13 Questions

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I never claimed you asked me to prove a negative, but I'll let this one go, as reading comprehension and basic logic are obviously not your strong suit.

---

You should know that abusing the “quote” function is against forum rules.
I actually taught English, so I would say it is more your extremely convoluted and “fluffy” writing style that can make things unclear here, not my supposed lacking mental capabilities. You are just like the students I had who I’d tell, “I need the essay to be 3 pages”, and they’d write about half a page worth of good information and just stretch it out for three.

---

Second, I never claimed you were "rude" to me. I said that you had mouthed off to me in private message because I chose not to talk to you (my words being, "I think your dime is up, dude..."). That you have changed the terms of the question is yet another example of your moving the goalposts to suit your fancy. Which is typical of your ilk. (I've caught you at it twice.) Now, if anyone cares to argue that you didn't in fact mouth off to me in pm, let them do so. You obviously can't be bothered with actually arguing the question as put.

---

Rude and “mouthing off” are fairly synonymous in my book, but since we always seem to have to play by your arbitrary rules, maybe they are not today.

---

You need not bother replying to this. I do not intend to reply to you any further. If I should perhaps do so, don't get excited, for it's surely nothing more than a momentary lapse of judgement. When the meds kick in, it will correct itself. I have no use for you. You're adept at debating, but you seem to lack any gift for nuance. Simply not worth my time. This song's for you. Goodbye.

---

What makes you think I ever get excited when you reply? Inflated ego I guess.
I guess I can dedicate a video to you, since this has stooped to that level.

---

It's hard to be nuanced about verbal masterbation.

---

I assume you meant masturbation? If yoo arr goeing too inssult mee, att leeast humorr mee enuff too sspell korrektly.

---

examples of animals using reason.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abst...09)01455-9

---

That’s a very interesting read. Thanks for posting that.

[tavarish]

1. What evidence would convince you of God’s existence?

Define a God, then establish a clam regarding said God. The evidence that would be necessary to convince me of this God's existence would have to be readily demonstrable, verifiable, and not subject to bias or faulty reasoning.

2. You see the words, “I love you” written in the sand at the beach. Is this man-made? If so, how do you know?

Language is man-made. We have a mountain of evidence supporting this, and none supporting a naturally occurring "I love you" written in sand dunes. Unless there is other information other than the phrase, there isn't much reason to think it wasn't written by man.

3. If the God of the Bible were real, would He set the rules or would man set the rules?

If Santa Claus were real, would he make the presents, or would he let the elves do it? What does it matter? If the God of the Bible were any good at creating people that follow rules, I'm pretty sure that would negate the entire purpose of Christianity.

4. Do moral laws exist? If so, do they exist independent of humans? How do you know what they are?

Yes, moral laws exist. Yes, they exist independent of humans. Nearly every mammal on the planet expresses a sense of morality, many with societal structures that rival our own. The reason we know right from wrong in most cases is because the morals we have promote survival, procreation, and genetic diversity. There's a lot that can be said about this, but this video sums it up pretty nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ

5. If everyone on earth believed that rape were morally right, would it still be morally wrong?

No. If absolutely everyone believed in a moral that relied on evaluating interactions between people, and those same people considered rape to be a correct course of action, rape would necessarily be morally right.

6. What is the most dangerous religion on Earth?

Dangerous to who?

7. Where did the laws of logic come from?

The laws themselves are transcendent, they didn't come from anywhere, they simply are. Logic isn't a thing to "happen". Our understanding of these laws, coupled with our descriptions make up a concept, and we are responsible for that bit.

8. How did non-rational events and processes lead to a rational human mind?

What's a non-rational event?

9. Why do some atheists such as Carl Wieland and Alister McGrath become Christians?

I have no idea, perhaps you should ask them. Why do some Christians become Muslim? Why do goats faint? Why do fools fall in love?

10. How do beliefs and thoughts differ?

You arrive at a belief by way of thought. In order to change a belief, you need to think. Simply put, thought is the highway, belief is the destination.

11. Do you believe that God does not exist?

If you're talking about the Christian God of the Bible, then yes.

12. Do you think that God does not exist?

If we're talking about the God of the Bible, then yes.

13. How do you think life began on Earth?

I'm not sure. There are many interesting theories available, but the most promising ones seem to point to abiogenesis.

[Girlysprite]

Just a little note on point 9:

When Christians become Atheists, some will say that they have never been 'true' Christians to begin with. If an atheist converts to a religion, some atheists would claim that he never had been a 'true' atheist, or for the 'wrong' reasons.
I think those claims are bogus in all those cases. A person can truly believe in a goal, a cause, a being, a whatever, and change for any reason, very often because that reason had a big impact on him/her. People change through their lives, and their believes can also change. That does not make their previous believes any less 'real' though.

As for why these specific atheists became religious, I do not know. I don't know them to begin with, and such changes are often quite personal. The reason that some might claim that they never had been 'true atheists' to begin with i because some Christians have lied about their 'past as atheist'. People who have converted can score more brownie points with the public, so sometimes they make stuff up. It makes people distrsting towards claims of 'having been atheist' before. On top of that, many people seem to misunderstand what atheist means, thinking it is someone who dislikes god. Disliking god means you still believe in him.

