Religion and Atheism

[Stubby]

You didn't answer my question about who you think defines wickedness.

The answer to your question is the gathered collective wisdom of humanity, gathered over about 100,000 years, applied in as fair and reasonable manner as we have learned to do.

I'd rather adjust myself to what is true, rather than to rail against it and deny it. In the end, it's come down to the question of whether God exists. You can't prove that God doesn't exist and I can't prove that he does. In a way, our whole framework at looking at things are fundamentally incompatible. And this is where almost all debates about religion end up.

What truth?  There is absolutely no evidence that god exists.  None at all.  All you are doing is saying "look at this book!  It's true! If you don't believe it then you are a lesser human!"  No thanks.  Especially given the horrific nature of the book, which is obvious to anyone who is not looking at it through belief coloured glasses. I don't have to prove god doesn't exist.  You have to prove that it does exist.  In my experience. debates only end up with believers suggesting there is a fundamental incompatibility because believers know they can't prove the points they are making.

Fundamentally, if God exists (regardless of what either of us believe) then I am right, and you are wrong and if God does not exist, I'm happy to accept that I'm wrong.

Are you? Honestly? What if we are both wrong, and it turns out that the Muslims are right and you will be condemned?  Would you be happy with that?  What if it were the Aztecs who were right and your children end up being chosen for the sacrifice?  Would you be happy then?

Do you accept that if the Bible is the truth that each and every point that I've made is in fact correct and that you've been wrong. Or are you still going to deny the truth then?

I have always been happy to say that if proper real world evidence is produced I will accept that this entity exists.  Having said that, I would not worship such an evil entity.  It has so much disrespect for humans that I would not give it an ounce of respect in return. How about you?  If evidence is produced that proves that god doesn't exist, would you still worship that god?

Finally, returning to your (correct) point that I had overlooked your question, the following questions that I have directed to you remain unanswered:

1. If the flood started again tomorrow, would that make you happy?

2. What 'sinful nature' do you think children have?

[TrueMetis]

1. Based on a true story does not equate with the actual true story. The use of the word 'based' means that there are fictional elements to it.

Well it's not like the bible's an actual true story, but it doesn't matter, the point is being consistent doesn't have to mean something is true or right.

3. Is 'Do not do X as it makes you unclean' a rule then?

yes, one relying on a factual claim that is contradicted later in the same book.

4. In terms of why it takes so long (well that's long by our standards), that's probably answered by studying Biblical theology and working out how things fit into God's plan. 

The god of the bible is supposed to have created everything. It got to set up literally every variable. It should have gotten it right from the beginning and giving an hand waved "god's plan" is so much bullshit.

[A wilding]

Stubby, I've read some of the other responses to other people and I have a question that I'd like you to answer. In the example that you gave about abortion and the woman who died, knowing that the baby would definitely die, there is an intrinsic value judgment that the best outcome is both survive, followed by one survives, followed by none survive which I would generally agree with. And the way you arrive at that outcome is on the basis of 'facts and evidence'. Now, what if, that woman, had she survived, inadvertently, through no fault of her own, become the carrier of the next avian flu and spread it around the world causing untold devastation and death, would your understanding of 'facts and evidence' still say that the best outcome was for her to survive.

I'm not saying that, that would have been the case or anything like that, but trying to understand your reasoning.

As I was in on this particular strand of the argument:

Specifically, medicine has a standard answer to Typhoid Mary type disease carriers. Explain to them their position and keep them in quarantine, if necessary against their will.

More generally, in any RL situation we never have all the facts and can never predict all outcomes. We can only use our best judgement and accept that it won't always work out. To my mind this is much better than the dogmatic certainly of religious people, which can in extreme cases lead to horrific outcomes when they close their eyes to the RL consequences of their actions and plough on regardless.

Because I see a whiff here of an old argument: "we think it horrific that the woman died, but God, who made the rule that we should not save her, knows from his greater knowledge and wisdom that it is actually for the best."

 

[Stubby]

A wildling,

Where is that post you quoted?  I cannot see it.

[Daemrion]

 

The answer to your question is the gathered collective wisdom of humanity, gathered over about 100,000 years, applied in as fair and reasonable manner as we have learned to do.

