(December 22, 2009 at 7:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Sorry Rabbit I've grown more than tired of you. Your ignorance is overwhelming and transparently pointless. You make me feel so apathetic. Forgive me for ignoring you.

No problem. You never really answered anything anyway. Of course all metaphorically speaking that is.

Here are some things which come to mind for me.

Mythos. God necessatated explaining, creating mythos/ religion. That necessated a higher level of morality, defining moral terpitude. I can see that leading us further away from naturalistic communal morals towards idealistic morals.

The first and second great awakening. Leading to much better communication between communities and the need for roads. The temperance movement. Reformation.

Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, Thomas Gallaudet, many religions have opened up lots of school, increasing the opportunity for higher education.

Abolition of Slavery. Assisting in women's rights.

I don't have any more off the top of my head I'm not much of a historian but I'll come up with more if needed.

(December 23, 2009 at 3:26 am)tackattack Wrote: Here are some things which come to mind for me.

Mythos. God necessatated explaining

Why not simply the other way 'round: the need for explanation necessitated god(s)?

tackattack Wrote:That necessated a higher level of morality, defining moral terpitude.

So did we start without any morality? And what exactly would that mean?

tackattack Wrote:I can see that leading us further away from naturalistic communal morals towards idealistic morals.

Is 'culture' somewhere in your list of possible moral shaping candidates?

tackattack Wrote:Abolition of Slavery. Assisting in women's rights.

Though it is fair to say that christianity had some role in abolition, it is also fair to say that it had some role in establishing and maintaining slavery. The bible has some uglly slavery condoning paragraphs in it. If you're sure they are all just metaphorical sidesteps to enhance its legibility, I'll rip 'm out right away so we cannot be confused any longer, and I suggest you do the same.

Some parts of christianity has partly followed growing consensus on women's rights, but it is gross revisionistic crap to suggest that christianity has been on the forefront of that.

(December 23, 2009 at 3:58 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 23, 2009 at 3:26 am)tackattack Wrote: Here are some things which come to mind for me.

Mythos. God necessatated explaining

Why not simply the other way 'round: the need for explanation necessitated god(s)?

I won't participate in your circular stolen concept logic. In our universe cause preempts effect. I have stated elswhere that God is the cause therefore the explaination is the effect. How could you even use the "God of the Gaps" fallacy without God first having a definition.

(December 23, 2009 at 3:58 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

tackattack Wrote:That necessated a higher level of morality, defining moral terpitude.

So did we start without any morality? And what exactly would that mean?

Yes. Evolution.

(December 23, 2009 at 3:58 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

tackattack Wrote:I can see that leading us further away from naturalistic communal morals towards idealistic morals.

Is 'culture' somewhere in your list of possible moral shaping candidates?

If culture is human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought, then yes.

(December 23, 2009 at 3:58 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

tackattack Wrote:Abolition of Slavery. Assisting in women's rights.

Though it is fair to say that christianity had some role in abolition, it is also fair to say that it had some role in establishing and maintaining slavery. The bible has some uglly slavery condoning paragraphs in it. If you're sure they are all just metaphorical sidesteps to enhance its legibility, I'll rip 'm out right away so we cannot be confused any longer, and I suggest you do the same.

I try to stip out as much humanity from the divine as possible. However for reference (since the bibele is used against me a lot) I'll keep those pages in there.

(December 23, 2009 at 3:58 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Some parts of christianity has partly followed growing consensus on women's rights, but it is gross revisionistic crap to suggest that christianity has been on the forefront of that.

I wasn't aware we were limiting the conversation to Christianity. I thought the question was contributions of religion. For lack of clarity I'll omit that from the list and replace with ... long standing, strong, self-sustaining communities and site mormonism.

(December 23, 2009 at 4:21 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 23, 2009 at 3:58 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 23, 2009 at 3:26 am)tackattack Wrote: Here are some things which come to mind for me.

Mythos. God necessatated explaining

Why not simply the other way 'round: the need for explanation necessitated god(s)?

I won't participate in your circular stolen concept logic.

If you don't want to debate, then don't come here to debate. Which concept logic do you mean? I have no clue what you're talking about. Am I asking too much of you if I ask you to consider the possibility that explanation necessitates god(s)?

tackattack Wrote:In our universe cause preempts effect. I have stated elswhere that God is the cause therefore the explaination is the effect.

This is pure contradiction. If in our universe cause preempts effects (which remains to be seen since uncaused effects like virtual particle creation have been shown to exist) and god is the cause than god has to be part of the universe he preempts. This clearly is circular reasoning which you have shown to clearly and utterly abhor. But luckily for you your "stating elsewhere" does not make things true. So you always have the possibility to rephrase your claim.

tackattack Wrote:How could you even use the "God of the Gaps" fallacy without God first having a definition.

I'm not defining any god, just trying to understand what the hack you mean by it. Shall we abolish use of the words god, divine and the like?

tackattack Wrote:

(December 23, 2009 at 3:58 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

tackattack Wrote:That necessated a higher level of morality, defining moral terpitude.

