Originally posted by knightmeisterOkay, then I think we have falsification by your own standards. I performed three trials, each with sincerity and intellectual curiosity and integrity, and I think I got "absolutely nothing" -- nothing that I thought was out of the ordinary or God-indicating.
I have stated exactly what being heartfelt and sincere means. If you have 0% faith in the existence of God and 0% faith in the experiment then call it off. If you have 1% then offer that 1% up to God as best you can.
Only you , your self knowledge and your conscience will be able to figure out if you are being sincere or not. It is not unreasonable ...[text shortened]... God for something , anything to illustrate his presence with me and I got absolutely nothing."
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm noticing a pattern here: secular types get down right vitriolic when the ideology they hold dear is even the least bit questioned. It's remarkable what hostility boils to the surface within a perfectly impersonal debate. Suddenly the theist is too ignorant or uneducated to waste one's time with; if the theist truly understood or ceased being willfully ignorant of what educated people already know about the world, then they would no longer be theists. In the end such bitter abusiveness is little more than a disguised appeal to authority. Do I get equally abrasive when you and bbarr time and time again utterly disregard my cherished beliefs as a mere fairy tale? Not at all. Do I exhibit the same level of condescension when you guys misrepresent and misunderstand scripture? No. Up until things started getting ugly I was genuinely enjoying the challenging repartee taking place here. I still have nothing but respect for your individual expertise, and I appreciate the time you put into our discussion, but I think I'll be moving on, thanks.
I actually enjoy Tolstoy's A Confession as an autobiographical account of his suffering and suicidal thoughts, though he didn't in my opinion ever come to really understand them.
It's just when he tries to cast his whining and bitching into universals about the human condition; this is what makes me feel like vomiting in all directions. Excus ...[text shortened]... ing these universally onto secular society -- again, in a vomitous fashion.
Originally posted by epiphinehasRight, so no actual arguments then. Well, take care.
I'm noticing a pattern here: secular types get down right vitriolic when the ideology they hold dear is even the least bit questioned. It's remarkable what hostility boils to the surface within a perfectly impersonal debate. Suddenly the theist is too ignorant or uneducated to waste one's time with; if the theist truly understood or ceased being willfu ...[text shortened]... nd I appreciate the time you put into our discussion, but I think I'll be moving on, thanks.
5 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasWell, in a way we have come full circle back to the opening post of this thread. Things would probably go more swimmingly if you would just present considered arguments that actually have something -- anything -- to do with the truth of your religion. You'll need something other than Tolstoy's A Confession for that because he doesn't even pretend to go there. Arguments that claim belief in God is a practical necessity are often like that and just don't persuade as a consequence. More than just failing to persuade, some are downright insulting to passionate minds who get tired of being told that their existence is meaningless unless they embrace irrational and arbitrary concepts. Moreover, in attempting to show that God is somehow necessary for meaning or objective morality or living well, etc., these arguments often demonstrate deep ignorance for secular ethics and value systems; and many of them make the most bizarre claims about atheism entailing subjectivism or egoism or nihilism, blah blah blah.
I'm noticing a pattern here: secular types get down right vitriolic when the ideology they hold dear is even the least bit questioned. It's remarkable what hostility boils to the surface within a perfectly impersonal debate. Suddenly the theist is too ignorant or uneducated to waste one's time with; if the theist truly understood or ceased being willfu ...[text shortened]... nd I appreciate the time you put into our discussion, but I think I'll be moving on, thanks.
Originally posted by LemonJelloA bit hasty don't you think? There are many things that could have gone amiss with the experiment.
Okay, then I think we have falsification by your own standards. I performed three trials, each with sincerity and intellectual curiosity and integrity, and I think I got "absolutely nothing" -- nothing that I thought was out of the ordinary or God-indicating.
1. God may have answered your prayer to an extent but you missed the results , possibly by looking for the 'out of the ordinary' too much. Maybe you didn't get "absolutely" nothing.
2. You may not have performed the correct checks on your motivation and integrity (e.g. You seem to show a desire to jump to the falsification position very quickly , almost as if that was what you were hoping for , possibly indicating an unconscious desire for it not to work)
3. God may yet still answer your prayer and it may take time and application. You may have spent many decades adrift from any sense that God might be present with you , it's unlikely to snap around in a few days in the way you might be expecting.
Originally posted by bbarrObjective facts about human nature may or may not correspond to objective truth in the universe. The major difference between christian morality and secular morality is that Christians believe that there is a fixed moral law that is a truth about the objective universe that is as fixed a law as the laws that cover the speed of light.
