God is not (so bad after all)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I'd also agree it's not reasonable to call anyone a moron solely because of their beliefs, as I've meant plenty of morons with every belief system under the sun, but at what point in a debate is it reasonable to do so after it becomes clear that a person is clinging to their beliefs and ignoring all facts and reason to the contrary?

---

I tend to think the assertion that atheists call religious people morons is more fantasy than reality. Have you seen examples of people being called morons solely for their religious belief?

I'm happy to call IDiots morons, but intelligent design isn't a religion; it's a denial of established scientific fact.

Even in this thread, the only abuse has been directed at atheists, rather than by atheists.

I do, however, find it highly amusing that atheists are the subject of so many fallacies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I tend to think the assertion that atheists call religious people morons is more fantasy than reality. Have you seen examples of people being called morons solely for their religious belief?

I'm happy to call IDiots morons, but intelligent design isn't a religion; it's a denial of established scientific fact.

Even in this thread, the only abuse has been directed at atheists, rather than by atheists.

I do, however, find it highly amusing that atheists are the subject of so many fallacies.

---

From an earlier post in this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Only a moron would examine The Little Mermaid for evidence on mermaids, and likewise only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus.

---

On a more positive note, I admire the Atheist's ability to find humor everywhere he looks. He's always finding someone's posts "hilarious" or "highly amusing". Perhaps I should ask him to read my attempts at writing humor. If only they could meet with such enthusiasm! Also, I'm glad that calling IDiots "morons" makes the Atheist "happy". Let PEACE and JOY reign throughout the world!

Still completely dishonest - how surprising.

This:

Only a moron would examine The Little Mermaid for evidence on mermaids, and likewise only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus.

... in no way corresponds to this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Have you seen examples of people being called morons solely for their religious belief?

---

I've bolded and underlined the relevant piece to assist with your demonstrated lack of comprehension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Perhaps I should ask him to read my attempts at writing humor.

---

I already am - you're extremely good!

Logic lesson:

P1: One standard Christian religious belief is that accounts in the bible provide historical "evidence".
P2: The Bible is a religious text that offers accounts of an Israeli exodus.
P3: "Only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus."

What, junior logicians, can we conclude from this evidence about the correspondence, in The Atheists opinion, of religious beliefs and being a "moron"? Also why does The Atheist call me "dishonest" for merely quoting his posts, without commentary?

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s...eist/funny.gif

Gosh, I really cannot wait until you post some deliberate comedy, because this stuff is pure gold, and you aren't even trying!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Logic lesson:

P1: One standard Christian religious belief is that accounts in the bible provide historical "evidence".

---

Wrong, on two counts. The discussion is about belief in god/s, of which a majority of believers do not even use the bible. I'm guessing you don't realise that the OT is actually Jewish and has been co-opted by christianity? Not to mention that many major sects see the OT as metaphorical rather than literal. In fact, biblical literalists are few & far between, but don't let facts get in the way of another very funny joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

P2: The Bible is a religious text that offers accounts of an Israeli exodus.
P3: "Only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus."

What, junior logicians, can we conclude from this evidence...

---

That your logic is well attuned to your honesty.

Based upon your logic, we should be looking for evidence of Noah's Ark, the garden of Eden, unicorns, people who have survived three days inside a great fish and men who lived to 900 years old.

Also, note that "an account" is not "evidence". I recommend you try Dictionary.com or other site to help you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Also why does The Atheist call me "dishonest" for merely quoting his posts, without commentary?

---

Because it was self-explanatory. There is an obvious miss as well: if you weren't making a commentary by default, why are you now trying - and failing - to defend it? You're making no sense whatsoever. If you still don't get it, I'm happy to use words of one syllable to help you out of the hole you're digging yourself.

My guess is that you prefer digging....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

From an earlier post in this thread:

---

I'm with The Atheist here: I think you misunderstood that comment and, even as stated, I don't think it falls under the category of calling all religious people morons because of a belief. Perhaps it was somewhat tactlessly stated, but try the same statement with a different inflection: "Only a moron would point to a text to prove its veracity when it's the veracity of the text that is in question." IE, if X text says Y, and Skeptic questions the veracity of Y, Believer can't just say "but X says so," since Skeptic is obviously questioning the veracity of X as well. Now, I did question The Atheist's reasoning for this (that The Bible is wholly fictional VS The bible is part fiction/part history), but I think the point stands. If a skeptic is questioning the veracity of a Biblical claim, then believers have to point to something outside The Bible to corroborate its claims, and I would say it takes a certain level of mental deficiency to not get that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I'm glad that calling IDiots "morons" makes the Atheist "happy".