So did we start without any morality? And what exactly would that mean?

Yes. Evolution.

So we started without morality and without morality means evolution? Makes no sense to me. Does evolution prohibit the development of morality in any way? So evolution has stopped now?

tackattack Wrote:I try to stip out as much humanity from the divine as possible. However for reference (since the bibele is used against me a lot) I'll keep those pages in there.

I'm wondering what other shit you keep for reference.

tackattack Wrote:

(December 23, 2009 at 3:58 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Some parts of christianity has partly followed growing consensus on women's rights, but it is gross revisionistic crap to suggest that christianity has been on the forefront of that.

I wasn't aware we were limiting the conversation to Christianity. I thought the question was contributions of religion. For lack of clarity I'll omit that from the list and replace with ... long standing, strong, self-sustaining communities and site mormonism.

Are you implying that mormonism is on the forefront of women rights? Are Latter Day Saints emancipated? The world must be coming to an end real soon.

---

(December 23, 2009 at 4:21 am)tackattack Wrote: How could you even use the "God of the Gaps" fallacy without God first having a definition.

I would call it a god of the gaps syndrome. Usually the definition of god is adapted to fit the gaps, not the other way around. If we had an accurate definition first it might be testable to the gaps. A clear case of redefinition by christians of the definition is the following:

First according to christians in the middle ages, the bible is the literal word of god, so in a sense part of the definition of god. In centuries before that time the highest clerical authorities had deduced that this could only mean that the earth was at the center of the universe, but later they had to revamp the definition of god to be able to abandon this and fit god in the gap that was left.

1. I'm fairly certain I stated I wasn't good at debate and I didn't come here to argue. Merely to learn and debate, (however poor ill equiped I am) seems a method to understanding atheism and agnosticism (not that they're directly related).

2. I try to accept a plethera of possibilities. Illiteration aside, in science isn't a theory postulated based on observation. tested, observed, and qualified?What do you base theory off of if not observation? Before you say imagination (which is an observation of subconscious imagery) I'm seriously just asking the question to understand the process.

3. I'd like to read up on any uncaused effects you know of. please point me to the books.

4. It would only be circular logic that "In our universe cause preempts effect. I have stated elswhere that God is the cause therefore the explaination is the effect." If you're under the assumption that God exists only in our universe which I didn't state. My best assumptions on God would be that he exists outside the ruleset existing within our known universe. I agree though, we should stick to religion and keep God and the divine out of it

5.

Quote:Purple Rabbit Wrote:
So we started without morality and without morality means evolution? Makes no sense to me. Does evolution prohibit the development of morality in any way? So evolution has stopped now?

No you misunderstood. What I know of evolution was that we developed from primates, started walking upright and formed communities. Logically due to our upright nature and less defensive capabilities developed strong communities ties leading to communal morality and ethics. I'm agreeing that evolution contributed to communal morality.

6. See 4 about my references for God.

7. I am not implying "mormonism is on the forefront of women rights". I was substituting a different point to replace women's rights. Since forefront is subjective, and our levels of justification differ, I was eliminating it from the list.

8.The comment on Christianity was more of a needle to your apparent psychological aversion to Christianity and keep the religion discussion on a broader basis than one religion.

(December 23, 2009 at 8:53 am)tackattack Wrote: 1. I'm fairly certain I stated I wasn't good at debate and I didn't come here to argue. Merely to learn and debate, (however poor ill equiped I am) seems a method to understanding atheism and agnosticism (not that they're directly related).

I'm experiencing considerable problems in decrypting your sentences, so you will have to excuse me that my interpretation not always aligns with your intended meaning. Are you using automatic online translation?
Also debate is use of arguments so we argue in that sense.

tackattack Wrote:2. I try to accept a plethera of possibilities. Illiteration aside, in science isn't a theory postulated based on observation. tested, observed, and qualified?What do you base theory off of if not observation? Before you say imagination (which is an observation of subconscious imagery) I'm seriously just asking the question to understand the process.

In science (except for mathematics) it is indeed based on observation. What makes you think it isn't.

tackattack Wrote:3. I'd like to read up on any uncaused effects you know of. please point me to the books.

That would be books on quantum physics (QM) and nuclear physics (NP). I can point you to some internet sources though. Be aware however that causation in philosophy has multiple definitions. Uncaused in the sense I use here is that there is no particular identifiable event triggering the effect. The most notable uncaused phenomena are virtual particle pair creation (QM), verified through the Casimir-effect and nuclear decay (NP).

tackattack Wrote:4. It would only be circular logic that "In our universe cause preempts effect. I have stated elswhere that God is the cause therefore the explaination is the effect." If you're under the assumption that God exists only in our universe which I didn't state.

