Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonlike i said, i was arguing from an atheist's point of view. from my point god is real. for you to convince me otherwise you must prove that my lifestyle, my actions as a human being are wrong because of this conviction. and then i will consider his usefulness.
You appeared to simply ignored what I actually said in my post.
I wasn’t saying I could define “art” nor was I approving of dubious modern art.
Is “god” just an “idea” in peoples heads or is “he” supposed to be something more than purely abstract?
Isn’t it the case that “god” , to most people, is supposed to exist independently from our minds?
Originally posted by convectno human being is one thing. i am liberal in some aspects and i am conservative in others. some vegetarians eat milk, while others don't eat any animal products. atheism doesn't constitute a way of life that excludes others, and all atheists are a like, atheism is a part of who you are and how you choose to live your life.
I've know plenty of observant Catholics and Jews who do not consider their religion factual, indeed consider most of it nonsense (more Catholics than Jews on that last one). But they continue practicing partly out of respect for the traditions of their ancestors, partly because the practice constitutes an important part of their identity, partly out of shee ...[text shortened]... ly similarity between me and an Objectivist is that neither of us have that belief in God.
a way of life doesn't have to be "i eat that and i go to party there". it can also be from a spiritual point of view.
3 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…like i said, i was arguing from an atheist's point of view. from my point god IS real..… (my emphasis)
like i said, i was arguing from an atheist's point of view. from my point god is real. for you to convince me otherwise you must prove that my lifestyle, my actions as a human being are wrong because of this conviction. and then i will consider his usefulness.
I am glad you clarified that -you where really confusing me there 🙂 - I actually thought you where arguing that “god” is not “real“! (which would make you a peculiar kind of “theist” if that would be still the “correct” word here).
….for you to convince me otherwise you must prove that my lifestyle, my actions as a human being are wrong because of this conviction. and then i will consider his usefulness.. .…
I am afraid you confuse me again -what has whether or not your “lifestyle and actions as a human being” is “wrong” got to do whether or not your conviction that there is a god is correct?
-I mean, suppose your “lifestyle and actions as a human being” is definitely and irrefutably NOT “wrong” and thus is definitely and irrefutably “right“ and everything about your lifestyle and actions is just wonderful -why would that mean you couldn’t be incorrect in your belief that there is a god?
So I do not see how “convincing” you that your “lifestyle and actions as a human being” is “wrong” would help here even if I wished to do so (which I don’t -and I don’t even have a clue what your particular “lifestyle and actions as a human being” is anyway!) and even if I could -I mean, suppose, hypothetically, I DID “convince” you that your “lifestyle and actions as a human being” is “wrong” -it wouldn’t logically follow from THAT that “there is no god” -right? -thus, in that hypothetical scenario, you wouldn’t have a rational reason to abandon your faith on THAT particular “premise“ because it wouldn‘t even be a “premise“ for that.
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou made it pretty clear that you did. Your worry was that an atheistic view of life would imply that humans are condition response machines too. I think you are wrong on both counts. I also think that you are wrong to tie an understanding of the brain to a religion vs atheism debate.
I don't see animals as condition-response machines. Thanks for your concern, though.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonbecause i have no proof that god exists, i still should have a reason for believing in him, don't i? so i base my belief on the fact that my life is better not worse by following a god made of love and fuzzy feelings. i follow jesus because of the same thing and that makes me a christian.
[b]…like i said, i was arguing from an atheist's point of view. from my point god IS real..… (my emphasis)
I am glad you clarified that -you where really confusing me there 🙂 - I actually thought you where arguing that “god” is not “real“! (which would make you a peculiar kind of “theist” if that would be still the “correct” word here).
[ ...[text shortened]... andon your faith on THAT particular “premise“ because it wouldn‘t even be a “premise“ for that.[/b]
if one tries to prove that religion is harmful, one's best bet is to attack the way of life, the moral code of each individual. god cannot be attacked since one cannot prove or disprove god.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am not sure a quite understand yet - why could you not have EXACTLY the same lifestyle as you do now and with EXACTLY the same feelings of love etc as you do now and with EXACTLY the same “moral” code of conduct as you do now and perform EXACTLY the same actions and even take EXACTLY the same advice form Jesus (but without the belief in god bit), BUT, except, NOT have that belief that there is a god?
because i have no proof that god exists, i still should have a reason for believing in him, don't i? so i base my belief on the fact that my life is better not worse by following a god made of love and fuzzy feelings. i follow jesus because of the same thing and that makes me a christian.
if one tries to prove that religion is harmful, one's best bet is ...[text shortened]... moral code of each individual. god cannot be attacked since one cannot prove or disprove god.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonbecause i get a bonus: that i didn't occur by chance, that there is more after death, not simply non-existence.
I am not sure a quite understand yet - why could you not have EXACTLY the same lifestyle as you do now and with EXACTLY the same feelings of love etc as you do now and with EXACTLY the same “moral” code of conduct as you do now and perform EXACTLY the same actions and even take EXACTLY the same advice form Jesus (but without the belief in god bit), BUT, except, NOT have that belief that there is a god?
70-90 years of life isn't enough for me, i want more. so even if i have the exact moral principles as you(suppose i do) i have extra the hope of not passing into oblivion. i am a little happier. you might suggest that you are perfectly happy they way you are and that your life brings you all the joy you want without fabricating a god, but realize that i have all that you have and something more. and if i am proven to be wrong, it woudl be ok because i am wrong. if you are proven to be wrong, well let's just hope that god doesn't hold a grudge.
