“Expelled the movie” is being sued by Yoko Ono, in what may be the best thing she ever did.It seems our less-than-honest friends at Expelled not only lied to viewers about the intellectual viability of an invisible man in the sky, but they also used IMAGINE without permission. Lennon’s song is anything but religious, and Yoko wants to make sure her husband’s name is not used for such tripe.
Yoko Ono is suing the producers of a movie that challenges the concept of Darwinian evolution, saying they used the song “Imagine” without her permission and led the blogosphere to accuse her of “selling out.” …Ono’s lawsuit claims the producers did not ask for permission either because they knew they could not get it or because they did not want to pay for the rights. It objects to the way “Imagine” is listed in the film’s credits, saying it suggested to members of the news media and others that the song’s use had been approved. “Internet ‘bloggers’ immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of ’selling out’ by licensing the song to defendants,” says the complaint, filed this week. The lawsuit calls “Imagine” Lennon’s signature song, saying it “has become closely associated with and is synonymous with John Lennon.” The complaint, which also names other firms involved with the movie, asks the court to stop the filmmakers from distributing, selling and promoting the movie, and it seeks financial damages. It was filed on behalf of Ono, Lennon’s sons Sean and Julian, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc.
Instead, check out the Forgiving the Franklins Movie, which looks more interestinghttp://www.forgivingthefranklinsthemovie.com/press/atheist.pdf
j(esus)c(hrist)c wrote:
It’s the only known entity able to communicate in English-so again, it’s an argument from ignorance, it’s NOT an argument from knowledge. And since it is known that English can be used to communicate, it would be silly and, down right deceptive to assume that DNA was designed by English. jcc, are you sure FSM isn’t the designer that you seek? Applying intelligent design to DNA implies a flawed design, unless, you also claim any and all disease as an indication of perfection.
jcc, your argument is equivalent to:
Pasta, therefore FSM.
Humans are the only known entity that produces written text therefore, humans designed religion. That is only one of many indications that humans designed all religions.
jcc, the interaction of sand, wind and, water can store a design AND it is copied over and over again. According to you that requires intelligent design. So, according to you; wind, water and/or, sand must be intelligent.
jcc, you own your god-idea and, your god-idea owns you. Your god-idea and therefore your god changes at your whim. Your god-idea does not and will not do anything that you do not allow it to do. Your god-idea in all its self-righteous glory is only the workings of and only exists in YOUR brain. Given any two people they will not share the same complete god-idea.
Of course, you know that is true, you know there is nothing that supports the actual independent existence of your god-idea. You know that god-ideas similar to yours were used to support the disasters brought on by the invasion of Iraq. You know that god-ideas similar to yours are used as a tool to commit all manner of crime. Why do you keep trying to deceive? Is it fear, is it self promotion or is it your selfish glory in the eyes of others that you seek?
jcc,
I don’t know. Perhaps it’s something I’ve evolved because my ancestors curiosity stimulated them to learn about the world and thus helped them survive in order to breed. That seems the most likely explanation to me.
I was unaware that you were only arguing that ID could be true.
When you earlier said:
I took that to be the basis of your argument.
If I was wrong, then what exactly are we talking about?
It depends on what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about establishing a historical Jesus, then a few contemporary histories would be sufficient. If we’re talking about establishing a supernatural Jesus, then I should state that I agree with this article:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
Why should I believe this?
To the best of my knowledge, there’s not a whole lot we know about the authors of the Bible. The first paragraph of this article says it quite succinctly:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
Since when are conversion stories considered “accounts of skeptics?”
I think that’s plenty of time for fiction to intertwine itself into a very small church’s accounts. Assuming there was any real truth there to begin with.
Considering that Christianity was adopted as the state religion in a number of countries and that the Christian church happily burned heretical books (see: Library of Alexandria), I’m not surprised there are few surviving records of these claims being disputed. Let us also not forget that Paul’s writings may well have been more personal writings and may not have been widely published before the Bible was compiled. I would hardly expect the church to have saved records of disbelief. What other sources of historical documents from that time exist? Has anyone checked those? Can I? It is my opinion that the church was in the perfect position to white-wash it’s own history and erase contrary evidence.