First, no secular ethical theorist I have ever read thinks that morality is an experience. Second, almost all secular ethical theorists I have read claim that morality is based on a combination of objective facts about human nature, rationality together with some fundamental normative axioms. Third, you confuse the subjective nature of concepts for the subje ...[text shortened]... you persist in this practice after having your ignorance pointed out to you is unconscionable.
But what is "human nature" ? If we look around at what goes on we could say that the evidence before us is that humans are selfish , fearful , ignorant , aggressive and self destructive. There are of course counter examples but given the state of the world and the way humans are behaving in it ( and destroying it through climate change) I would rather not base my morality on "human nature" but rather on a spiritual hope of all that man can and could be if he became more spiritually aware.
You see if these "objective facts about human nature" are not grounded in anything real and objective to human beings themselves then what are they and where did they come from? One could say they came from evolutionary forces but if evolutionary forces are themselves ammoral and neutral then our "human" morality is ultimately resting on an ammoral foundation ( as opposed to a moral foundation in Christian theology) and has to be subjective to the human race or illusionary in some way. Just because the human race shares the same illusion does not mean it is objective.
A christian can say (based on their world view) that love , gentleness and justice will have the final victory based on a belief that these values are at the core of the very universe/existence itself. An Atheist cannot say this because for all they know what they call their "morality" may just turn out to be a trick of Dawkins "selfish gene" creating an illusion of morality in us for evolutionary purposes only.
It is not enough to say that your morality is objective because of "facts" about human nature because the facts about human nature run deeper than morality in an indifferent universe driven by chance and evolution.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou have to want god to answer you. And then he will.
Okay, then I think we have falsification by your own standards. I performed three trials, each with sincerity and intellectual curiosity and integrity, and I think I got "absolutely nothing" -- nothing that I thought was out of the ordinary or God-indicating.
Originally posted by epiphinehasWell said.
I'm noticing a pattern here: secular types get down right vitriolic when the ideology they hold dear is even the least bit questioned. It's remarkable what hostility boils to the surface within a perfectly impersonal debate. Suddenly the theist is too ignorant or uneducated to waste one's time with; if the theist truly understood or ceased being willfu ...[text shortened]... s. In the end such bitter abusiveness is little more than a disguised appeal to authority.
It is an atheinquisition
Originally posted by snowinscotlandUnless you want it too much, then maybe he won't. Also, if you think you want him to answer, that doesn't necessarily mean that you really do. God knows more about what you want or don't want than you do yourself, so he may not answer because he knows you only think you want him to answer.
You have to want god to answer you. And then he will.
Originally posted by LemonJelloFirst, I've already presented my argument toward the beginning of this thread within the given doxastic confines. If you remember, I presented the New Testament as the testimony of others whom one can justifiably trust. This argument has been pretty well ignored, and any suggestion on my part to study the NT in depth, as far as I am aware, has been ignored. (Further, it is not irrational to trust a source one has good reason to believe is true.)
Well, in a way we have come full circle back to the opening post of this thread. Things would probably go more swimmingly if you would just present considered arguments that actually have something -- anything -- to do with the truth of your religion. You'll need something other than Tolstoy's A Confession for that because he doesn't even pretend ...[text shortened]... t bizarre claims about atheism entailing subjectivism or egoism or nihilism, blah blah blah.
Second, the term 'secular', unless I'm mistaken, denotes a system of thought which rejects both religion and the supernatural. I understand secular ethics to be completely compatible with the findings of science, and holding nothing extracurricular to the evidence. Because science has shown nothing to indicate that we are more than an accidental collection of particles, I have to assume that secular ethics, despite your appeal to authority, at bottom can itself assert nothing beyond the existing data.
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou are wrong here on two counts. First, you tacitly assume that 'not supernatural' entails 'purely physical'. Many do not accept this entailment, and believe that there are facts about intentionality and consciousness that are not identical with physical facts, although they may supervene on physical facts. Second, you tacitly assume that if everything is physical, then there can be no emergent properties from the physical substrate. That is, you commit the fallacy of composition by assuming that whatever is true of the parts of a thing (the particles, or whatever) must be true of the whole of a thing (the human, the life, or whatever). Even if we were conglomerations of physical particles, nothing about ethics would follow, since we can be both conglomerations of physical particles and agents with projects and concerns, that can be harmed, that can reason, that manifest virtue, that can flourish, that can enter into a relationship with God (if there was such a creature), etc.
First, I've already presented my argument toward the beginning of this thread within the given doxastic confines. If you remember, I presented the New Testament as the testimony of others whom one can justifiably trust. This argument has been pretty well ignored, and any suggestion on my part to study the NT in depth, as far as I am aware, has been ign ...[text shortened]... pite your appeal to authority, at bottom can itself assert nothing beyond the existing data.