 

What truth?  There is absolutely no evidence that god exists.  None at all.  All you are doing is saying "look at this book!  It's true! If you don't believe that then are a lesser human!"  No thanks.  Especially given the horrific nature of the book, which is obvious to anyone who is not looking at through belief coloured glasses. I don't have to prove god doesn't exist.  You do.  In my experience. debates only end up with believers suggesting there is a fundamental incompatibility because believers know they can't prove the points they are making.

 

Are you? Honestly? What if we are both wrong, and it turns out that the Muslims are right and you will be condemned?  Would you be happy with that?  What if it were the Aztecs who were right and your children end up being chosen for the sacrifice?  Would you be happy then?

 

I have always been happy to say that if proper real world evidence is produced I will accept that this entity exists.  Having said that, I would not worship such an evil entity.  It has so much disrespect for humans that I would not give it an ounce of respect in return. How about you?  If evidence is produced that proves that god doesn't exist, would you still worship that god?

Finally, returning to your (correct) point that I had overlooked your question, the following questions that I have directed to you that remain unanswered:

1. If the flood started again tomorrow, would that make you happy?

2. What 'sinful nature' do you think children have?

1. The people within that gathered collective wisdom is still going to disagree. As a collective we can't get agreement on what is wicked.

2. Because it does boil down to the point of contention about whether or not God exists. When you say prove, it is prove to your standards. And secondly, do you accept that if the Bible is true that everything believers and argue would generally be correct and your statements are erroneous?

3. If Muslims are right, then perhaps the objectively right thing to do is to become Muslim. I'd be happy to accept my mistake and rectify it. Would you fight against the truth and say you didn't make a mistake in the face of your mistake?

4. No, I would not worship a God that has been proven not to exist because that would be foolish.

5. With respect to the flood, no, because I think that there are so many people out there to be saved. It is a tragedy when people aren't saved because of their disbelief.

6. 'Sinful' nature - in effect it is about putting a crown on oneself. In a way, children are selfish. This is not a perfect representation of the concept of sinful nature, but children do lie, hit, steal, sometimes even kill, though generally those are accidents rather than actual malice.

[A wilding]

A wildling,

Where is that post you quoted?  I cannot see it.

It is post number 363. If you click on the quote link you should jump to it (I do anyway).

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karradin,

A child is dependent upon their parents for virtually everything.  An adult is not as such physical coercion is much more difficult for parents as toman adult child.  This does not mean an adult cannot have pressure put on them by family and friends however the level of physical coersion that is possible is lower for an adult than a child, in my opinion.

[Daemrion]

 

Well it's not like the bible's an actual true story, but it doesn't matter, the point is being consistent doesn't have to mean something is true or right.

yes, one relying on a factual claim that is contradicted later in the same book.

The god of the bible is supposed to have created everything. It got to set up literally every variable. It should have gotten it right from the beginning and giving an hand waved "god's plan" is so much bullshit.

But if one does accept that the Bible is true, then the better interpretation is to find the one that is consistent to explain what the truth is.

The Garden of Eden was right at the very beginning. But if the Fall hadn't happened then we'd literally probably still be naked and unaware (perhaps blissfully).

[Stubby]

1. The people within that gathered collective wisdom is still going to disagree. As a collective we can't get agreement on what is wicked.

2. Because it does boil down to the point of contention about whether or not God exists. When you say prove, it is prove to your standards. And secondly, do you accept that if the Bible is true that everything believers and argue would generally be correct and your statements are erroneous?

3. If Muslims are right, then perhaps the objectively right thing to do is to become Muslim. I'd be happy to accept my mistake and rectify it. Would you fight against the truth and say you didn't make a mistake in the face of your mistake?

4. No, I would not worship a God that has been proven not to exist because that would be foolish.

5. With respect to the flood, no, because I think that there are so many people out there to be saved. It is a tragedy when people aren't saved because of their disbelief.

6. 'Sinful' nature - in effect it is about putting a crown on oneself. In a way, children are selfish. This is not a perfect representation of the concept of sinful nature, but children do lie, hit, steal, sometimes even kill, though generally those are accidents rather than actual malice.