Philo certainly should have mentioned Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm
From the second link:
Does this prove that Jesus never existed? Of course not. But the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic.
j(esus)c(hrist)c wrote:
It’s the only known entity able to communicate in English-so again, it’s an argument from ignorance, it’s NOT an argument from knowledge. And since it is known that English can be used to communicate, it would be silly and, down right deceptive to assume that DNA was designed by English. jcc, are you sure FSM isn’t the designer that you seek? Applying intelligent design to DNA implies a flawed design, unless, you also claim any and all disease as an indication of perfection.
jcc, your argument is equivalent to:
Pasta, therefore FSM.
Humans are the only known entity that produces written text therefore, humans designed religion. That is only one of many indications that humans designed all religions.
jcc, the interaction of sand, wind and, water can store a design AND it is copied over and over again. According to you that requires intelligent design. So, according to you; wind, water and/or, sand must be intelligent.
jcc, you own your god-idea and, your god-idea owns you. Your god-idea and therefore your god changes at your whim. Your god-idea does not and will not do anything that you do not allow it to do. Your god-idea in all its self-righteous glory is only the workings of and only exists in YOUR brain. Given any two people they will not share the same complete god-idea.
Of course, you know that is true, you know there is nothing that supports the actual independent existence of your god-idea. You know that god-ideas similar to yours were used to support the disasters brought on by the invasion of Iraq. You know that god-ideas similar to yours are used as a tool to commit all manner of crime. Why do you keep trying to deceive? Is it fear, is it self promotion or is it your selfish glory in the eyes of others that you seek?
Krys:
No, not any more. I learned long ago that hatred is not the opposite of affection. If you truly regarded me as the hebetude that you say you do?and take such pains to anally counter every word I say, you?d have ignored me long ago. Your compulsive need to rebut nearly everything I say here, to me, is indicative of a serious neurosis?an unhealthy fixation.
Another hoot. That reminds me, in this month?s Limbaugh Letter, Rush has a great article documenting how Conservatives give far more of their income and time to charities than you ?bleeding-hearts? do.
This is getting sooooooooo old?
Oh, right:
You?re contradicting yourself within the same post now.
Of course not?you?re Krys?the ?rock?, the ?island??and a rock feels no pain; and an island neee-ver cries?
Like I said, a love you?ve obviously never experienced.
You?re no longer even trying to conceal your hurt?you?re beside yourself in rage from it.
jcc – well, your efforts @ armchair psychology, while inept, are as amusing as ever.
& as always, you try to make it about me, rather than my points. Way to go.
So, to repeat: which creationism should we teach in the schools? Vedic, Islamic, etc.?
(Rhetorical question, of course, it’s your way or the highway, provided your limp ’cause’ can even get on the on-ramp.)
I already punctured your ‘DNA therefore deity’ hypothesis (wild conjecture is more like it).
@ post 04/26/08 @ 11:08:
Case ya hadn’t noticed.
Still no word on the DNA breakage of Vitamin C, either.
Alatham has nicely sliced & diced your ‘defense’ of the wholly bibble (I think I did the same thing, years ago.)
PS, you misused the word ‘hebetude’.
You taught me a new word today. Thanks.
Hebetude. How have I lived so long without that word in my lexicon? Thanks, jcc.
karen:
Almost sounds like a Jewish swear word, don’t it?
Almost like old times, me & jcc going at it, ey?
KA
Almost sounds like a Jewish swear word, don’t it?
Yup. And I know a guy named Heber. He and his wife were in our Lamaze group way back in the day. Woulds come in handy.
Almost like old times, me & jcc going at it, ey?
Almost. Not so much of the others jumping into the fray as in earlier times. Still, fun to watch.
alatham:
You?re saying that your curiosity is the evolutionary result of your ancestors curiosity? Isn?t that a circular argument? What was the source of their curiosity? Do you attribute this phenomenon of curiosity to being the result of other thoughts, which were themselves, ultimately the result of neurons firing reactively to external stimuli in you r brain?
I?ve been trying to argue propositionally all along.
While I stand by that statement, it wasn?t my intent to use it as the basis of my argument here. I?ve been trying to advance the notion that the possibility of ID is not unscientific and should therefore be allowed to be considered in academia without derision.
Is there sufficient evidence for you to acknowledge a historical Jesus?
Did you read the theist?s responses? (http://tinyurl.com/4bsd97 and http://tinyurl.com/3v9n33)?
You?re certainly free not to, but as I said before there has been considerable scholarship devoted to determining the authenticity of the NT. I can, if you?d like, provide references.