[DoktorZ]

1. What evidence would convince you of God’s existence?
Gosh, I dunno. I spend so little time thinking about supernatural things, it would be hard to say. I suppose a miracle performed under controlled, scientific conditions, overseen by skeptics.

2. You see the words, “I love you” written in the sand at the beach. Is this man-made? If so, how do you know?
Actually, it is technically possible that the movements of the water produced that entirely by chance. Improbable, but possible. In some alternate universe, it has happened. Being reasonable, I'd assume someone wrote it there because animals don't write. Well, maybe there's a chimp out there someone trained once ...

3. If the God of the Bible were real, would He set the rules or would man set the rules?
I reckon that god would, but he contradicts himself so much I wouldn't be sure what to think. Plus, how would you know "the rules" you've heard are from a god, or some greedy jerk claiming to speak for that god? It's best to keep your critical gaze locked onto whomever or whatever is trying to "set the rules."

4. Do moral laws exist? If so, do they exist independent of humans? How do you know what they are?
No, all moral laws are made by man. Space dust floating through the universe doesn't care about right and wrong.
I know what they are because they are learned articulations based, in some part, on our evolutionary needs. So, we evolved to know that hurting others is wrong, but specific articulations of that (it's wrong to murder, but OK to fight wars for the nation) are historically and culturally determined.

5. If everyone on earth believed that rape were morally right, would it still be morally wrong?
Technically, no. After all, it was OK for the ancient Hebrews to rape the young girls of conquered nations at their god's command.
But I do think that humans know, on some level, that rape is wrong. That's why most human societies abhor it. It can be possible, in certain circumstances, for a society to collectively decide that rape is fine for some people in some cases. I wouldn't want to be part of that society.

6. What is the most dangerous religion on Earth?
Any form of fundamentalism. The religion people seem to be using with the most damage at the moment appears to be Islam, but I don't think Islam is inherently worse than Christianity or Judaism. Even the Buddhists have had their "slash and burn" warrior monks.

7. Where did the laws of logic come from?
That's a strange question. I don't think I can answer it. After all, if logic is used to deduce logical principles of the universe, then you're stuck mentally. Your question assumes a divisibility of mind and matter, when they are not in fact divisible. The same principles that drive the stars determine how our brains work, so the question itself is sort of pointless. One might as well ask "Where do the laws of logic NOT come from?"

8. How did non-rational events and processes lead to a rational human mind?
This question is inherently flawed. I can't really answer it. It has all kinds of preconceptions and assumptions built into it. One might as well ask, "Why are you so stupid?"

9. Why do some atheists such as Carl Wieland and Alister McGrath become Christians?
I'm not sure, because I can't read their minds. Why have even more formerly religious people become atheists?

10. How do beliefs and thoughts differ?
I find this question confusing as well. What do you mean by "thoughts"? Beliefs *are* thoughts. Logic is a thought process. The desire for good and evil are both thought processes. There are illogical thoughts, and logical ones, defensible ones, and completely irrational ones.

11. Do you believe that God does not exist?
I don't know, and I don't care.

12. Do you think that God does not exist?
I don't know, and I don't care. On balance, I'd say the evidence is very weak, so I don't bother myself with it. I think it's a waste of time.

13. How do you think life began on Earth?
I'm not exactly sure, so I'm open to any explanation based on evidence. Current theories regarding abiogenesis are suggestive, and some laboratory experiments have made it possible for nucleic acids to "naturally" form proteins. I think we'll sort it out eventually.

[downbeatplumb]

Why do some atheists become christians.

C S lewis who was an atheist who became a christian after being convinced of the validity of the ontological argument by JRR Tolkien.
So in his partiular case he was convinced by a rather weak argument and peer pressure. He used to spend ages debating religion with a group of chiristians and eventually 'joined the club'.

But to argue slightly differently.

When you were born you did not believe in god (the same is true of everyone). You were at that time an atheist. So what changed?
looking at your posts I would say intensive indoctrination by authority figures and peers.

[reverendjeremiah]

Just a little note on point 9:

When Christians become Atheists, some will say that they have never been 'true' Christians to begin with. If an atheist converts to a religion, some atheists would claim that he never had been a 'true' atheist, or for the 'wrong' reasons.

I dont think it is impossible..sure people can change their beliefs from atheist to christians and vice versa. Sometimes it makes me scratch my head and wonder what the motives are.

Example: If Sam Harris just came up and said "I have left atheism for Christianity", I would SERIOUSLY doubt his claim. Most especially if he published a book series on it.

[Angrboda]

5. If everyone on earth believed that rape were morally right, would it still be morally wrong?
Technically, no. After all, it was OK for the ancient Hebrews to rape the young girls of conquered nations at their god's command.
But I do think that humans know, on some level, that rape is wrong. That's why most human societies abhor it. It can be possible, in certain circumstances, for a society to collectively decide that rape is fine for some people in some cases. I wouldn't want to be part of that society.