1. So what?  Disagreement is good.  Pandering to something written (in some parts) several thousands of years ago and saying this must be right is worse than disagreement.  Disagreement fosters discussion - at least among people who don't think they should blindly follow the tenets of a vile book.

2. I always say to prove that it is more likely than not.  In your own time then.

3. Fair enough.  What if were Kali that is proven to be correct?  Would you worship her?

4. Then why would you worship one that has never been proven to exist?

5.  You still haven't defined "saved".  And do you mean that you wouldn't be sad that millions of people (and animals and plants etc) were going to die?  And by die, I mean lose the only existence we have ever been proven to have.

6. If you cannot even tell us clearly what a child's "sinful nature" is, how can you possibly say that all children have a "sinful nature" with a straight face?  Seriously, this is fucked up.

And now I'll frame one of my earlier observations about the ark story as a question, because you have ignored it:

7. What sin did the animals and plants of the world commit that meant they deserved to die in the flood?  In the case of the animals, in what was likely abject terror.

[TrueMetis]

But if one does accept that the Bible is true, then the better interpretation is to find the one that is consistent to explain what the truth is.

Let's try this with a different fairy tail.

But if one does accept that the Story of Atlantis is true, then the better interpretation is to find the one that is consistent to explain what the truth is.

 Nope I don't see it, consistency does not overcome the hurdle that the story is not true.

ETA: See the problem is if I accept a given story book as true, it's going to be because I have evidence that show it to be true. And I will use that to explain what parts of the story are true and what aren't.

The Garden of Eden was right at the very beginning. But if the Fall hadn't happened then we'd literally probably still be naked and unaware (perhaps blissfully).

Obviously it wasn't, as it didn't work. And that's on your creator, because again he controlled every variable. And no, free will is not an excuse, he created a man and women as adults fully formed and capable of complex tasks like speaking which means said god chose all of the knowledge in their heads. Such beings could not have free will.

[Stubby]

Stubby, I've read some of the other responses to other people and I have a question that I'd like you to answer. In the example that you gave about abortion and the woman who died, knowing that the baby would definitely die, there is an intrinsic value judgment that the best outcome is both survive, followed by one survives, followed by none survive which I would generally agree with. And the way you arrive at that outcome is on the basis of 'facts and evidence'. Now, what if, that woman, had she survived, inadvertently, through no fault of her own, become the carrier of the next avian flu and spread it around the world causing untold devastation and death, would your understanding of 'facts and evidence' still say that the best outcome was for her to survive.

I'm not saying that, that would have been the case or anything like that, but trying to understand your reasoning.

Tough shit for the world, I guess.  Because there is no way that the people treating her could have known that such a thing would happen.

Because sure as shit the god you believe in wouldn't do anything to stop the suffering and death.

Or, so you can understand my reasoning, at the time she was being treated her condition was a known quantity.  That quantity was that she had a treatable medical condition. People she didn't even know decreed that she could not have the necessary treatment to save her life.  They based that decree on stuff they believe is true without any evidence at all. They gave her no choice in the matter. They gave her treating medical practitioners no choice in the matter.

In other words, because they didn't want to offend their version of a god they forced this woman to die for their beliefs.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Stubby, TrueMetis et al.,

You're going about this all wrong. Quit trying to cut off the tentacles of religion and go for the heart. Pro-religion crowd, answer these two questions:

1. Can you provide evidence that religion is not man made? (and if all you've got is your holy book/dogma says god made it, go home).

2. Why should divinity be applied to man made constructs?

 

Indulging peoples' stone age fantasies only hurts humanity. (And if you reply to this part that it's technically iron age fantasies you'll be opening a can of worms that can never be closed).

[Lord Mord]

Stubby,

 

The thing is, rather than demonstrating anything about the logical conclusions of my arguments, you've made a whole bunch of entirely unsubstantiated inferences based on what you feel to be true.  

 

As to your perennial complaint about no real-world examples, I'm not even sure what it is that you think I'm trying to prove.  As for what I am trying to prove, I just don't know what kind of real-world example could be made to demonstrate it, because it's not that kind of argument.

