For those of you with HBO, they just released a brand new documentary by Alexandra Pelosi called Friends of God. Pelosi takes the audience on an unbelievable journey throughout the magical red-states of America where reality ceases to exist and unicorns roam free.
In this jaw-dropping clip, you bare witness to the insanity that is Buddy Davis and his Answers in Genesis Children’s Workshop. It is here that children are taught the facts of life. Children are taught that Jesus roamed the earth with dinosaurs and the Grand Canyon was created in a flash flood.
Now most of us have heard this all before. But what I find interesting here is the clear indoctrination of these children into a world where you don’t trust what you can see, hear, and touch. They are taught to trust the supposed word of God because the Bible is the history book of the universe.
Watch how clever Buddy Davis is in making evolution sound ridiculous. He uses goofy pictures and catchy songs to get these kids on board. Not once does he use reason, logic, or evidence to make his point. He is what all successful evangelists are. They are simply suave individuals with the gift of gab. They remind me in many ways of car salesmen.
I’ll be honest when I say that this video angered me. These parents are raising a generation of idiots and that troubles me. Look at the mother about two minutes into the video. Oh my God! I love her reasoning of why she believes in creationism. What a damn fool.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Related posts:
I thought you’d ask that, I present pulsars!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
Dense, fast rotating balls of neutron rich gas, formed out of a massive explosion and then gravitational collapse that emit regular pulses of radio waves (information) that when originally examined were thought to be of intelligent origin, now simply explained by pulsing stars.
Then there is Trinitite, or the glass found in nuclear fallout craters. Crystaline matterial formed from the sand around the area by way of the massively random nuclear fireball. Though not information so much, it is a more complicated structure formed by a random insertion of energy. Similar glasses are found made by lightning strikes and meteor impacts.
The ice crystals growing on the ceiling of my freezer (reminds me, I need to defrost it) are a repeatable pattern found in all sub zero water formations (HOH code). The structure of this code results in ionic reorientation of the molecules to form into hexagonal structures, which happen to be some of the most stable architectual structures in the world. They propogate themselves such that those crystals that formed into more stable patterns seed more crystal formation, resulting in those patches producing vastly larger structures. Calcite is similar (CaCO3 code), and is produced by a similar process (instead of freezing to better formed crystal structures, the material instead precipitates out of water). None of these require a programmer to make them behave this way.
There is no meaning as you define it here. No concious process is needed to interpolate the “data” provided by DNA (at least I hope my cells aren’t thinking for themselves). The letters A, T, C, and G are abreviations for the codons Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine and Guanine. They don’t so much spell things as they provide places where enzymes can latch on to form new protiens. I suggest going over the wikipedia entry on DNA since it provides some great information. As you can glean from it, to the human consiousness, DNA can be mined for information on the types of things it will produce, but this information is a secondary attribute assigned to the DNA. On the level DNA works, it is not concerned with what information it may possess, mearly that the structure it currently holds must benefit replication in the long run.
Parts in a watch do not assemble because of natural forces. We put this gear next to that one because we need a transfer of mechanical force to this arm and that spring. In the computer we put the transistor on the current bellow the tripole switch because we need a certain current to flow towards this resistor. There is definate concious purpose observable in every machine that is built. They are built to do things by humans. I have observed a watch being built, and can through logical inference assume that the watch I find on the beach with no sign of people around must have a designer as it is a watch.
Organisms don’t need this explanation, and in fact to introduce a designer adds more layers of complexity to the already complex system. You are correct that the DNA molecule is of a complex shape, but its features are easily explained by simple chemical process.
Here, purines form hydrogen bonds to pyrimidines, with A bonding only to T, and C bonding only to G. This arrangement of two nucleotides joined together across the double helix is called a base pair. In a double helix, the two strands are also held together by forces generated by the hydrophobic effect and pi stacking, but these forces are not affected by the sequence of the DNA.[1] As hydrogen bonds are not covalent, they can be broken and rejoined relatively easily. The two strands of DNA in a double helix can therefore be pulled apart like a zipper, either by a mechanical force or high temperature.[2] As a result of this complementarity, all the information in the double-stranded sequence of a DNA helix is duplicated on each strand, which is vital in DNA replication.
Hydrophobic forces cause the shape, and the fact that this formation can easily split in two and reproduce itself is built into the structure. DNA is everywhere in living organisms because it functions well as a transference and inheritance mechanism. Its almost anthropic really. DNA exists as the mechanism for inheritance not because someone put it there, but because it is necesarily the best naturally occuring formation to do the job.