I was referring to the Pauline letters which predate the Gospels by a considerable time (many years?even decades), yet both are internally consistent with each other despite being independently written. There is also considerable harmony between them and the epistles of Peter, John and James as well.
That?s the first I?ve ever heard of such a claim. I would assert that just the opposite was true?that the early church sought all such documents in order to determine which were authentic and which weren?t. And if what you claim was the case, then how do you explain the survival of the so-called ?Gnostic? gospels to this day? The church had to be aware of them, but since it had determined that the Canon was closed, it simply had no use for them?and obviously made to attempt to purge them.
That?s the whole point! Paul?s intention of those letters was exactly what you said?personal correspondences. He had no idea they?d someday be part of the codex.
But that?s not what history tells us. The Canon was essentially in place well before Christianity became tolerated by Constantine in 313 AD. Even Wikipedia says as much:
What you assert makes no sense to me. Christianity, by its very nature, invites scrutiny. It?s a movement based on historic events?not a religious philosophy. If the history is wrong then it can?t be right.
Why? There?s so little known about his personal life that it?s impossible to say when he visited Jerusalem (if at all).
True. And to my knowledge, it has yet to shown to be utterly false.
You made no response to my clarification of omnipotence. Does that mean you consider it to be a valid interpretation?
jcc,
Circular? No. Are you sure you know what a circular argument is? In order for this particular case to be circular I would have to argue that my own curiosity is also the proof that my ancestors were curious.
I believe it does suffer from a regression problem that ultimately stops at the origin of life. Since we don’t know what the origin is, I can’t comment further.
Are you asking me if my curiosity is ultimately a reaction to the world around me? I’m not sure how to answer that. I can’t psychoanalyze myself.
And yet I haven’t seen a hypothesis that can be observed or repeated or experimented with. Even Michael Behe said “You can’t prove intelligent design by experiment.” That is the nail in the coffin.
Not that I have seen. But I haven’t exhaustively seen all of it. It would be much more productive for me to consider the existence of any god rather than focus on specific ones.
Yes, the first is very weak, the second is well thought out and enlightening. Both suffer from starting from the position that God exists and trying to work backwards from there, but at least the second provides some real insight into that person’s particular theistic point of view.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of what we “know” comes from textual clues. Without a separate reason to accept them, I will continue to find textual clues unconvincing.
You’ve really never heard of what happened to the Library of Alexandria? It may well have been ordered destroyed by a Christian Emperor (but there is a lot we don’t know, as usual):
http://tinyurl.com/4jqj3y
I would also argue that if the early church successfully collected masses of documents they would have a vested interest in destroying those that ran contrary to Biblical canon.
You don’t know the history of the Gnostic gospels. All of the Gnostic gospels we have today are the result of more recent archaeological finds, they have not been preserved by church historians. Read the “Dating” section here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Christian church was aware of them and destroyed the known copies ages ago. You say it’s obvious that they didn’t, but then why do all the known copies come from outside the early church’s grasp?
This explains why refutations are unknown (which is what you were asking about). But there are bigger problems with the writings attributed to Paul. I freely admit to being no expert, but I found Paul’s writings to be sexist and not often in line with the other descriptions of Jesus’ view of an acceptable lifestyle. I don’t recall him mentioning much about the actual teachings of Jesus, most of it strikes me as simple personal opinion.
I don’t have much doubt about that. But what I meant was that the vast majority of ancient documents that we do have were ultimately preserved by Christians, so they could have easily erased dissent piece by piece over thousands of years. The very early church was likely powerless to censor things like that, but once the church gained a boatload of power they lost any chance to ever be taken at face value again. Had the church avoided becoming a dominant political power, perhaps my opinion would be different today.
And I find the history, the claims, and what little evidence there is to be far less than convincing.
You’re right, there is indeed little known about him. But Jesus was supposed to be quite famous in his day. The silence in contemporary history is still astounding. I find your suggestion that all the history may have been collected by the church to be ridiculous.
That certainly answers some of the problems. But there’s still that pesky lack of evidence.
Krys:
Well, that?s an apples-to-apples analogy?but since you conveniently didn?t say it, I will?both fulfill the criterion of being designed by intelligent agents.
Explain to me again how the human genome is anything at all similar to the entire inventory of Wal-Mart?