Yes, you implicitly did by stating "In our universe cause preempts effect." (underling by me). And rephrasing your statement to "In and outside our universe cause preempts effect." makes it nonsensical, since it is not clear what outside the universe means and if your cauation rule applies on the treshold between inside and outside.

tackattack Wrote:My best assumptions on God would be that he exists outside the ruleset existing within our known universe. I agree though, we should stick to religion and keep God and the divine out of it

There you go. If god is outside the ruleset, than you cannot apply the ruleset to god and your claim about causation does not apply.

tackattack Wrote:No you misunderstood. What I know of evolution was that we developed from primates, started walking upright and formed communities. Logically due to our upright nature and less defensive capabilities developed strong communities ties leading to communal morality and ethics. I'm agreeing that evolution contributed to communal morality.

OK

tackattack Wrote:6. See 4 about my references for God.

What are you referring to?

tackattack Wrote:7. I am not implying "mormonism is on the forefront of women rights". I was substituting a different point to replace women's rights. Since forefront is subjective, and our levels of justification differ, I was eliminating it from the list.

Mormonism is out the window, right after the indoor plumbing stuff. What religious movement(s) were early adopters of women's rights?

tackattack Wrote:8.The comment on Christianity was more of a needle to your apparent psychological aversion to Christianity and keep the religion discussion on a broader basis than one religion.

What is a psychological aversion?

(December 23, 2009 at 10:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: What is a psychological aversion?

Perhaps it is like a physiological aversion (such as nausea?) only more "mental"?

EvF

getting back to point I believe the original question was religions contributions to society.

Mythos. God necessatated explaining, creating mythos/ religion. That necessated a higher level of morality, defining moral terpitude. I can see that leading us further away from naturalistic communal morals towards idealistic morals.

The first and second great awakening. Leading to much better communication between communities and the need for roads. The temperance movement. Reformation.

Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe, Thomas Gallaudet, many religions have opened up lots of school, increasing the opportunity for higher education.

Abolition of Slavery. Assisting in women's rights.

Here is a small reference for gender equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_of_Norwich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Egalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism


While I don't assert that religion has done a lot of harm to society, I'm sure a predominant amount of atheists on here can list the negative impacts. I was just atempting to round out the list from a more well rounded perspective.

(December 23, 2009 at 10:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: In science (except for mathematics) it is indeed based on observation. What makes you think it isn't.

I'm glad we agree. That was in reference to the cause and effect of God.

(December 23, 2009 at 10:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: That would be books on quantum physics (QM) and nuclear physics (NP). I can point you to some internet sources though. Be aware however that causation in philosophy has multiple definitions. Uncaused in the sense I use here is that there is no particular identifiable event triggering the effect. The most notable uncaused phenomena are virtual particle pair creation (QM), verified through the Casimir-effect and nuclear decay (NP).

Thank you I will read it over the holiday

(December 23, 2009 at 10:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Yes, you implicitly did by stating "In our universe cause preempts effect." (underling by me). And rephrasing your statement to "In and outside our universe cause preempts effect." makes it nonsensical, since it is not clear what outside the universe means and if your cauation rule applies on the treshold between inside and outside.There you go. If god is outside the ruleset, than you cannot apply the ruleset to god and your claim about causation does not apply.

I am unfarmiliar withe the definitions and application of all of the logical fallacies used in debate, so let me restate. In our know universe it is widely accepted that cause preempts effect (with a few acceptions). I define our known universe as the things we have discovered in our universe. If something outside of our known universe it has the potential to be explained by the rules science, reason and logic can measure. If it is outside of our universe, even the rules we haven't come up with yet would not be forced to apply. If (from a perspective within our known universe) God created our universe, the first action of our known universe yould be an effect of God's cause. Is that any clearer?

(December 23, 2009 at 10:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

tackattack Wrote:No you misunderstood. What I know of evolution was that we developed from primates, started walking upright and formed communities. Logically due to our upright nature and less defensive capabilities developed strong communities ties leading to communal morality and ethics. I'm agreeing that evolution contributed to communal morality.

OK

at ;east we are in agreeance on some things.

(December 23, 2009 at 10:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: What are you referring to?

per your request I was suggesting we leave God and divinity out of the conversation as well as my lack of debating skills. Let's just stick to religions.

(December 23, 2009 at 10:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Mormonism is out the window, right after the indoor plumbing stuff. What religious movement(s) were early adopters of women's rights?

So a strong independant community is not a benefit to society, or you're not willing to discuss it? See above for the latter half.

(December 23, 2009 at 10:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: What is a psychological aversion?

(December 23, 2009 at 10:21 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(December 23, 2009 at 10:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: What is a psychological aversion?

Perhaps it is like a physiological aversion (such as nausea?) only more "mental"?

EvF

That would otherwise noted as a chip on the shoulder, an axe to grind, a pessimistic penchant for pietism, etc.

(December 23, 2009 at 12:46 pm)tackattack Wrote: That would otherwise noted as a chip on the shoulder, an axe to grind, a pessimistic penchant for pietism, etc.

A bee in one's bonnet?

EvF