That’s right natural. And using a little logical extrapolation (and I need anyone better at logical proofs to check me on this if I got it wrong). You would agree that in organisms that exist today, the DNA is not hand sewn together but is assembled by replication processes and chemical bonding, all of which are natural forces… so
-Given DNA exists
-Given natural forces require no intelligent purpose to work (ie crystal formation, ionic bonds, hydrophobic force)
-For all DNA molecules, there is some set of natural forces that can assemble them.
-Therefore for some set of natural forces, DNA is the logical product.
-That set of natural forces do not require intelligence to function.
-DNA requires no intelligence to come about.
Your turn again GenisisMan.
I’ve just watched “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life” (suggested above), and have some comments on it.
They like their bacterial flagella. Bacteria have had billions of years to perfect their motor. One possible evolutionary path is provided here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
To me, the outboard motor analogy is apt. It was not just created, it was created by many improvements over time (evolution) by a process of trial and error (natural selection), starting from a simple paddle and still improving now.
Similarly, the house analogy they mentioned in the film. If you built a house, after the millionth house your houses would look pretty good too. You’d know to hang the windows before the sidings.
The origin of life is not covered by evolution. Science is only just beginning to provide answers to this question. It’s like asking “what’s an atom made of” before even starting any experiments.
The main argument seems to be that the probability is vanishingly small for creating a self-replicating organism by random actions. One possible explanation is that there are a large number of universes, most of which are without life. This is similar to the fact that we “just happen” to be on the planet with life, despite the fact there are 7 other planets in the solar system. This is merely a postulate, it is likely to be unverifiable.
What are the origins of DNA – I don’t know. You may suggest it is an intelligent designer, but that is only one of many theories, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life Those theories are in theory testable, but Intelligent Design’s argument appears to be “it isn’t any of the others”. Even if we disprove all the other alternatives, it only proves that it is either ID or some other natural process we don’t know of yet. Is there any way to test ID in a meaningful sense?
What on earth is this information argument. I could say that the positions of stars in a galaxy is information, and they are processed by the force of gravity to rotate that galaxy. So “obviously” the galaxy has an intelligent being working it all out. The argument is just fallacious to the core! As another example, cepheid variable stars get brighter and dimmer in a regular pattern. This order stems from entirely natural processes.
Finally, the film says that science is the search for truth. This is not the case. Science is the search for a way to model the universe. If we observe something unexpected, science will attempt to improve the model. There are gaps, inaccuracies and problems within the model, but that’s fine.
The problem with a god is that it doesn’t fit into the model. If we add one, then whatever we want to predict, we would have no answer to anything, as God could change the result.
Anyway, sorry for the long post, but I think I covered the main points.
@Genesis Man
I show you that evolving hardware is out there, you then argue that they can’t assemble themselves?? OMFG /cry
You have either don’t understood evolution as concept or what these computers do. I’m going to waste my time trying to explain it to you one last time, since you state “a computer to do certain things based upon certain circumstances and calculations†you show that you have completely missed the ball. The point of evolving computers is that you have no idea what the circumstances are, and hence no idea what calculations are needed. These computers are using random mutations to cope with the changing environment. If you shoot a bullet through a normal computer it will probably malfunction, if you do the same to one of these computers they will go down for a while, try to cope with the change / lost circuits, input random mutations in the “OS†to try to get back online. It will also continuously input(mutate) data to try to find better ways to solve important tasks. In some weird circumstances you could for example end up with the sound card handling all geometric data, not because of design, but because the computer has tried millions of mutations and ended up with a system where that was better than the original configuration.
This is the exact same case as normal evolution. Some population of creatures have their habitat changed, so that only those who have extremely long arms are able to eat, all short armed creatures are at a severe disadvantage, so hence all those who carry the long arm gene will be better at getting food and have more children and live better. When a mutation happen and a super-long-arm, super-long-arm+, super-long-arm++ gene is evolved the creatures carrying these genes will be even better adapted at life. If the mutation continues maybe the creatures evolves into a single arm, no feet creature, if this is the best way to live in this strange new habitat. I know I should not have needed to write this, but since you do not seem to grasp the forces driving evolution I thought the discussion might benefit from a short summery to bring you up to speed with the rest of us.
This is my last post in this discussion because it seems its going nowhere, I fear we have only driven the nail further into the wood, but so be it, there is nothing to do about that now.
