(February 9, 2010 at 2:12 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(February 9, 2010 at 11:20 am)theVOID Wrote: You did notice the first line of that sentence right? "The only time progress was ever made in science. That was specifically about conducting scientific examination without the presupposition of God, it was not about the scientific method being the only method for evaluating truth claims.

Apologies and thanks for pointing out the distinction. I did not catch it before and it did not come up in our previous conversations even after I pressed things there. In any event, I understand your position regarding nature and logic.

On what basis do you evaluate other truth claims, e.g., moral or ethical truth claims?

I don't believe there are objective moral truths, I only believe in social morality, a consensus amongst society at a given time that states what is and what is not an acceptable way to behave to keep your place in society and receive the benefits.

But it's tricky, because I also believe in individual morals, what you do to yourself or with others in consensual exchanges in private residence is entirely up to you, whether it be drugs, sex, music, art etc.

So individual laws are for the individual to decide and is shouldn't be up for debate, nobody should have the right to decide what isolated individual behavior someone else should have, but this stops at the point of interaction with the rest of society, where social law comes into play and is decided by consensus.

Was that what you wanted to know?

Quote:

(February 9, 2010 at 11:20 am)theVOID Wrote: I am only interested in the truth, regardless of what it is or where it leads me. If there was a valid logical argument for the existence of God i would be forced to accept it and honestly would have no problem accepting it. I have no vested interest in disbelief.

While I certainly cannot prove that you have a vested interest in disbelief, so as to contradict what you say, I suspect that you do have such a vested interest.

Okay, and why do you believe i have a vested interest and what might it be? I assure you i don't have a vested interest, i would lose nothing financially or socially by leaving that position, but you obviously think differently so i'd like to know why.

Quote: To believe in God is to recognize an authority higher than yourself and recognize that He has authority over your life. I suspect that you have no interest in giving up your own attempt at autonomy from God to willingly subject yourself to God's authority, and thus a possible vested interest in disbelief.
(I know that you do not believe in God so you will argue that that is why my last couple of sentences do not apply. I understand this. My point is only relative to your comment about "vested interest".)

A logical argument for the existence of god would only prove that there was a god, it would take further argument to get from 'a god exists' to 'he is the Christian God', something i have never seen done from the assumption that there is a God, So while your concept of God demands this authority over our lives, other concepts do not, so posing this as a deterrent from belief is to make the rather arrogant assumption that if god exists he would be like the one you envision - I would be interested in hearing your argument that, assuming there is a god, that he is the Christian one.

If i could verify the existence of a god that demanded i do as he say i'm not sure i would be comfortable with accepting what to me is just cosmic bullying, but if it was the case it wouldn't be like i had any choice in the matter if i wanted to avoid eternal suffering simply for having my own views and opinions that may differ from his. This concept of god to me seems like cosmic tyranny, the idea of an intergalactic dictator that brings conscious individuals in to existence and gives them free will only to tell them that if they use their free will in a way he does not like that they are to be punished for it is absurd and i am rather glad that i see no reason to believe it is true, but if it could be demonstrated to be true i would have little choice but to accept it and make sure that i didn't piss him off.

So, basically, if this being was shown to exist and demanded i behave a certain way at penalty of eternal torment, it would be rather idiotic to still reject his existence. I would make sure i didn't meet that criteria, regardless of whether or not i agreed with him, if anything just to avoid eternal suffering.

Quote: I also recognize that you value intelligence and logic and you certainly must see how Christians regularly are accused of lack of intelligence and logic. So maybe this along with the desire not to be in a position to have such accusations thrown at you could also constitute a "vested interest in disbelief". I am not trying to debate the point, just give you something to think about. Only you can evaluate whether what I say really applies to you.

But that's the thing, if there was a logical argument for the existence of God that could not be shown to have any flaws in it's premises or conclusion then nobody would have a good reason not to accept it, the argument would be widely used and everybody interested in it would know about it. The accusations of being illogical would be thrown at those who rejected the logical proof.

Quote:

Quote:An Atheist, by definition, is someone who lacks belief in the existence of God, which i currently do. What i do not do, and this i think is where you are confused, is claim that it is certain that God does not exist. Yes i do live life as if their is no God, because i see no reason to have positions informed by a proposition that i do not believe is valid. If you saw no reason to believe that the world was going to live in 2012 would it be irrational to live as if it was not going to happen? Of course not, and my world view is essentially the same, just replace 2012 with God.

It seems like you have a dilemma in your thinking. You don't want to portray yourself as a strong atheist because you think that position cannot be held logically, so you fall back to an agnostic atheist position as you presented above. But you seem to fall back into the agnostic atheist position for argument sake only and the rest of the time live as a strong atheist.

