The argument from morality is scary.

[Mark 13:13]

The scientific method doesnt account for itself.

Why do we even do science? Why does it matter how old the universe is or whether its finely-tuned? Why does the origin/existence of life matter? What do our observations mean to us as sentient beings?

Science is meaningless without a corresponding philosophy of science.

NOMA? Wot a joke. A microscope isnt ''magisterial''

The crazy thing is that being religious we actually believe in the value of science as it is the first job given to Adam in the Eden creation account to take care of the Garden and then God helps him in the first steps of Biology, cataloging the animals.

[Justtristo]

I suspect the people who argue this if they were atheists, they would feel that can do anything they want, so long as they don't get caught.

This is an attitude which I have as long as I can remember (and still have), which I can attribute to not having as much empathy as a lot of other people. I would hypothesis that these people have as much empathy as myself, which should be scary.

[Mark 13:13]

I suspect the people who argue this if they were atheists, they would feel that can do anything they want, so long as they don't get caught.

This is an attitude which I have as long as I can remember (and still have), which I can attribute to not having as much empathy as a lot of other people. I would hypothesis that these people have as much empathy as myself, which should be scary.

Why do you believe you are lacking in empathy ? not that i'm disagreeing its just I've never had anyone ever come out right and say something like that.

[Justtristo]

I suspect the people who argue this if they were atheists, they would feel that can do anything they want, so long as they don't get caught.

This is an attitude which I have as long as I can remember (and still have), which I can attribute to not having as much empathy as a lot of other people. I would hypothesis that these people have as much empathy as myself, which should be scary.

Why do you believe you are lacking in empathy ? not that i'm disagreeing its just I've never had anyone ever come out right and say something like that.

People have observed that I am not particularly empathetic. Also in past among other things, I have used other people emotionally to satisfy my own desires. Never the thought came to me this was particularly wrong. Because I lack an ability to empathizing with the other person than a lot of other people have.

[Lion IRC]

And let me take a wild guess, your version of what you think is science somehow matches up with your invisible sky daddy?

Visibility depends on the tool you are using. That which is invisible to the magifying glass can be seen quite clearly by a microscope. You cant see multiverses in a pair of binoculars. Dark matter is all around us but I cant see it. :-(
If you used a fishing nett that only ever caught sharks you would conclude that there is no evidence for minnows or plankton. But invisible is NOT the same as non-existent.

How convenient.

Yep. Very elegant and convenient. Think Occam. The God Conclusion has great explanatory power.
Of course you might be happy to remain ignorant of why questions but the vast majority of humans who want answers from science are searching for both the What and the Why of reality.

Science is universal. Religion is a mental crutch.

You just made two truth claims using words that science cant empirically define. Science cant answer what religion is. Science cant assert its own universality.
Science arises from the minds of humans - since when are human primates universal/eternal/transcendent?

You reject all other gods besides the one you believe in and rightfully know that the ones you reject are their wishful thinking....

Nope. Thats not true. I do not reject all other theism.

[naimless]

Theists seem to think that the argument from morality (because morality exists, god must exist) is one of the stronger arguments that they have. I hear it over and over again in debates. To me it is both scary and insulting.

The insulting part is that it implies that Atheists are bad people. Because we don't believe in god we somehow are likely to rape and murder and molest children. This is despite all evidence to the contrary, that Atheists commit less crime and that being religious actually makes you more likely to molest children, maybe due to sexual repression. Although I don't think, perhaps for political reasons, the subject has not been adequately studied.

The scary part is that behind that suggestion, is that anybody making the argument has the desire to go out and rape and kill. The only thing keeping them back is whatever holy book they subscribe too. I worry about these people. Is this argument basically a confession by whatever person who is making it that they have an inborn desire to do terrible things? Is it really a belief in god that is constraining them?

It's a fair argument. Once I realised the universe had no inherent morality to it, or I had an insignificant effect to its 13.7 billion years, it did and still does make me question if "good" or "bad" actually exists.

A classic case is a parent thinking they are doing a good action by providing everything for their kids. It doesn't really work like that though, it could also effect their lives negatively.

I'm not saying if I rape or kill someone it will be good, but I don't know if it will be bad either.

[pocaracas]

The scientific method doesnt account for itself.

Why do we even do science? Why does it matter how old the universe is? Why does the origin/existence of life matter? What do our observations mean to us as sentient beings?

Science is meaningless without a corresponding philosophy of science.

Holly shit how do you tie your own shoes?

Maybe the wrong way... like lots of us....

[Tobie]

Yep. Very elegant and convenient. Think Occam. The God Conclusion has great explanatory power.
Of course you might be happy to remain ignorant of why questions but the vast majority of humans who want answers from science are searching for both the What and the Why of reality.

Except there is no god conclusion. It's a starting point, it always has been. There has been no accepted line of thought that has started with axioms of maths or a scientific model that concludes with god - all theories that apparently prove the existence of god presuppose one exists, which is logically invalid. It's like assuming 1+1=8 and concluding the same.

[Mark 13:13]

Why do you believe you are lacking in empathy ? not that i'm disagreeing its just I've never had anyone ever come out right and say something like that.

People have observed that I am not particularly empathetic. Also in past among other things, I have used other people emotionally to satisfy my own desires. Never the thought came to me this was particularly wrong. Because I lack an ability to empathizing with the other person than a lot of other people have.

Interesting.. 3 thoughts come to my mind 1) is empathy a trait that can be developed from base level with practice which could only happen if there is at least a small amount of empathy. and 2)does it matter if someone can live their life in a good and moral way using only logic and without empathy (to me I could have more respect for them not less) 3) does the individual without empathy develop their ideas of right or wrong from the society around them starting with their family and moving out so are they a true barometer on the state of society...just thoughts not opinions or even conclusions.

---

Holly shit how do you tie your own shoes?

Maybe the wrong way... like lots of us....

love the video.

---

Yep. Very elegant and convenient. Think Occam. The God Conclusion has great explanatory power.
Of course you might be happy to remain ignorant of why questions but the vast majority of humans who want answers from science are searching for both the What and the Why of reality.

Except there is no god conclusion. It's a starting point, it always has been. There has been no accepted line of thought that has started with axioms of maths or a scientific model that concludes with god - all theories that apparently prove the existence of god presuppose one exists, which is logically invalid. It's like assuming 1+1=8 and concluding the same.

before we can proceed beyond the natural numbers in mathematics we have to presuppose nothing exists but yet someone in this forum challenged me on the use of nothing saying nothing can't exist.

[Faith No More]

before we can proceed beyond the natural numbers in mathematics we have to presuppose nothing exists...

What are you talking about?