One of the conjectured mechanisms leading to rape being morally wrong is that in social groups where rape is accepted, males (in appropriately sexually dimorphic species) would end up expending resources raising offspring that are not their own at the expense of their own seed, thus diluting their contribution to the gene pool. An animal with a permissive attitude toward rape will contribute less of his genetic material to the species, and those more aggressively anti-rape will contribute proportionately more of their genetic material to the species pool. Thus, evolutionarily, alleles which are less vigilant about rape will, over time, be replaced by alleles whose individuals react strongly to acts of rape.

Note specifically though, that this does not depend on any type of reasoning or cognition on the part of the animal, it is a purely stochastic effect, flowing from the consequences of the behavior. Thus it's quite possible that other animals, perhaps many primates, are "morally opposed" to the behavior of rape. Not because they ate an apple, and became as Gods -- but because the attitude of permissiveness toward rape has literally been bred out of them.

---

When you were born you did not believe in god (the same is true of everyone). You were at that time an atheist. So what changed?
looking at your posts I would say intensive indoctrination by authority figures and peers.

A few observations. First, this seems to incorporate the genetic fallacy in fundamental ways. We're not born being able to recognize the persistence of objects, that when a person goes behind a screen, they don't cease to exist. This is largely a matter of brain development, but the notion that because we are born in ignorance, that is our natural state and we should remain that way is not a plank I want in my party platform. (Roland Barthes has cautioned us to "beware the natural sign" meaning that, many times, those things which our culture communicates to us as being "natural" are some of the most artificial and politicized constructs, and the assignment of the sign of naturalness is intended to discourage examination and to avoid it being questioned.) This is quite readily seen as an example of the is / ought fallacy.

The second is that many of the most valuable things in our world are based on such mechanisms -- things such as culture (inter-personal learning, often largely driven by the "authority" of the group), authoritarian indoctrination (in both institutionalized learning and the learning that results as an outflow of the power imbalance between parents and children), social discourses based on authority (what if each day we had to make up our mind about whether the king or president's directives should be followed, or, instead of trusting the self-correcting mechanisms of scientific discourse, we felt the need to personally verify each new find before incorporating it into our world); authoritarian learning is highly useful and is not in and of itself suspect simply by virtue of the social dynamics involved.

No. Learning is good. Many of the products of learning are good. If you disagree with assertions that are claimed to constitute knowledge, by all means dispute the claims. But discounting something simply on account of it being learned is silly.

[Anomalocaris]

The connection between the notion that rape (of some kind by some definition) is regarded as being morally (by some definition) wrong (by some definition) in most (let's see the catalogue) cultures to there being a unifying genetic basis for aversion to rape that is fundamentally separate from the seemingly general human impulse towards sympathy with those being abusively prevailed upon, and specifical tendency to protect the socially defined interests of those to whom we perceive a kinship for social and genetic reasons, seems almost, how shall I put it, Christian in its reliance on the absence of evidence and contempt for close reasoning.

[Anymouse]

You should know that abusing the “quote” function is against forum rules.
I actually taught English, so I would say it is more your extremely convoluted and “fluffy” writing style that can make things unclear here, . . .

I hope the way I quoted your questions back before I answered them was not "overuse of quotations." I am still new around here and have not yet gotten around to the forum rules (post, then read the rules, that's my motto).

I will endeavour to keep my quotations managable.

And I certainly hope I am not "fluffy." Eeww. I never taught English, nor went to college, though I edit books.

And to-morrow is my birthday. Yay.

James.

[downbeatplumb]

A few observations. First, this seems to incorporate the genetic fallacy in fundamental ways. We're not born being able to recognize the persistence of objects, that when a person goes behind a screen, they don't cease to exist. This is largely a matter of brain development, but the notion that because we are born in ignorance, that is our natural state and we should remain that way is not a plank I want in my party platform. (Roland Barthes has cautioned us to "beware the natural sign" meaning that, many times, those things which our culture communicates to us as being "natural" are some of the most artificial and politicized constructs, and the assignment of the sign of naturalness is intended to discourage examination and to avoid it being questioned.) This is quite readily seen as an example of the is / ought fallacy.

The second is that many of the most valuable things in our world are based on such mechanisms -- things such as culture (inter-personal learning, often largely driven by the "authority" of the group), authoritarian indoctrination (in both institutionalized learning and the learning that results as an outflow of the power imbalance between parents and children), social discourses based on authority (what if each day we had to make up our mind about whether the king or president's directives should be followed, or, instead of trusting the self-correcting mechanisms of scientific discourse, we felt the need to personally verify each new find before incorporating it into our world); authoritarian learning is highly useful and is not in and of itself suspect simply by virtue of the social dynamics involved.

No. Learning is good. Many of the products of learning are good. If you disagree with assertions that are claimed to constitute knowledge, by all means dispute the claims. But discounting something simply on account of it being learned is silly.

I said that at one time everyone was an atheist because well its true isnt it?
I am not discounting something because it is learned, I am discounting it because it is wrong