No word needs saying. Just because it doesn?t meet your satisfaction doesn?t mean that human DNA couldn?t have been designed by an intelligent agent with that intentional lack of functionality or that it isn?t susceptible to change.
Yes, you?re a legend in your own mind?and careful, don?t hurt your arm patting yourself on your back there.
Of course! We certainly can?t tolerate anyone taking (ahem) liberties with this ?fluid? and ?dynamic? languages of ours, now can we?
Chalk up another one for Quisp!
As usual, anything I can do to help?
That?s a strawman argument ? I note how you willfully skip over the preceding sentence: But, we have learned that massive amounts of human DNA are genetic “left overs,” non-coding segments and duplications.
That?s the keynote, not the analogy that follows.
It?s not ? it?s the art of analogy, how 1 breaks down the comparison. Another strawman.
Or how we share that that intentional lack of functionality w/the other primates. Which is 1 item (among thousands) that puts paid to your anti-evolution twaddle. Besides which, we don?t get VC, we get scurvy. Yeah, real nice. Compound that w/the other millions of ways our lives get cut short. I?d say, ?real nice creator you got there,? only there isn?t any such critter.
I do believe I?ve used both those lines on this blog. Hmmm?so you only listen to insults, not facts. Standard fare.
Hey, you?re the 1 demanding that usage be ?written in stone?.
Still not playing by your own rules. Tsk, tsk.
As to Philo (how?d this become an argument about exegis, anyways?):
Read & learn: http://tinyurl.com/sdqtw. Besides which, the Middle East is a tiny, tiny place, where word spreads quickly. Philo was a huge influence on the Midrash in that day & age.
The early church fathers (once Theodosius passed that famous edict) went out of their way to burn everything they considered heretical. The Gnostic gospels were hidden in a clay jar, fer cryin? out loud. Anything that was slightly different, was torched. Along w/people.
I?m fairly positive Alatham?s claim about the Alexandrian library is wrong, BTW. Everything I?ve read indicates that the library was burned down in portions over the years, from Caesar?s invasion all the way up to (possible) Muslim torching.
But the early church was notorious for destroying any dissent & dissenting documents.
Sweet zombie jebus, what a comic book world you live in.
alatham:
These are your words (emphasis mine):
Sounds to me like you passed your own test for circularity there.
So then, do you have any hypotheses for that?
Actually, I?m asking if you believe your consciousness is purely the result of a deterministic universe, that is, is what you perceive to be the ultimate source of your consciousness in fact, simply the manifestation of ?an unbroken chain of prior occurrences?, or it could possibly have some other source.
So, you?re saying that a scientific analogy cannot be made with anything that is observed in nature which exhibits attributes that are consistent with something that was designed by an intelligent agent?
Doesn?t this take us back to the original argument over whether or not a deity could have designed DNA?
Did that affect your opinion (either way) of theists?
I believe textual clues can provide significant insight into a document?s authenticity. Have you considered the number of extant copies of the canonical documents and how little time elapsed between them being made from the originals as compared to other ancient historical documents? (Do you know of any other ancient texts that were so quickly copied in such numbers and so close to the time the originals were written?) And have you considered the coinciding explosive growth of Christianity at that time as well?
Of course I have?I?ve just never heard anyone assert so assuredly that it was destroyed solely by Christians trying to suppress contrary evidence to their faith, that?s all.
That makes no sense to me. The canon was closed by the middle of the second century?about the time the Gnostics started showing up?but they clearly didn?t pass the Church?s criterion for authenticity (i.e. they weren?t able to verify their authenticity, and they clearly tell of a radically different Jesus than that depicted in the documents that did meet their understandably high standards of authenticity). A great example of this are the books of the Apocrypha.
Well, because the canon was closed?and the Gnostics weren?t consistent with what the church had determined to be authentic?
Again, historical context is needed to better understand what superficially sounds like contradictory statements. A case in point, Paul?s seemingly sexist remarks in 1 Timothy 2:11 stand in stark contrast to his inclusion of women in Galatians 3:28. Obviously, both can?t be true?unless the English translation doesn?t do the original Greek justice, therefore I submit that there?s more to be found in the 1 Timothy passage by having a more thorough historical understanding of the time and place in which it was written.
That?s odd because his (Paul) understanding of the Substitutionary Atonement agrees perfectly with that of John?s and Peter?s?who saw it happen firsthand.
