necessary.
Anyone who attempts, or is believed likely to attempt, murder is "slap droned"... which basically
means that they get a drone babysitter that follows them around and stops them from trying it
again.

But none of that removes free will.


Let's change this to the case of your imaginary god.

Let's say I am that god and I want WWI not to happen.
I see the assassin lining up the shot... So I make the gun jam.

I haven't removed free will, I haven't shown my existence, I haven't ordered anyone to do anything,
and yet I just stopped the assassination.

Twhiteheads argument is that allowing humans to be able to start wars is not a requirement for humans
to be able to have free will. [Not that we actually do have free will, but that's a whole other argument].

The fact that some humans obviously do have the ability to start wars does not contradict that.

Originally posted by sonship
Next time avoid scattering your comments around on different threads. Then the appropriate response can be conveniently found below the relevant question.

The conversation in question had nothing to do with you, and I was not the one who brought it up in multiple threads, instead I responded in multiple threads because it was brought up in multiple threads. It is to be noted that you have done exactly the same thing here in that you went to that other thread to respond to my comment in this thread. Hypocrite.

Reading comprehension would expect it such.
Reading comprehension would expect you to read my posts. You didn't. You then made a fool of yourself.

1.) I was quoting the video maker. My quote was not a lie. At around .23 seconds he claims that he had over 800 replies. (stated on or before 1/26/2011)
Oh, so you were talking about the Youtube video all this time and not this thread? You could have been a bit more clear.

Originally posted by sonship
It contradicts your assertion that a man cannot start a war - And You Know It.

I made no such assertion.

See? Its not hard.
Its not hard if you are willing to lie. Its a bit harder if you actually tell the truth.

If you think some amount of improvement on reading comprehension will bring me around to agree with most of the crap you write, its not happening.
How do you know its crap if you don't understand it?

I understand that if one is incapable of writing anything but BS he would at least like his BS to be well comprehended.

You wouldn't know what I am capable of writing given that you don't actually understand it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You did say that the cause of suffering is because it is a necessary requirement for free will. You seem to be backtracking on that.

[b]It enables you to start a war if you so wished.
No, it does not. Even if I wished to, I could not start a war.

Yes if you decided not to else you wouldn't have free will.
Free will is not equivalent t ...[text shortened]... storians was that the exodus took place, then I would believe the exodus most likely took place.[/b]

You did say that the cause of suffering is because it is a necessary requirement for free will. You seem to be backtracking on that.

Free will brought about the capacity for evil which ultimately brings about suffering.

No, it does not. Even if I wished to, I could not start a war.

Are you saying that everyone who has started a war was a robot and had no free will?

Free will is not equivalent to omnipotence.

Did not say it was.

And zero wars.

Would you care to name one war that was started by a robot?

You say having free will guarantees you can start a war.

No I'm saying without free will you cannot start a war. If you disagree simply provide me with one war that was started by a robot and I will concede.

I also don't think it is the loving way to do it. Do you hurt your kids so that they can be closer to you?

I don't claim to be God. But I think God can use pain and suffering to draw people closer to himself.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I think God can use pain and suffering to draw people closer to himself.

Nice guy.

Why do you want to be associated with such evil?

Scared of him?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Nice guy.

Why do you want to be associated with such evil?

Scared of him?

When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law.

Do collectives and groups - like families, neighbourhoods, communities, tribes, societies, nations - who clearly develop mores, standards, assumptions, conventions, morals, etc. and which are evidently able to do so without necessarily citing supernatural beings - qualify as "moral lawgivers" in this thought exercise of yours?

Originally posted by FMF
Do collectives and groups - like families, neighbourhoods, communities, tribes, societies, nations - who clearly develop mores, standards, assumptions, conventions, morals, etc. and which are evidently able to do so without necessarily citing supernatural beings - qualify as "moral lawgivers" in this thought exercise of yours?

I do not doubt for a moment that philosophers have tried to arrive at a moral law apart from the positing of God, but their efforts are either contradictory in their assumption or conclusions.

The debate between the philosopher Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell comes to mind. At one point in the debate, Copleston said, "Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, don't you?" Russell answered, "Yes I do." "How do you differentiate between them?" challenged Copleston. Russell shrugged his shoulders as he was wont to do in philosophical dead ends for him and said, "The same way I differentiate between yellow and blue." Copleston graciously responded and said, "But Mr. Russell, you differentiate between yellow and blue by seeing, don't you? How do you differentiate between good and bad?" Russell, with all of his genius still within reach, gave the most vapid answer he could have given: "On the basis of feeling-what else?" I must confess, Mr. Copleston was a kindlier gentleman than many others. The appropriate "logical kill" for the moment would have been, Mr. Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?"

http://xwalk.ca/evil.html

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I do not doubt for a moment that philosophers have tried to arrive at a moral law apart from the positing of God, but their efforts are either contradictory in their assumption or conclusions.

