Originally posted by lucifershammerActually I dont think he said that. He said something closer to:
I call this the Voter's Fallacy -- "I can't pick which candidate is best, so none of them must be".
An election does not guarantee the existence of a perfect candidate nor does it make your candidate the best.
Originally posted by twhiteheadEr, no. This is what he said:
Actually I dont think he said that. He said something closer to:
An election does not guarantee the existence of a perfect candidate nor does it make your candidate the best.
So which religion should I follow and why is it any better than all the others? In such a way that followers of all religions will agree with you because otherwise it is not objective, it's just a matter of personal taste.
8 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt's just as impossible to prove God doesn't exist as it is impossible to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't trick you all about God and is the only real supreme deity...If you ever find a way to prove the FSM does not exist, I promise right here, right now that I'll prove that God doesn't exist either 😉...until such time that you have presented us with this proof, your requirement for our proof of the non-existence of your God is not justified and you should find a better argument!
So you agree that it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist?
My question to you is why are you an atheist?
lemme...guess, this is the bit where you or Freaky attack my phraseology and say...how can something be *more* impossible than something else?? without actually resolving anything
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWe have gone through this before. Look at the sand on the beach. Lots of grains almost the same size. They were 'selected' out from a large collection of other grains. There was a selection. Who did the selecting? Why is the word wrong in this context?
No, you have a term with the word 'selection' in it, but no one is
making a selection, you have been justifying the use of that word
'selection' with the word 'competition' when in fact none is taking
place.
Kelly
Selection is a very common process found throughout the universe. It does not require the selector to be a living or concious entity.
The term 'competition' used in the context of 'Natural Selection' implies that the particular selector (which, I say again, is not a being) is the competition between species.
Plant 5 trees all within 1 foot of each other. Come back 50 years later you will probably find 1 or maybe 2 still alive and flourishing. What 'selected' those particular 2? Was it God? The planter? Some unknown entity? Or competition for space?
Originally posted by rwingettHave to completely agree. Besides religious fundamentalists, you also get scientific fundamentalists. As opposed to fundamentalists, you get essentialists. The essence of religion and the essence of science are not conflicting, they're not even about the same thing. Religion is about ethics and why certain principals and codes of behaviour are justified. Science is about how the universe works. We have a huge amount to learn in both areas.
There are a lot of ridiculous people in the world.
Lucifer's Hammer accused me of what he calls "The voter's fallacy":
"I can't pick which candidate is best, so none of them must be".
This is possibly not far my position, assuming we are picking between candidates who all claim to know the absolute truth even though they all have different policies and none of them provide any means of independant verification. Therefore any one you choose to believe in is purely a personal decision.
This was all sparked off by DJ (I think) saying that you could objectively judge and rate different belief systems so I was asking him then to pick two belief systems, his and another well known one and descibe why one was better than the other in an objective way such that believers in both would have to agree.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by amannionThere are several reasons for this assertion. Primary among those reasons is the lack of meaning. If chance is the directing force (already we have started out with nonsense, but let's continue), then there exists nothing of value. All is equal, without good or evil, without a scale of values upon which to base anything.
Freaky, why do you say that?
What do you mean - 'the atheist lives a life of absurdity'?
In fact, all judgment is rendered arbitrary and totally unnecessary. At the end of the day, no action (thought, deed, etc.) can be considered superior to any other action. In fact, no such judgment could possibly be pronounced.
And what of abstract thought? It is all illusory: no logic or reason, there can be no concept other than cold, hard physical reality.
However, there does not exist a true atheist on the face of the planet. A true atheist wouldn't give a rat's ass about 'proving' the validity of his perspective, nor would he spend even a scosch of time refuting the beliefs of others. Why waste valuable (!) time? None of this matters.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's just more hilarious the second time.
There are several reasons for this assertion. Primary among those reasons is the lack of meaning. If chance is the directing force (already we have started out with nonsense, but let's continue), then there exists nothing of value. All is equal, without good or evil, without a scale of values upon which to base anything.
In fact, all judgment is rend ...[text shortened]... f time refuting the beliefs of others. Why waste valuable (!) time? None of this matters.
I killed a toddler yesterday as in my atheist mind it was impossible to distinguish from giving it a lollypop.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is a mistaken position.
There are several reasons for this assertion. Primary among those reasons is the lack of meaning. If chance is the directing force (already we have started out with nonsense, but let's continue), then there exists nothing of value. All is equal, without good or evil, without a scale of values upon which to base anything.
In fact, all judgment is rend ...[text shortened]... f time refuting the beliefs of others. Why waste valuable (!) time? None of this matters.
Meaning isn't magically derived from religious belief.
We all sign on to some sort of system for developing ethics/morals/meaning in our lives. For some, this comes from a religious perspective of one sort or another. For others, like me, it doesn't. This doesn't mean that I don't have such a system - simply I don't derive it in the same way as you do.
The notion that because I choose not to ascribe to a system of religious belief that therefore nothing is of value is ridiculous. I place pretty significant value on many things - and I have a continuum of value on things, ie. some things are worth more to me than others - in the same way you would.
The only difference is in the way I develop my values.
Doesn't mean they aren't there.
To claim that atheism doesn't allow that is disingenuous in the least ...
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJust because you cannot understand it, does not make it nonsense.
There are several reasons for this assertion. Primary among those reasons is the lack of meaning. If chance is the directing force (already we have started out with nonsense, but let's continue), then there exists nothing of value. All is equal, without good or evil, without a scale of values upon which to base anything.
In fact, all judgment is rend f time refuting the beliefs of others. Why waste valuable (!) time? None of this matters.
However your belief in God, or even the actual existence of God would not somehow solve your dilema. Gods laws, judgements, system of values etc is not in any way 'superior' to any other system. And why exactly does it matter to a theist that they follow these laws etc? There is no 'meaning' in it all. Why must anything be matched against a 'scale of values'? Surely there is no real difference between whether you go to heaven or hell?
The truth is we are very complex beings and it is never as simple as saying "I know that is right and that is wrong and I will only do the right thing" or even "It doesnt matter what I do so I will act randomly". If you as a theist have this fantastic 'scale of values upon which to base everything' then why do you still sin?
In your belief system, any suffering you recieve does not 'matter' so why do you still try to avoid it?