 

Re: the point to which you first took objection, what I took away from it seemed, if not necessarily correct, then at least not decidedly incorrect.  You're taking the opposite position, that it's decidedly incorrect.  My argument has been simply that if you were defining the terms correctly, you would see that your position is, while not not necessarily false, also decidedly not necessarily true.  All I can do to show that, it seems to me, is to remind you what science really means and what its limitations are.

 

What I keep running up against is your steadfast refusal to budge from the connotations you have assigned to to the word science, and your tendency to make conflations generally.  So, in the end, you're probably right to call this one.  Agree to disagree.

[Stubby]

Stubby,

 

The thing is, rather than demonstrating anything about the logical conclusions of my arguments, you've made a whole bunch of entirely unsubstantiated inferences based on what you feel to be true.  

 

As to your perennial complaint about no real-world examples, I'm not even sure what it is that you think I'm trying to prove.  As for what I am trying to prove, I just don't know what kind of real-world example could be made to demonstrate it, because it's not that kind of argument.

 

Re: the point to which you first took objection, what I took away from it seemed, if not necessarily correct, then at least not decidedly incorrect.  You're taking the opposite position, that it's decidedly incorrect.  My argument has been simply that if you were defining the terms correctly, you would see that your position is, while not not necessarily false, also decidedly not necessarily true.  All I can do to show that, it seems to me, is to remind you what science really means and what its limitations are.

 

What I keep running up against is your steadfast refusal to budge from the connotations you have assigned to to the word science, and your tendency to make conflations generally.  So, in the end, you're probably right to call this one.  Agree to disagree. 

I am only replying again because further points were raised.

1. So, just like a religious believer faced with scientific evidence then?

2. I know you don't think so.  Putting the argument into a philosophical framework means you don't have to prove anything scientifically.  Which is further evidence of the existence of many conflicts between science and religion (among other beliefs).

3. Yes I am, because it was decidedly incorrect.  I know you are defining terms to suit your preference for a philosophical position but I don't deal with philosophical angst when the decisions made by religious people - in spite of contrary scientific evidence - have real-world consequences for real-world humans.

4. I am well aware of science's limitations (limitations that science freely admits).  I am also well aware of religion's limitations.  That's why positions adopted by each are in conflict.  Science relies on facts.  Religion does not.

5. What I keep running up against is your steadfast refusal to prove to us how your philosophical position actually works in a real-world sense.  What I mean by that is that it's a nice sounding argument, but in the end it's meaningless if it doesn't have areal-world application or could be used to justify preference of religious belief over scientific facts.  That is why I have been extrapolating your argument into real-world situations.  In the abortion case - science has proven that the woman in questions needed treatment to save her life.  All that the religious "values" - in spite of that scientific fact - was able to provide to the situation was that she should die for someone else's belief.  That is a clear conflict between religion and science and if you cannot (or will not) accept that that is not my problem.

But consider this, please - Maybe, because (as you put it) you "just don't know what kind of real-world example could be made to demonstrate it" means your philosophical position doesn't work in practice?

 

[Altherion]

That's a hell of an assumption.

I'm not sure it's an assumption at all. I merely posited that a hypothetical entity we know practically nothing about (and that is probably beyond our comprehension) can have a certain property. Is there some reason it cannot?

Why would we assume that an all powerful (power obtained and used through mechanisms unknown) being with intelligence (despite lacking a physical brain, which is the only known source of intelligence so far) is more likely to have existed forever or spontaneously come into existence that energy?

Because the universe is really strange. I would completely agree with you if it consisted of randomly distributed energy and nothing else, but it has various kinds of structure across dozens of orders of magnitude in scale. It's true that order can arise from chaos (albeit at the cost of exergy), but IMHO people don't appreciate just how weird that is. It's not something that would be true no matter what (or at least not in the way that we understand it). If you tried to write down the rules for universes similar to ours, most of the time you would not get this structure -- depending on how you deviated from our physics, there might not be galaxies or stars or even atoms.

Of course, this is not really conclusive proof of a creator's existence; you can work around it by introducing an infinite ensemble of universes and then argue that we're in ours because if it was too different from ours, we could not exist. However, arguments of this nature have their own problems and I find them less persuasive than those positing an intelligent being or something else altogether (e.g. a simulated reality).