I certainly won?t argue the fact that the church became corrupt very soon after it became the state religion. Humans will always be susceptible to being intoxicated by power. But I will argue that the message of Christianity and the history on which it?s built withstood that corruption. Luther and the other Reformers rediscovered that which resulted in the church finally being held accountable for its actions.
And I thank God that we?re all still afforded such a prerogative.
That sounds like you?re projecting your cultural assumptions of a 21st century society onto that of the 1st century?s. Yes, he was popular, but within a very insular society?with no mass media like ours and one in which very few were literate. His immediate popularity with the masses was fleeting?as recorded by the Gospels. Also, the Sadducees and Romans weren?t exactly friendly to the first generation of Christians?it took several years for it to spread beyond Judea.
I don?t believe that?s what I said or meant. My point was that from the beginning, the early church understood the need to authenticate any documents they were to use to give credence to their faith, therefore it was incumbent upon them to thoroughly scrutinize all that were known to them.
An incredibly (and I use that term?s literal meaning?not it?s popular one) ?naturally? fine-tuned universe, a discrete moment of ?creation,? and the existence of DNA are insufficient evidence for you?
jcc,
Sounds to me like you have difficulty reading.
When did I ever say that I know my ancestors were curious because I am curious myself? I happen to have other evidence that my ancestors were curious, I’ve spoken to my most recent ancestors, and those that I can’t speak to were awfully good about writing things down. Personally, I know that my father, my paternal grandfather, my maternal grandfather, and my maternal great-grandmother were all very curious types. Not to mention my two maternal aunts. Beyond that I can only trust what they had to say about their ancestors (which is that they were also curious people).
I have evidence unrelated to my own curiosity that my ancestors were also curious. There is no circularity in my argument.
Nope. I’m curious, but I have no real interest to personally investigate this particular matter.
I’m not convinced that the universe is deterministic, so I can’t believe anything about this without first answering that question. My guesses lean towards a non-deterministic universe. But since I can’t pin down the source of my consciousness, I can’t rule out that vague ‘other source.’
No, I’m not saying that. You’re inferring that because you want me to be wrong. An analogy could be made, but an analogy is not a scientific experiment.
A hypothesis could be made on that basis of that analogy. But the next step is to determine how to disprove the theory and then run repeated (and repeatable) experiments. Once those experiments have been run and back it up, then you can start calling your idea science.
No. The could has already been determined, but it’s not very interesting or useful. I’m looking for a did not a could.
No, at least not in any noticeable way. A single example is not going to change my opinion of a large group of very diverse people. For the record, I don’t have a poor opinion of theists, only particular theists.
Without knowing much about other ancient texts, I don’t think we can draw any strong conclusions from this. Even if we could that just means it was a popular idea.
The Koran.
Yes.
That was an error on my part. I believe the possibility was there, that’s all.
That may make no sense to you, but you want to believe. I don’t have a vested interest in making the Church look good. I’m just presenting possibilities. I’m aware of the Gnostics, I think their religion makes a tiny bit more sense.
Without knowing who preserved the Apocrypha or knowing much about their content, I can’t say anything about them.
So the church didn’t bother keeping the contrary writings.
Is there any evidence that the church was able to show that the Gnostic writings were far less reliable than the canonical writings? Or are you just trusting the church?
Fair enough, but it all boils down to perception again, which means that the Bible’s suggested morality can’t be taken as absolute since it’s impossible to prove that one interpretation is inherently better than all others.
Further, I don’t see a contradiction between Galatians and Timothy in those passages. The Galatians passage is saying that both males and females are children of Christ, but the Timothy passage is clearly saying Women shouldn’t teach. I know it’s common today to say that the Galatians passage means that women should have equal rights, but I find that interpretation to be sorely lacking.
This is, again, assuming that Paul wrote both passages.
If we’re too assume that Jesus was a popular guy, then I see no reason to believe that Paul could not have heard about this doctrine through the word of mouth of early Christians. Perhaps Paul heard about it and wanted to make his “vision” more believable so he added things like that when he wrote it down.
I thank the Deists who got this country started that we are free to express ourselves.
I don’t doubt that if there were known extra-biblical accounts that they would be few. But few is a far cry from none when history is concerned. History or the contents of the Bible are unlikely to cast aside my doubt (though I can’t call it impossible).
Yes.