WOW….THIS IS A CLASH OF THE GEEKS MAN !!
GENESIS MAN SEEMS TO BE WINNING ALSO WHICH IS VERY ODD.
WAY TO GO GENESIS MAN – LIKED THE POST BY THE BOLD BRAD MAN ALSO, WHY BOTHER WITH THESE PEOPLE THEY ARE LOVING BEING LOST. MAYBE WHEN THEY DIE THEY CAN STUDY HELL FOR ETERNITY…..HMMM I THINK WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO STAND THESE TEMPERATURES HERE….YES YES! THERE HAS TO BE AN EXPLANATION HERE. LOOK AT THESE CREATURES TORTURING US….HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN HERE? HMMMM YES..”PUSHING UP THEIR GLASSES”
Well, the “all caps, no post” filter would be nice.
ÙOkay… the last post i read was 89, I’ve not read the other posts yet, but Genesis Man, you forgot to tell me your opinion about simulated evolution using those algorithms we were talking about…
Science? Religion? I’m listening to the guy with the lens in a tube rather than the guy with the corpse on a stick
@Stumbled On Here
How to flame atheists properly…
* Personal abuse: check
* “Going to hell”: check
* Badly formatted: check
* Bad spelling: nope
* Bible quotes: nope
Spell incorrectly and add bible quotes to support your argument to flame us properly. Take a look at http://www.venganza.org/category/hate-mail/ to see how it’s done. Thanks!
Want a good example of believer self delusion? Check out the all caps post above. He made the statement that Genesis Man was “winning”. Winning what, I have no idea but it certainly wasn’t the debate. His nonsense claims resulted in a total meltdown and he bailed. If that is winning, I want no part of it.
I did not bail, I just have other commitments, like music group and my two little ones that need their daddy’s attention. By the way, when you are getting thing hurled at your by about 4-5 people at once it gets tiring–and quite honestly I have more important things to do right now. I will get back to you when I have time, but I am not sweating it, since no one has really addressed the points I have already stated quite clearly. They are just trying to make new arguments that I don’t have time to address right now. Everyone have a good evening and get some sleep lol. I will be back in the mix before too long. Just don’t be tainted by personal attacks and keep the issues at hand. I am sure you are all nice enough people, but we can aggravate each other if we have no concern for the person behind the belief system. Have a good night… I am going to get some sleep ;-).
If the universe is only 10000 years old, how would you explain the fact that we can see galaxies much farther than 10000 light years away? Do you really think a god made the universe look 15 billion years old to trick us, even though he wants us to believe in him?
There appears something of an ethical dilemma on this site. It is setup for the purpose of ridiculing a particular religion by selecting certain proponents of that religion that appear the least credible, and perhaps the most ridiculous, in order to dispense with the religion as a whole. The particular standpoint from which this is done appears to be that of Secular (and religious?) Humanism.
The dominant ethical tenant of both Secular and Religious Humanism is likely that of tolerance. The most common moral argument that Humanists use against traditional religion is that they are intolerant of conflicting viewpoints, whether morally conflicting or doctrinally conflicting. (This is demonstrated, it appears, in the video above.)
But is not this very web page an example of such intolerance? Isn’t there a measure of hypocracy in so many posts that ridicule a religion and its supposed beliefs?
Hello Neando,
Humanists are morally required to respect people, but are not morally required to respect their beliefs; especially if those beliefs are harmful to others. Most people who visit here feel that religious beliefs are harmful, and thus do not deserve respect. This website is designed to highlight examples of the harms caused by religious belief.
We do practice tolerance. There are none of us here (save one or two) who do not want to ban religious beliefs or the practice thereof. Think of this site as akin to the anti-smoking messages you sometimes see on TV. We are here to tell people about the dangers of religious belief.
RATIONALIST’S WARNING: Religious belief may cause ill effects, such as intolerance, ignorance, stunted scientific progress, needless guilt, and even war.
Where do Humanists get these moral beliefs from and on what are they grounded? Tolerance and respect of persons may be admirable in some peoples view but do they carry any objective moral obligation? If they are invented by man, on what grounds can they regulate man? Whence is their moral authority?
A Christian might not agree that tolerance is an adequate virtue. Since such is not a humanist/secularist, what objective standard can a Humanist then appeal to to show that the Christian is wrong?
“Where do Humanists get these moral beliefs from and on what are they grounded?”
Humanists get their ethics from what makes people happy and healthy, based on application of logic rather than doctrine.