That makes absolutely no sense, how is there any difference at all between living like an Agonstic Atheist and a strong Atheist? The only difference between the two is the level of certainty which one holds. I hold the position of Agnostic Atheism because i feel it is the only rational and logically consistent position that there is considering there is no logical or empirical evidence to show that no gods exist.

There isn't any evidence showing dragons do not exist either, so i do not disbelieve in Dragons because i can prove they don't exist, i disbelieve because there is no reason to believe they do exist, I don't live my life as if there might be dragons out there.

(February 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: But that's the thing, if there was a logical argument for the existence of God that could not be shown to have any flaws in it's premises or conclusion then nobody would have a good reason not to accept it, the argument would be widely used and everybody interested in it would know about it. The accusations of being illogical would be thrown at those who rejected the logical proof.

And this is the basis for religious belief VOID. How can you think the whole framework of religion could work if you discounted faith? No, the point is that faith is the core idea to religion. If we could verify any of it then religion as we know it would be completely superseded. What you're talking about isn't religion.

There are logical reasons for faith. They by their nature defy conclusion, because like I've said above, that wouldn't be the God of any religion.

(February 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: I don't believe there are objective moral truths, I only believe in social morality, a consensus amongst society at a given time that states what is and what is not an acceptable way to behave to keep your place in society and receive the benefits.

But it's tricky, because I also believe in individual morals, what you do to yourself or with others in consensual exchanges in private residence is entirely up to you, whether it be drugs, sex, music, art etc.

So individual laws are for the individual to decide and is shouldn't be up for debate, nobody should have the right to decide what isolated individual behavior someone else should have, but this stops at the point of interaction with the rest of society, where social law comes into play and is decided by consensus.

Was that what you wanted to know?

Yes, that is the sort of thing I wanted to know.

Based on what you said, does that mean that if a majority group of a society was ok with killing members of a minority group in that same society (consensus reached in the society overall based on the majority group) and made it legal do to so, that you would be ok with such killing?

(February 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: Okay, and why do you believe i have a vested interest and what might it be? I assure you i don't have a vested interest, i would lose nothing financially or socially by leaving that position, but you obviously think differently so i'd like to know why.

I listed my reasons after I made the statement and you addressed them. I have nothing more to offer on this issue.

(February 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: There isn't any evidence showing dragons do not exist either, so i do not disbelieve in Dragons because i can prove they don't exist, i disbelieve because there is no reason to believe they do exist, I don't live my life as if there might be dragons out there.

I see what you are saying. Thanks.

That's nonsense Fr0d0, it would be entirely possible to have conclusive evidence for the existence of God and still be religious by observing the practices and rituals and following the rules of the religion. You would also still be required to have faith in the actions of this God, such as believing that suffering such as natural disasters and poverty are necessary as opposed to him getting off on our suffering as if it's a big cosmic stage show and he's sitting back with popcorn.

Faith is only core to religious belief because they have nothing else, there is no valid logical argument or empirical evidence, but that does not mean by default that there cannot be evidence for God.

Though if you disagree I would like to hear why.

(February 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(February 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: I don't believe there are objective moral truths, I only believe in social morality, a consensus amongst society at a given time that states what is and what is not an acceptable way to behave to keep your place in society and receive the benefits.

But it's tricky, because I also believe in individual morals, what you do to yourself or with others in consensual exchanges in private residence is entirely up to you, whether it be drugs, sex, music, art etc.

So individual laws are for the individual to decide and is shouldn't be up for debate, nobody should have the right to decide what isolated individual behavior someone else should have, but this stops at the point of interaction with the rest of society, where social law comes into play and is decided by consensus.

Was that what you wanted to know?

Yes, that is the sort of thing I wanted to know.

Based on what you said, does that mean that if a majority group of a society was ok with killing members of a minority group in that same society (consensus reached in the society overall based on the majority group) and made it legal do to so, that you would be ok with such killing?

No, that would violate the individual rights of the members of the minority group.

Quote:

(February 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: Okay, and why do you believe i have a vested interest and what might it be? I assure you i don't have a vested interest, i would lose nothing financially or socially by leaving that position, but you obviously think differently so i'd like to know why.

I listed my reasons after I made the statement and you addressed them. I have nothing more to offer on this issue.

(February 9, 2010 at 4:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: There isn't any evidence showing dragons do not exist either, so i do not disbelieve in Dragons because i can prove they don't exist, i disbelieve because there is no reason to believe they do exist, I don't live my life as if there might be dragons out there.

I see what you are saying. Thanks.

Cool, glad that's cleared up

(February 9, 2010 at 5:20 pm)theVOID Wrote: That's nonsense Fr0d0, it would be entirely possible to have conclusive evidence for the existence of God and still be religious by observing the practices and rituals and following the rules of the religion. You would also still be required to have faith in the actions of this God, such as believing that suffering such as natural disasters and poverty are necessary as opposed to him getting off on our suffering as if it's a big cosmic stage show and he's sitting back with popcorn.