[Lord Mord]

Stubby,

Where the viewpoint I'm providing would work in real life is like this:

Suppose that instead of Jo, we were talking with a religious legislator, proposing the law which killed this woman.  We object to its being based in religion.  He says that science and religion needn't be opposed and says that his reasoning is entirely valid.

Is he wrong?  All other things equal, we can't know.  For your position to be true and usable, for every instance of a religious argument, you have to find some invalid derivation, and given the infinite number of arguments possible, that is far from certain.  If even one is logically derived from the assumptions, your position falls apart.

My position, by contrast, makes everything simpler.  "Valid?!" we cry.  "Who gives a shit about valid?  Ridiculously low bar to clear.  Your conclusion is immoral on its face, as is at least one of your major assumptions."

We shouldn't care if religion and science are compatible, because science is only an amoral tool.  We should care if religious values are compatible with human rights and dignity, and where they aren't, reject them forcibly.

[Rorshach]

 In the abortion case - science has proven that the woman in questions needed treatment to save her life.  All that the religious "values" - in spite of that scientific fact - was able to provide to the situation was that she should die for someone else's belief.  That is a clear conflict between religion and science and if you cannot (or will not) accept that that is not my problem.

 

I'm probably wasting my time, but I've read a little around to find out what happened in this case. What I've read tells me that it was a terrible case, it was a case showing errors in judgement on a systemic level at the hospital in question. However, it isn't a question of religion vs. science. 

Provoked? Probably, if you care at all about me writing. However, I am going to lay out why I've reached my conclusion.

Science can tell us that there are conditions that may be fatal. In such cases, science will inform us that unless the pregnancy is terminated, the consequence will be the loss of life of the mother. And, as it happens, this was probably known to the medical staff at the hospital. It was at least assumed, in that this is what medicine basically trains people for.

However, science cannot make the decision to take every concievable test, it cannot make people less forgetful, it cannot overcome bad routines. Basically, it cannot overcome the possibility of human or systemic error. 

According to the inquest report (as reported by generally every news outlet I could find), the reason for mrs. Halappanavar's death was "medical misadventure", and from what I can read and understand, there were a number of things gone wrong on the way leading to her demise. These wrongs, however, were not religiously motivated - they were human errors. 

If these errors had not occured, mrs. Halappanavar could - and I believe would - get the termination of her pregnancy. After all, the law in Ireland at the time did allow termination if the mother's life was in jeopardy. That was deemed not to be the case by the hospital - wrongly, as it turns out - but it was still the judgement made, based on the scientific evidence obtained. 

Your argument has been that religion killed mrs. Halappanavar and science would have saved her. However, science in itself wouldn't have saved her, and a scientifically informed worldview couldn't either - because these worldviews are not clashing in this case. Instead, what is clashing is a liberal vs concervative view on abortion. Crucially, however, both would allow abortion in this case had it been known that mrs. Halappanavar's life was threatened. 

What you can argue from this case is that a liberal worldview would save the lives of more women. What you cannot infer is that a scientifically informed worldview would have kept mrs. Halappanavar alive. 

[Seli]

...

If these errors had not occured, mrs. Halappanavar could - and I believe would - get the termination of her pregnancy. After all, the law in Ireland at the time did allow termination if the mother's life was in jeopardy. That was deemed not to be the case by the hospital - wrongly, as it turns out - but it was still the judgement made, based on the scientific evidence obtained. 

...

And now consider why the law demands that the women's life ought to be in danger to that extreme level. And why the hospital staff were so intent to stay on the right side of that law. Remember we are talking about a country that for long had been dominated by a religious institute. 

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

God defines who or what is wicked. Who or what do you think defines "wicked"? You?

Exactly the problem, if morality derives from a supreme being then any behaviour, regardless of how devoid of compassion, goodwill, or human decency can be justified.

And yes, I think I am qualified to define wicked, or as qualified as anyone else.

[Rorshach]

And now consider why the law demands that the women's life ought to be in danger to that extreme level. And why the hospital staff were so intent to stay on the right side of that law. Remember we are talking about a country that for long had been dominated by a religious institute. 

 

That, I believe, has to do with another question that science cannot conclusively answer: what constitutes a life.