“Tolerance and respect of persons may be admirable in some peoples view but do they carry any objective moral obligation?”
Tolerance and respect of persons is at the heart of Humanism, which does not make a distinction between any two humans.
“If they are invented by man, on what grounds can they regulate man?”
I think most humanists believe in the Rule of Law.
“Whence is their moral authority?”
Humanism is a set of moral guidelines. They have no authority except that which you give to it.
“…what objective standard can a Humanist then appeal to to show that the Christian is wrong?”
This is a tricky one. There is no good answer to this question – if you truly believe something, then nothing will dissuade you. Anything a Humanist can do would be as effective as shouting Bible passages at a Muslim, or explaining the Flying Spaghetti Monster to a Jew. It’s just impossible.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
“Where do Humanists get these moral beliefs from and on what are they grounded? ”
They are made up just like those in the bible and all other religious books.
“If they are invented by man, on what grounds can they regulate man? Whence is their moral authority?”
On the grounds that they are openly derived and discussed in an objective manner. That’s much better than being based on deceptions, cons, manipulations, fears and lies invented thousands of years ago.
“A Christian might not agree that tolerance is an adequate virtue. Since such is not a humanist/secularist, what objective standard can a Humanist then appeal to to show that the Christian is wrong?”
It doesn’t matter what objective arguments non-believers could give a Christian or any other religious person. They believe irrational things and will judge the arguments in a non-objective manner.
Forgive me for jumping in late, but I can’t let this go by without commenting. Sorry if my answers sound flippant; my excuse is that the questions are loaded. They imply the validity of a religious standpoint to start with.
sidfaiwu,
I’d like to carry your analogy of smoking and religion a step further. Personally I’d like religion banned from laws, government, and public places due to the public health risks it poses. Instead of the special statuses that let them evade taxes and more, I’d like to tax them extra just like cigarettes are taxed, and use the money to fund Social Security.
I don’t have anymore the patience displayed by Humanistic Jones and all of you who take the time to reply with well-thought out answers. It’s admirable. You know who you are.
Brad is right about one thing: I’m not “open minded” anymore “and looking for a mutually edifying dialogue on the subject”. However, he’s wrong about hate. I don’t hate religious people, and I don’t think people here really hate them (boy are you people patient, actually!). I’m disgusted by religions and religious beliefs. There’s a difference. I come here because it’s a relief to find other people who get outraged or disgusted when they see what religion does to people. It relieves the frustration I get but can’t share when I see all these idiotic things being done. It’s therapeutic. I’m here for group therapy and support, not for engaging religious people. I hope that’s OK.
It seems many religious people are “happy and healthy” and have a very good rationale for being that way. More than that, many consider it their goal to help others to be such at their own expense because they believe that all people possess inherent worth and dignity, including their enemies. Humanists have no basis for this. Making oneself happy and healthy makes more sense unless making others that way redounds to oneself in some way.
The humanists moral guidlines (which are a hangover from the Judeo-christian heritage) have no inherent authority? Morality that cannot say ought and ought not is a contradiction. The authority that humanists give to their unfounded guidelines is their own, as you say, because their is no authority above man. Those who sufficient collective authority frequently enforce their “morality” on others. For some it may be benign or beneficial, but for others it may be deadly.
If tolerance and respect of persons, and belief in the rule of law is today valued by humanists, wonderful. But if their is no permanent grounding for this, then there is no reason for this to be abandoned tomorrow.
The objective standard that a humanist can hold a Christian to is a Christian one. If a Christian does not love his neighbour and his enemy, or treat others with respect and dignity, the Humanist can certainly tell him that he a hypocrite and that his actions are morally reprehensible on Christian grounds. But the Humanist has no grounds that are common by which to make his own moral judgement. Perhaps, I might suggest, that the profuse mocking of Christians is the best a Humanist can do. I think G’man has felt that.
Hello Neando,
I have often had to dispel the myths that you believe. I will do so once again.
Myth 1: Humanism has no moral basis.
Truth: Humanism is a morality based on reason and evidence. Humanists experience pain, suffering, joy, and happiness and notice how they express such feelings. We see others express themselves similarly. It is rational to conclude that other humans feel such emotions as well. We also notice that the things that cause those emotions are similar to the causes of our own emotions. It is a small logical step to conclude that others, like ourselves, prefer to be happy than to suffer. We should thus treat others in a way that would minimize suffering or maximize happiness. This morality is often (over) simplified to “The Golden Rule”. For convenience, I’ll use that title from here on out.