Faith is only core to religious belief because they have nothing else, there is no valid logical argument or empirical evidence, but that does not mean by default that there cannot be evidence for God.

Though if you disagree I would like to hear why.

You're talking about a fantasy god that doesn't feature in any religion VOID. That's nice and naive, but this is the rational world where we consider rational notions. Yours is no where near a rational notion.

In the real world, with real understanding, we know that God cannot be verified.

Additionally you propose a god we don't know yet. This isn't anything any theist here is talking about either. Yes there are infinite possibilities of anything yet unknown to us existing. The Christian God isn't one of these.

(February 9, 2010 at 10:54 am)theVOID Wrote:

(February 9, 2010 at 1:17 am)TruthWorthy Wrote:

Void Wrote:I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

So you're really on the fence on this one? I would have thought atheism has some position for the non existence of "God" otherwise you're really being skeptical which isn't proper atheism to me.

To be an Atheist is to be 'without belief in god(s)', literally. I am an Agnostic atheist, i do not believe in any gods not because i think they don't exist, but because there is no evidence either logical or empirical to support the position that they do exist. It is a simple position and is ultimately saying "I do not know", something that i am more than comfortable admitting.

If you want to argue that is is more reasonable to assume there is no god rather than to admit it is not known then i will gladly have that debate with you.

Ok, but don't you think we need more room?

(February 9, 2010 at 5:43 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 9, 2010 at 5:20 pm)theVOID Wrote: That's nonsense Fr0d0, it would be entirely possible to have conclusive evidence for the existence of God and still be religious by observing the practices and rituals and following the rules of the religion. You would also still be required to have faith in the actions of this God, such as believing that suffering such as natural disasters and poverty are necessary as opposed to him getting off on our suffering as if it's a big cosmic stage show and he's sitting back with popcorn.

Faith is only core to religious belief because they have nothing else, there is no valid logical argument or empirical evidence, but that does not mean by default that there cannot be evidence for God.

Though if you disagree I would like to hear why.

You're talking about a fantasy god that doesn't feature in any religion VOID. That's nice and naive, but this is the rational world where we consider rational notions. Yours is no where near a rational notion.

I'm sorry, where in your religious texts does it state that there is and cannot ever be a way to verify the existence of God?

Quote:In the real world, with real understanding, we know that God cannot be verified.

I'm not interested in you asserting that God cannot be verified, i want to know why you hold that position. Where is your reasoning?

Quote:Additionally you propose a god we don't know yet. This isn't anything any theist here is talking about either. Yes there are infinite possibilities of anything yet unknown to us existing. The Christian God isn't one of these.

Assuming there is evidence for the existence of God, do you still not need faith in his actions? Do you not need faith to believe that this Omni-benevolent does not prevent natural disasters because they are a necessary evil? Do you not need faith to believe he has a good reason for giving children cancer so they spend their short lives suffering in and out of hospitals?

---

(February 9, 2010 at 5:46 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote:

(February 9, 2010 at 10:54 am)theVOID Wrote:

(February 9, 2010 at 1:17 am)TruthWorthy Wrote:

Void Wrote:I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

So you're really on the fence on this one? I would have thought atheism has some position for the non existence of "God" otherwise you're really being skeptical which isn't proper atheism to me.

To be an Atheist is to be 'without belief in god(s)', literally. I am an Agnostic atheist, i do not believe in any gods not because i think they don't exist, but because there is no evidence either logical or empirical to support the position that they do exist. It is a simple position and is ultimately saying "I do not know", something that i am more than comfortable admitting.

If you want to argue that is is more reasonable to assume there is no god rather than to admit it is not known then i will gladly have that debate with you.

Ok, but don't you think we need more room?

More room for?

(February 9, 2010 at 10:54 am)theVOID Wrote: If you want to argue that is is more reasonable to assume there is no god rather than to admit it is not known then i will gladly have that debate with you.

Truth Wrote:Ok, but don't you think we need more room?

Void Wrote:More room for?

That debate.

(February 9, 2010 at 6:18 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote:

(February 9, 2010 at 10:54 am)theVOID Wrote: If you want to argue that is is more reasonable to assume there is no god rather than to admit it is not known then i will gladly have that debate with you.

Truth Wrote:Ok, but don't you think we need more room?

Void Wrote:More room for?

That debate.

Be sure to fit it onto my screen please.

I personally find agnosticism a hypocritical position since in my view to be agnostic you have to assume that the concept of god was not a creation of man but that somehow he/it revealed himself to mankind one way or another. And at the same time you assume he doesn't exist unless you have proof that he does. If that is not hypocritical then I don't know what is.

My position is simple, based on the evidence of history itself, this includes the history of world lores and myths; that god is a concept of man, in other words we created gods in our own image.