---

I've got to agree with him there. It's a good illustration of the point: when science is so overwhelmingly against ID, and when the ID arguments have been so thoroughly demolished and evolution been so thoroughly established, when the dishonesty and outright lies of ID's biggest supporters (Discovery Institute) have been exposed; at what point IS it OK to actually claim that ID's advocates are, indeed, morons who are willfully ignoring all science, fact, reason, etc.? It's not about the believe itself, it's about the fact that its believers have held on to the belief in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, and if that's not "moronic," by any basic definition of the word, I don't know what is.

i came across this whilst reading about Philo of Alexandria.
''he believed that literal interpretations of the Hebrew Bible would stifle mankind's view and perception of a God too complex and marvellous to be understood in literal human terms''

could this mean that our knowledge of god is restricted and that everything we talk about is pure specualtions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You forgot Stalin & Mao.

I find it amusing when people have to resort to that kind of dribble to attack atheism. The killings of Pol Pot, Stalin et al were not done in the name of atheism, but nice of you to try the oldest chestnut in the book.

---

I didn't forget Mao or Stalin. I'm sure there are many other examples. The Khmer Rouge is a clear-cut case of atheistic self-righteousness leading to what some might call genocide. Your excuse isn't any better than a religious person claiming that witch hunts weren't done by truly religious people and so don't count against their religion.

Based on body count, Hitchens should have been begging the world's forgiveness for atheism rather than ranting against religion.

Self-righteousness generates three groups of people, not two as is often assumed.

The first group contains people who get their hearts pumping with self-righteous, me-good-you-bad inanity. They can now stop thinking and start hating gays, communists, capitalists, blacks, Chinese, Jews, or religious people. It doesn't matter who this targeted group is as long as hatred can be generated against them through defamation.

The second group, of course, contains those targeted, but the most important group is the third.

This third group holds those who listen to the brain-dead, self-righteous, me-good-you-bad rhetoric and get disgusted with it. They become self-righteous in response. These are not necessarily members of the targeted group, but they are the principal opposition that people like Hitchens forget they are creating.

For example, I don't like homophobic rhetoric, but I am not gay. So I become anti-homophobic. I don't like antisemitic rhetoric, but I am not Jewish. So I become anti-antisemitic. I don't like racist rhetoric, but I am not black. So I become anti-racist.

Similarly, I don't like atheistic, self-righteousness, pseudo-scientific BS, especially the Hitchens and Dawkins variety. That doesn't mean I'm a theist, although I like to think I am. It primarily means that I am now, thanks to this rhetoric, anti-atheistic. I'm at a point where I'll pick any God, even the tooth fairy, just to piss off these atheists.

It's this third group that atheists need to be careful about especially when they try to excuse their own acts of violence while defaming others. The injustice of that is a major source of self-righteousness against them coming from this third group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Your excuse isn't any better than a religious person claiming that witch hunts weren't done by truly religious people and so don't count against their religion.

---

When Christians claim such a thing, they're committing a No True Scotsman fallacy; Atheists, however, are pointing to facts that the reasons for those atrocities had nothing to do with those figures' lack of beliefs in God, it was all politically motivated. In that sense, certain political ideologies are just as damaging as certain religious ideologies. Atheism, not having any ideologies, can't be used as a means to justify such actions. Christians can actually point to Biblical passages to condone the killing of witches. So I wouldn't say that, eg, Pol Pot, Stalin, et al. weren't "real atheists," since anyone who disbelieves in God is a "real atheist," but what I would say is that disbelieving in God is not justification for anything else a person does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I don't like atheistic, self-righteousness, pseudo-scientific BS, especially the Hitchens and Dawkins variety.

---

Please point to me what is either self-righteous or pseudo-scientific about anything in Dawkins. Dawkins actually IS a scientist, and one whom is tremendously respected in his field. Hitchens isn't a scientist and I don't know of any scientific or pseudo-scientific things he's ever written. But to call Dawkins pseudo-scientific is tripping quite closely to moron level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

It's this third group that atheists need to be careful about especially when they try to excuse their own acts of violence while defaming others.

---

I want to make sure to make this as clear as possible: When Christians do unspeakably evil things, they can actually point to the book on which their creed is based to defend their actions, because, much of the time, the book is portraying and condoning not just those evil things, but things much more vile. Perhaps the leading theologian today, William Lane Craig, is actually on record for DEFENDING the genocides portrayed in The Bible. Atheism HAS NO HOLY BOOK ON WHICH THEIR LACK OF BELIEF IS BASED. Not having a Holy Book on which they base their disbelief, atheists really can't do anything IN the name of atheism. They can't point to an Atheist Bible and say "well, I killed this person because this passage in this book on which my Atheism is based told me to." The Religious, however, have always done this. You say you dislike homophobic rhetoric, but you do realize that most of that rhetoric is Biblically based, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

]


That your logic is well attuned to your honesty.

Based upon your logic, we should be looking for evidence of Noah's Ark, the garden of Eden, unicorns, people who have survived three days inside a great fish and men who lived to 900 years old.



....