Myth 2: Humanism inherited their morality from the Judea-Christian tradition.
Truth: The Golden Rule is derived solely from reason and evidence. The fact that some of humanistic morality
overlaps with Christian morality should not be a surprise. This is because Jesus, and the other founders of the religion, were, themselves, in possession of a rational mind and the ability to see evidence. Thus they derived The Golden Rule as well. In fact, ALL cultures and religions have some version of The Golden Rule as part of their cultural moral rule. Furthermore, Confucianism taught this morality 500 years before Christianity claimed it as there own.
You are displaying the usual religious self-righteousness that secularists are forced to endure frequently in the US. Your ignorance of the foundations of humanism is no excuse for claiming others have no basis for their morals. You come across as conceited in your beliefs and condescending with such assertions. I hope that this is not your intention. Perhaps you have been told by other Christians that it’s proper to treat others this way, as long as they are not Christians. I would suggest a less insulting method of engaging secularists if you want to do your religion justice. So far you have only succeeded in making Christianity even less appealing to us.
“It seems many religious people are “happy and healthy†and have a very good rationale for being that way.”
Believing in superstitions is not rational. They are happy the way people on Prozac and other drugs are happy. Your argumentation is a fallacy. Humanists have a very good basis for being happy and grounding for their morality (c.f. sidfaiwu).
Neando, do you really think all humans are so primitive that they need to be told what is right and wrong from authority? Do you know that an appeal to authority is a fallacy? Hence, all “morally religious” people live a fallacy! Mature enough people, such as humanists, can figure out what morality should be (hence why the Golden Rule has been re-discovered many times). Others need to be told that the great man in the sky says so.
Thanks Sidfaiwu for your thoughts. Not all atheistic philosophers agree with your grounding morality on the facts of human experience and on reason. They call it the is/ought fallacy. You appear to move from from what is: “It is a small logical step to conclude that others, like ourselves, prefer to be happy than to suffer,” to the ought of: “We should thus treat others in a way that would minimize suffering or maximize happiness.”
Second, is should be observed that it is the negative form of “the golden rule” that is found so broadly (Confucus, etc.). The positive version is unique to Judeo-Christianity. Jesus’ statement is grounded in the the 2nd great command to love one’s neighour found in the Torah.
THe negative form is “rational” in that it is prudent. It is the withholding of possible harm that may come to others from a particular action or inaction, etc. This may spring from a variety of motives; it could be entirely benevolent but not necessarily, or it could be entirely selfish or just plain prudent. The positive form may not be “rational” in that it is grounded in a particular view of man: that he inherently and objectively possesses inestimable value and dignity and that this in turn creates the moral obligation of the Rule. Without this view of man, altruistic benevolence is indeed irrational.
One futher note about tolerance. This began its journey, I understand, with John Locke the Deist. I believe he had a point in the context of his time. Christians believe that it is inadequate on the ground that it falls short of a proper regard for others, that is, to love and do good to those who oppose and abuse them. I, however, do appreciate whatever tolerance is shown me by those who disagree ;}
Your last paragraph I have no answer for. It sounds like preaching, but thanks anyway.
Hello NoReligionIsPeace, I hope you can put up with me a little longer. I might even have to concede that some of your anger may be justified.
About the prozaic and drugs: First, I might just have to concede that some expressions of Christianity (esp. in the West) seem to fall into that category and that repulses me also. I regard it as a mimicking of the narcisistic trend in the general culture.
Happiness, in the classic sense is rather to do with wholeness of being and the proper function of the human personality. Those who seek to follow Christ will reject the former and embrace the latter even to the point of self-sacrifice and death for the flourishing of others. Many have done and are doing so.
You have used the word “fallacy” often but not yet shown my arguments to be such.
You seem to misunderstand my reference to authority. I was arguing that moral oughts and ought nots are obligatory and binding by their very nature. I have also argued that these logically cannot be derived from what is. They regulate human behaviour so how can they be derived from it?
Torturing babies for fun, for example, is not merely unpleasant, repulsive and unacceptable, it is universally morally evil for all people for all time. I do not need a rational basis to know that this is an objective moral truth (although I could argue that way), I just know it. Such a truth, it seems to me, is rather odd furniture in a purely accidental universe.