I'll try again. Have human collectives and groups been able to develop recognizable and generally acknowledged systems of morals without citing supernatural beings or requiring belief in them? It's a yes or no question, really. And a bit rhetorical too.

Because the answer is, of course, yes they have. As such, one can therefore that the collective (with its aspects of commonality in terms of group consciousness, conscience, and consent to governance) plays the role of "moral lawgiver" that you appear to think is absent unless the role is played by a supernatural being.

I contend that what you 'appear to think is true' is demonstrably not so.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When you say there is evil, aren't you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral lawgiv ...[text shortened]... no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.

You need to explain how you get from one idea to the next.
At the moment it is just random text.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
http://xwalk.ca/evil.html

Unless Copleston and Russell present themselves here in this community (having registered their free accounts) to testify as to what your personal answer is to the personal observations and question I put to you, then I consider your link and copy paste to be akin to spam and a bit evasive. 😉

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I do not doubt for a moment that philosophers have tried to arrive at a moral law apart from the positing of God, but their efforts are either contradictory in their assumption or conclusions.

The debate between the philosopher Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell comes to mind. At one point in the debate, Copleston said, "Mr. Russell, ...[text shortened]... at them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?"

http://xwalk.ca/evil.html

Actually all one need is a concept upon which to hang decisions of morality.

For example, the Golden Rule has been recognized as one such concept through the ages, across many cultures and within both theistic and secular schools of thought. This fact also belies the idea that morality is "completely subjective".

http://www.bahai.us/welcome/spiritual-concepts/oneness-of-god/
Baha'i Faith
“Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.”
…Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 71…


Buddhism
“Hurt not others in ways that you
yourself would find hurtful.”
…Udana-Varga,5:18…


Christianity
“All things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
…Matthew 7:12…


Hinduism
“This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others
which would cause you pain if done to you.”
…Mahabharata 5:1517…


Islam
“No one of you is a believer until he desires for
his brother that which he desires for himself”.
…Sunnah…


Judaism
“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.
That is the law: all the rest is commentary”
…Talmud, Shabbat 31a


Zoroastrianism
“That nature only is good when it shall not do unto
another whatever is not good for its own self.”
…Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5…

http://www.uhj.net/the-golden-rule.html

CONFUCIANISM:

"Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
(Analects, 15:23)

"If one strives to treat others as he would be treated by them, he will come near the perfect life."
(Book of Meng Tzu)

WESTERN SCHOOLS:

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them."
(Pythagorean)

"We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us."
(Aristotle, from Plato and Socrates)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."
(Thales)

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him."
(Pittacus)

"Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another's welfare as your own"
(Aristippus of Cyrene).

"Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you"
(Isocrates)

TAO:

"Pity the misfortunes of others; rejoice in the well-being of others; help those who are in want; save men in danger; rejoice at the success of others; and sympathise with their reverses, even as though YOU WERE in their place."

"The sage has no interests of his own, but regards the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind, he is also kind to the unkind: for virtue is kind."
(T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien)

NATIVE AMERICAN:

"Love your friend and never desert him. If you see him surrounded by the enemy do not run away; go to him, and if you cannot save him, be killed together and let your bones lie side by side."
(Sur-AR-Ale-Shar, The Lessons of the Lone Chief)

"Do not kill or injure your neighbor, for it is not him that you injure, you injure yourself. But do good to him, therefore add to his days of happiness as you add to your own. Do not wrong or hate your neighbor, for it is not him that you wrong, you wrong yourself. But love him, for The Great Spirit (Moneto) loves him also as he loves you."
(Shawnee)

"Respect for all life is the foundation."
(The Great Law of Peace)

AFRICAN TRADITIONAL RELIGION:

"A SAGE is ingenuous and leads his life after comprehending the parity of the killed and the killer. THEREFORE, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so."
(Yoruba Proverb, Nigeria)

"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
(Yoruba Proverb, Nigeria)

Originally posted by sonship
[bI thought atheists and humanists were supposed to be big on taking RESPONSIBILITY.


[b]

Did you!
No reason why an atheist cannot be totally irresponsible is there?

Although in practice atheists tend to be better educated and think
for themselves so perhaps that equates to being responsible?