---

As usual, Atheist, your logic is nonsensical. Anyone with the slightest notion of logical inference would know that we can conclude from my argument only that we should not call everyone who looks for evidence of Noah's ark, the garden of Eden, etc. "a moron". Some kindly people might suggest that we shouldn't call anyone a moron, or, at least, shouldn't call entire groups of people "morons" when some of them, misguided though they might be, are clearly not morons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I'm with The Atheist here: I think you misunderstood that comment and, even as stated, I don't think it falls under the category of calling all religious people morons because of a belief. Perhaps it was somewhat tactlessly stated, but try the same statement with a different inflection: "Only a moron would point to a text to prove its veracity when it's the veracity of the text that is in question." IE, if X text says Y, and Skeptic questions the veracity of Y, Believer can't just say "but X says so," since Skeptic is obviously questioning the veracity of X as well. Now, I did question The Atheist's reasoning for this (that The Bible is wholly fictional VS The bible is part fiction/part history), but I think the point stands. If a skeptic is questioning the veracity of a Biblical claim, then believers have to point to something outside The Bible to corroborate its claims, and I would say it takes a certain level of mental deficiency to not get that.

.

---

There are two issues: one is the veracity of the text, in which case you are clearly correct that the text itself doesn't serve to verify the text (arguing that it does would be circular). The other is the veracity of the exodus, in which case it is arguable whether the text provides evidence for the event (I'd say it does, albeit weak evidence).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

There are two issues: one is the veracity of the text, in which case you are clearly correct that the text itself doesn't serve to verify the text (arging that it does would be circular). The other is the veracity of the exodus, in which case it is arguable whether the text provides evidence for the event (I'd say it does, albeit weak evidence).

---

I took Atheist's comment to be more to the former, that he was arguing against the very common believer statement of "it's true because it's in The Bible" even though it's The Bible being true that people are questioning. I think, as you said, it's some kind of evidence for an exodus, but certainly not anything approaching proof, and there is definite need for something external.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I got it from Dawkins. The "selfish gene" is a gene with purpose, because it is selfish. Of course, this selfishness is a metaphor, but for Dawkins to resort to metaphor is a sign his ideas aren't clear and implies that a materialism that claims to be able to reduce everything to chance and physics-chemistry is not true.

---

Of course it is a metaphor; are you actually suggesting that Dawkins means the gene is selfish in the way, say, someone who plots and schemes to hog all the ice cream for dessert is selfish?

Quote:

---

The idea that Ecurb expressed, and I agree with, is also summarized in Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion, p. 164:

What Dawkins does is to project on to the DNA molecules the purposive vital factors of vitalism, trying to squeeze the soul into chemical genes, which are thereby endowed with instructions, plans, purposes and intentions they cannot possibly have. He admits that these are metaphors, adding, 'Incidentally, there is of course no "architect".' But despite occasional disclaimers, the entire force of his argument depends on anthropocentric metaphors and molecules that have come to life. He is a vitalist in molecular clothing.

Sheldrake prefers a model of "morphic resonance".

---

Sheldrake's analysis is total nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The Copenhagen interpretation is the standard interpretation.

---

Wrong. It is the instrumentalist interpretation; the one that is used to illustrate the science of Qm without bothering asking questions about the philosophy of Qm or what Qm implies for ontology. As Max Tegmark pointed out years ago, a majority of scientists who work with QM physics subscribe to the many worlds.

Quote:

---

It is also a positivist interpretation, or one that tries to offer minimal metaphysics.

---

Nope, that's dead wrong. Copenhagen is a wave-function collapse metaphysics. Nothing in the Schroedinger wave equation produces a wave function collapse. It's just made up. It's completely added on without any explanation. Take away the wave function collapse and you get many worlds, in perfect harmonious accord with the wave equation.

Quote:

---

If it gets nonlocality and uncertainty, it faces the facts. It doesn't rush to save its metaphysics from those facts.

---

As has been explained to you, oh, a million times, nonlocality and indeterminism are artifacts of presupposing wave function collapse. Take away the collapse, you take away the nonlocality and indeterminism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The reason for the lifelessness of a deterministic universe can be derived from the combinatorial explosion of possibilities that chance would have to have available for life to exist. Since life exists, that would be another argument, beside the uncertainty of quantum physics, that the universe is not deterministic.

---

Incorrect. First, as repeatedly explained to you, QM is nondeterministic on a wave-fucntion collapse postulate that arbitrarily divides the world into quantum and classical realms. MW simply says the world is wholly quantum, with no classical realm. Such a world is deterministic.

You've done nothing but assert that a deterministic universe would be lifeless. In fact I don't believe I've ever even come across such a claim.

Finally, the universe is probably spatially infinite. Assume life is incredibly unlikely, such that it will arise only once in a trillion tries. In a spatially infinite universe, that means there will be an infinite number of inhabited worlds, by pure chance alone.

You are also wrong about the many worlds violating Occham's Razor. The razor does not apply to worlds; it applies to explanatory hypothoses that themselves then cry out for further explanation. MW clearly is preferred by the razor over Copenhagen, since the latter supplies a wave function collapse that is wholly unexplained and nowhere in the maths.