Neando,
Ethics is what you think is right, morality is what you do in reality. Please refer to the definition of normative ethics, as it is what you are engaging in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
Appeal to authority is one of the classic fallacies (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). You appeal to the authority of a superior being to derive your ethics. That’s a fallacy, in addition to being a lie because religious ethics have been written by mankind anyway. Moreover, invoking a supernatural being is repugnant because it is giving up on your faculty of reason — it is morally wrong in a Kantian sense (so I believe that religions are morally wrong).
The other fallacy you seem to imply in your reasoning is that if we don’t have all the answers, it makes religious ones correct by default. I won’t elaborate further, it should be obvious why that’s a fallacy.
How to derive a morality without appealing to a superior being to define it for you is another question. You seem to like the idea that nothing can be self-regulating, and that order cannot appear out of chaos. Bad news for you, biology uses biochemical processes to regulate other biochemical processes. There is no foundation in your (implied) assertion that knowledge of human behavior can’t be used to derive rules of conduct and regulate human behavior. I understand though how this may seem like a circular argument to religious people, ironically, but it’s only because you use as an axiom that someone created all of it.
If you honestly wonder how to derive rules of conduct, and knowledge of what is right and wrong , you could start by reading about Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Contractarianism. I like to salt those with some virtue ethics. In addition, I think not all things are entirely black and white; there are shades of evil and good, so I also disagree with your binary view of ethics, ought and ought not.
As to why torturing babies for fun is repugnant, it could be for many reasons, including being due to evolution. If your brain wasn’t wired for it, it’s likely that our species wouldn’t exist anymore. Why don’t female animals eat their young? Did they need to be told by a god? Another theory is, because almost anyone has the brains to see it’s unfair, and we learn quickly through experiences that we want fairness. IMO, the invocation of religion at this point reflects a lack of imagination.
“Accidental universe?” Isn’t it funny how order can appear out of chaos. No, I don’t know the answers to everything, but that doesn’t make religious ones correct by default. It’s explaining something I don’t know with something I understand even less. It’s silly.
Damn, I’m tired of arguing with religious people. I didn’t want to do it, and I’ve been had again.
Hello Neando,
All ethics suffer from the is/ought fallacy. Even your authority based deontoloty. Here is God’s law, thus we ought to follow it.
Here is a positive statement of The Golden Rule from Confusionism: “Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.” Mencius VII.A.4 He wrote this about 300 years before the existence of Christianity.
“Not all atheistic philosophers agree with your grounding morality on the facts of human experience and on reason.” Please, give an example. I am interested in ethics and am curious. Anyway, your original claim was that Humanists have no basis. Are you now revising that to say the Humanists have multiple bases?
Finally, I am sorry about my last paragraph. It was preaching. I’ll try to rephrase it more politely. I’d like to warn you that claiming others have no basis for their morality can be perceived as arrogant. If your goal is to try to convince others that the Christian ethic is superior to others, there are ways to do so which would seem less insulting. I would suggest something like “I am interested in the foundations of Humanistic morality. Could you describe to me the basis of Humanistic moral thought?” This would give others the opportunity to explain the basis. You could then critique their basis and present your own in its place. I think that you would find this much more effective if you were to try it in the future.
Come to think of it, this is an application of the Golden Rule! How would I like to be approached about a different moral system? That’s exactly how I should approach person X about my moral system!
NoReligionIsPeace, sorry to disturb your peace. You seem to put a lot of words into my mouth. I don’t think I have said that I base moral obligation on divine authority. I in fact reject divine command moral theory as do most theistic philosophers.
sidfaiwu, thanks for the comments. I was unaware of the Mencius reference and find it interesting. THe philosopher I had in mind is Kai Nielsen and I have some agreement with him here.
Why should I apply the Golden rule? It might result in a more amiable discussion and that would be preferable. If I talk nicely others might talk nice back and thats better than being mocked, etc. But although this may work, is rational and may result in desirable consequences, it is only pragmatism and need not go beyond selfishness. This, I think , is the limit of the negative form.
The positive form may also have equivalent consequences. If I believe that I should love others regardless of their behaviour and negative consequences for myself, I think it requires a different rationale though. Being merely commanded to do so by someone more powerful than myself will not do. The belief that all mankind possesses inherent and inestimable dignity and worth, if true, does seem to imply the moral obligation of the positive form. But this value of man demands a basis outside of man.
Neando, sorry if I thought you implied things you didn’t. I don’t understand what you were getting at, then.