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…because i get a bonus: that i didn't occur by chance, that there is MORE after death, NOT simply non-existence..… (my emphasis)
because i get a bonus: that i didn't occur by chance, that there is more after death, not simply non-existence.
70-90 years of life isn't enough for me, i want more. so even if i have the exact moral principles as you(suppose i do) i have extra the hope of not passing into oblivion. i am a little happier. you might suggest that you are perfectly happy t ...[text shortened]... m wrong. if you are proven to be wrong, well let's just hope that god doesn't hold a grudge.
Now I understand 🙂
….you might suggest that you are perfectly happy they way you are and that your life brings you all the joy you want without fabricating a god.. .…
Actually, I am not happy at all about the prospect of dieing and for that death to mean just that, death! (I take it here that the main point in there being a god would be the afterlife)
But at the same time I would personally be even MORE unhappy with the idea that I am “fabricating” something in order to convince myself of something that is not true. I just want to know the truth no matter how terrible or unappealing that truth is -I have “dilutionphobia” (I have just invented that new word) -for I have a phobia for the prospect of me being delusional. I am sure I am not the only one with dilutionphobia.
Can anyone reading this confirm that they also have dilutionphobia?
P.S. I really greatly appreciate the honesty in your post 🙂
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am fairly sure that God will hold less of a grudge against me, who was honest and didn't believe in any false gods than he will against you who have believed in the wrong god for purely selfish reasons.
if you are proven to be wrong, well let's just hope that god doesn't hold a grudge.
Originally posted by twhiteheadi am fairly sure he will hold more grudge against you who couldn't bring yourself to believe in any god than me who simply believe in a higher power that created the universe and that jesus was his son sent on earth to set an example.
I am fairly sure that God will hold less of a grudge against me, who was honest and didn't believe in any false gods than he will against you who have believed in the wrong god for purely selfish reasons.
and do elaborate on the selfish reasons. what selfish reasons do i have for believing in god.
Originally posted by ZahlanziAs I said, you clearly believe in the wrong God, and as we well know most Gods are very jealous and do not like people believing in competitors. I think I am far more likely to find favor.
i am fairly sure he will hold more grudge against you who couldn't bring yourself to believe in any god than me who simply believe in a higher power that created the universe and that jesus was his son sent on earth to set an example.
and do elaborate on the selfish reasons. what selfish reasons do i have for believing in god.
You told us yourself that your main reason for believing is to counteract with your fear of death and as a general safety blanket.
You choose to believe even though it is to the general detriment of society.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou've misunderstood me. Bbarr asked what I believed a soul added to an animal's life and I explained why I made the distinction between a creature with a soul and one without:
You made it pretty clear that you did. Your worry was that an atheistic view of life would imply that humans are condition response machines too. I think you are wrong on both counts. I also think that you are wrong to tie an understanding of the brain to a religion vs atheism debate.
"The distinction is made in Communist party literature involving mind-control techniques, wherein the "soul" is generally regarded as an antiquated concept lacking a referent. To dispense with the idea that man possesses a "soul" is synonymous with saying that man is a stimulus-response animal whose "higher" reasoning capabilities, morals and ethics, are entirely dependent upon stimulus response machinery. Basically, brain-washing 101 starts with the premise that a man possesses absolutely no will of his own, and therefore can be programed in the same way a dog can. In these terms, a man without a "soul" is a man without a "will", i.e., a man without a will is merely an animal."
I've never actually stated what I believe. In fact, the Bible says that animals do have souls. My intention in this thread was to postulate the atheistic Communist Party definition of man and challenge atheists to disprove it.
Comprende?
Originally posted by epiphinehasChomsky refuted this brute behaviorism back in 1959, with his review of Skinner's book 'Verbal Behavior', and updated the refutation in his own book 'Rules and Representations'. Check out the Poverty of Stimulus argument if you're interested in the details. If you like what you read, check out Jerry Fodor's excellent books "Psychological Explanation" and "The Language of Thought".
You've misunderstood me. Bbarr asked what I believed a soul added to an animal's life and I explained why I made the distinction between a creature with a soul and one without:
"The distinction is made in Communist party literature involving mind-control techniques, wherein the "soul" is generally regarded as an antiquated concept lacking a referent. ...[text shortened]... nist Party definition of man and challenge atheists to disprove it.
Comprende?
Originally posted by bbarrHasn't Chomsky been largely discounted with the influence of the post-structuralists? (Not that Skinner has been retrieved or anything...he's still dead.)
Chomsky refuted this brute behaviorism back in 1959, with his review of Skinner's book 'Verbal Behavior', and updated the refutation in his own book 'Rules and Representations'. Check out the Poverty of Stimulus argument if you're interested in the details. If you like what you read, check out Jerry Fodor's excellent books "Psychological Explanation" and "The Language of Thought".
I'm not a linguist, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by convectI'm not sure what you're talking about either. There is no live debate about post-structuralism in any of the linguistics or philosophy departments I'm familiar with, nor in the journals I read regularly, so I admit to being at a loss here. Perhaps if you could find an argument that Derrida, Foucault or some other post-structuralist has provided, I could respond. In any case, the point above does not presuppose a universal generative grammar, but merely the observation that the set of verbal stimuli children are exposed to is too small to explain their eventual proficiency in the public language they acquire. More than conditioning is required, so behaviorism is false.
Hasn't Chomsky been largely discounted with the influence of the post-structuralists? (Not that Skinner has been retrieved or anything...he's still dead.)
I'm not a linguist, so I don't really know what I'm talking about.