I seriously don’t get why keep saying Atheism is impossible because of morality. You people (those who make this argument) obviously have an internet connection. How about combining it’s use and that of your brain and looking around a bit for the oft repeated, ever present answer to your “dilemma”
Now, a responce meant more in jest:
Ahh, i’ll respond to this with the universal religious answer. You guessed it!
Alcari, probably a minority of theistic thinkers believe in a young earth and universe. I tend to opt for an old universe and have ddifficulties with the arguments, biblical and scientific for recent creation, but then I’m no scientist anyway. Your mocking doesn’t enhance your credibility.
actaully, i believe it demonstrates very clearly how you shouldn’t be approaching the problem. The proper scientific way would be to say “What could have caused this” “hmm, it might be this and that” then test your hypothesis, and reject if it wrong.
whereas the universal religious answer follow this reasoning. “I know god did it, but how to prove it?” then take some results that are vaguely contradictory and say “See this scientific explanation is clearly wrong, therefor god must have done it”
But, all excuses and justifications aside, You’re right in it not reinforcing credibility. Then again, i’m only pointing to other for proof, as it’s all been given before and I don’t really have the time nor the urge to reproduce vast essays on here.
To me, there is no difference between these people and the 9/11 highjackers. both had beliefs deeply rooted in fantasy. both believe there is a better life after this one( which devalues this one).And both can be very easily led to do very extreme things if the right preacher comes along that can interpret their fantasy world a different way. All they really have to do is find a bible verse that says it’s ok to kill non-christians.
randypagan may be right concerning those to whom his description applies. A follower of Mohammed will do what Mohammed did and approved. Likewise will a follower of Christ. Muslims can follow the Medina model or the Mecca model; they can be moderate or militant according to their beliefs and still be faithful.
A follower of Christ must love his neighbour of whatever race, colour, class or creed–including Atheists and Wahabists–and seek their eternal well-being, including in this life. Whoever contradicts this, whether bishop or peasant, cannot be a follower.
One may give his life to send his neighbour to hell and himself to paradise; the other may sacrifice his life so that his neighbour may join him in eternal wholeness and joyful fulfilment of divine purposes.
@ Neando
Not all Muslims are terrorists.
h2g2bob
Neando never made that distinction, in fact if you read his last post he was stating just the opposite (i.e. not all Muslims are extremists or terrorists). Must run, but enjoying the dialog.
I found this great graphical representation of the argument
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20–%20science%20vs%20faith.html
The link’s broken, Alcari :(
Oops, got the wrong end of the stick there, sorry :(
@ sidfaiwu, Alcari
Fixed link is http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20–%20science%20vs%20faith.html
It makes the point quite well, I think.
I say fixed, apparently it’s a bug on the forum :( Anyway, it’s the “Science vs Faith” item on here:
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/
If these people dotn believe in dinosaurs, then how they justify oil?
Why do people think that evolution means “beginning”? Evolution DOES NOT mean “beginning”. Why can’t Crationism and Evolution live hand in hand? Why can’t there be a Creationism that allows things to evolve?
simple dicknot(may wanna rethink that name),
evolution goes against the bible. The bible states that god CREATED man and all the other creatures, which makes it impossible for many christians to accept evolution for the truth. However i do know a few individuals who believe that god was simply the catalyst to begin life and evolution on our planet.
Q: “If these people dotn believe in dinosaurs, then how they justify oil?”
A: “god did it”
I stumbled across this website. I have to say several comments seem resentful, hateful and not the lest bit tolerant of those that have a belief system that differs from the posters personal belief. There were attacks of both the Christian and Muslim faith systems, and faith in general. I find that fascinating! How can you say yours is the right and theirs is the wrong? Some mentioned that if Christians want to prove they are right then do so by the scientific method. I challenge you to do the same. If Christians are wrong then prove it with science. I’m not talking about evaluation vs. creationism here (the creation myth is far older than the Christian Bible). I am saying that all have the right to believe how they choose to believe so long as their beliefs do not infringe on another humans rights. Mocking another beliefs does not make that individual and their belief look bad it makes you. Please remember Atheists, you do have a belief system, yours is a religion even if it isn’t a mono or polytheistic “God” you believe in. You don’t want people to judge you for your beliefs or “lack” of beliefs then you should treat others with the respect you wish to receive from them.
I know I am a late poster on this. The reason for this is this video has nauseated me every time I tried to watch it. I finally got through it and noticed I am not the only latecomer.
@Marjorie: Atheists are the least liked and least trusted minority in America. Our own president said, “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” Imagine for a moment him saying that about blacks or asians. He would be shouted out of office for hate speech. But he said it about atheists and it barely made a blip on the radar. So you’ll pardon us if we are a bit bitter about our myth following brethren.
You want proof of evolution? Check out every evolutionary biology textbook. They get more and more definite every year. What proof is there for creation? A 2000 year old book of dubious origin translated more times than I can count with each translation adding, removing, or changing things a bit.
To top it off, it was written by men who claimed to hear the voice of God. In Psychology today there is a litmus test. If you talk to God you are religious. If he talks back you are schizophrenic. The religious are using the words of men who by today’s standards would be committed to an institution as their science and you expect us not to be sickened that they are passing this disease on to children? Really?
Hello DeusExMichael,
I just want to clarify one thing you said. The bigoted quote about atheists was made by our former president, George Herbert Walker Bush. You know, king George I. Our current president probably isn’t sure what an atheist is. He actually had to ask his father what a neocon is.
True. My original source had the quote mis-attributed. Thanks.
Hello Majorie. I hear your complaint about the bitterness of athiests butI wonder why you think there are such things as “rights.” If you merely mean that your Constitution prescribes them well that’s fine (my country doesn’t have one), but if you believe that human rights are not a human invention, then where do they come from? When you say “I am saying that all have the right to believe how they choose to believe so long as their beliefs do not infringe on another humans rights,” on what grounds do you believe this is true? Why would an atheist be morally bound by this value? Also, if a person beleives that all conflicting belief systems cannot be equally valid, why should he be tolerant of those beliefs he believes to be false?
On atheism being a religion: It normally comes in the variety that the universe is the whole show, i.e., monistic (and perhaps pantheistic). Most are materialists and guard this belief passionately as if it really mattered. The religiousness of it is often demonstrated in the passion with which it attacks rival systems and proclaims its tenets as ultimate truth.
“Which means that I, too, find this video highly disturbing, perhaps more so than many of you who discount the Bible entirely. Fundamentalists who take the Bible to the absurd literal extreme and try to make it into the authoritative science, history, and English (because we all know that it came inerrant from God in the original King James Version…)”
So which version of bullshit do you subscribe too? No matter how you put it, it’s fantasy.
Even an atheist can acknowledge internal logic of a belief system he disagrees with. If the Bible is, as it claims to be “the word of God,” and if the God of theism exists, the laws of logic and morality are necessarily founded in his nature, so then what he says and does cannot be false or contradictory.
If an atheist wants to be taken seriously by theists, he really needs to move beyond such rants and mocking and speak from an understanding of their best proponents. Religious freaks are as abundant per capita as irreligious freaks.
Hello Neando,
“If the Bible is, as it claims to be “the word of God,†and if the God of theism exists, the laws of logic and morality are necessarily founded in his nature, so then what he says and does cannot be false or contradictory.”
I’ve always found this an interesting claim. Even if such a belief system is internally consistent, the core reasoning is still circular, thus invalid. Here’s a fictional dialog to help explain my point:
Religio: “God Exists.”
Philo: “How do you know?”
Religio: “It says so in the Bible.”
Philo: “How do you know the Bible is correct?”
Religio: “Because it is the word of God.”
Philo: “But declaring it the word of God presumes the existence of God. Your reasoning is circular. You cannot presume the existence of God to prove the existence of God. You must either first prove that God exists or prove that the Bible is correct.”
Religio: “What does it matter, as long as my belief system is internally consistent? It’s very consistency demonstrates that its true.”
Philo: “Consistency does not guarantee truth. I’ll demonstrate through an example. Consider the Qur’an, the Islamic holy book. They, too, claim that it is the word of God and is internally consistent. Yet it contradicts the Bible. The Bible claims that Jesus was the son of God, the Qur’an claims he was not. One of the two must be untrue. Thus despite being internally consistent, at least one of the two is not entirely true.”
Religio: “But the Qur’an is not the word of God!”
Philo: “By what criteria do you make that judgment? More to the point, what is the objective criteria an unconvinced person can use to determine which book correctly identifies itself as the word of God?”
Religio: “I must admit, one must take the Bible’s truth on faith and not reason. But once one does so, they will find the Bible entirely consistent and, thus, logically satisfying.”
Philo: “But once one takes the step of taking something on faith, reason has already been subverted. As with any logical derivation, a false step along any chain of the reason casts suspicion on the validity of any conclusion.”
Religio: “Based on your strict adherence to reason, there is no way for me to prove to you that the Bible is the word of God.”