Krys:
Help me Lord. Krys, the ?keynote? has nothing to do with the ?left-overs,? non-coding segments and duplications (all of which we assume are of no use). How many times do I have to say this?? it?s about HOW the coding segments got ordered in the first place.
That?s just silly. One is a library of cellular protein synthesis; the other is simply a list. Talk about a straw man?you?re trying to compare the instructions for building a car to a shopping list, only you think that because your list is terabytes long that somehow puts it on par with DNA in complexity, and most importantly, functionality. It?s apples-to-oranges AND AGAIN, THEY?RE BOTH WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF BEING CREATED BY INTELLEGENT AGENTS.
Poor Krys, such bitter tears you?ve forced yourself to weep.
And your hurt continues to show. I must say, my conversation here with alatham has been quite the breath of fresh air compared to once again banging my head against your impenetrable wall of wounded pride. Despite our differences of opinion, his simple respect and forthright honesty about his weak atheism has made for quite an enlightening exchange?sadly, I cannot say that about conversing with you.
alatham:
You didn?t. But your statement continues to give me the impression that the thought processes that comprise your curiosity are somehow the legacy of the same thought process of your ancestor?s.
So, in general, you?re curious, but just not about your own curiosity?
So, you do lend credence to true, individual free will?
Actually, I once had much the same skepticism of the authenticity of the Bible that you apparently do now. It wasn?t that I wanted to believe it but wanted to find the truth?where ever it took me?when I began investigating it.
As am I.
How they were regarded is quite telling of the dedication to the truth the early church had.
They served no purpose to the church.
I?m trusting what is known about when and where they were written (much too late to have been by an eyewitness or firsthand account from an eyewitness), as well as what I said before; their inconsistency with the earlier, eyewitness accounts.
Have you read the prolog to each letter??he identifies himself in both the same way: ?Paul, an apostle.?
That?s an interesting thought?though it?s inconsistent with someone who underwent a radical conversion like Paul?s?a story which was independently corroborated by Luke in Acts.
Seems we have some things in common then.
What else would you require?
None forthcoming.
I gotcha the 1st time. Really, a no-brainer.
It was an analogy, you twit.
And 1 such database is far more orderly than the other. CAN YOU TELL ME WHICH ONE?
Because whether a list or a genome sequence, we?re talking about a database. That point you keep hounding on is about as organized as COBOL code.
What the fuck are you talking about? My ?hurt?? Stop pretending you know me. You don?t.
Again, are you kidding me? This isn?t about me. Stop confusing the messenger w/the message.
Here, in all caps: YOUR EVIDENCE IS SLOPPY. THE DNA IS SLOPPY. THE BIBLE IS SLOPPY. BEN STEIN?S MOVIE IS SLOPPY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SLOPPY.
Yeah, well he?s a little newer @ these ?debates?. I tried to do it that way, once. Till I realized your crackpot theories will be yours till the day you die.
So, share: how has Alatham ?enlightened? you? Has he changed your mind about anything?
I doubt it. I learned this long ago: if you argue w/someone, you always win. Even if you lose. Which is every time.
Hope you?re better @ ?programming? than you are @ armchair psychoanalysis.
See ya, Sloppy.
Here we go – the REAL explanation:
jcc,
Maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to say for sure since we know so little about the human mind. It could also be a result of nurture instead of nature. I certainly grew up in a household where I was encouraged to ask difficult questions and work things out for myself instead of being told what to believe. When I’m asked to comment, I lean towards the idea that nurture is more important than nature, but it’s still just a guess.
But you were accusing me of making a circular argument, which I absolutely was not.
I worded that poorly. Very poorly.
What I meant to say is that it’s not something that I can investigate myself (and therefore it’s not something I think about much). At least, I can’t investigate more than a few generations (though I would argue that the most recent generations are the most important, so maybe that’s good enough, but it doesn’t address the regression problem).
I can’t go back in the past and investigate those very early creatures that I am likely descended from and evaluate their level of curiosity. Since I can’t do that, I can’t solve the regression problem. I can only use induction to come up with a best guess.
At that point, my interest wanes and I realize that I have more important things to focus on (like paying rent). I see no reason to believe that knowing the ultimate source of my curiosity is something that will greatly improve my life. I am perfectly content with a best guess. If someone else wants to investigate it, I will be happy to hear their ideas and look at their research.
No. I do not accept that as ‘truth.’ Only when I’m pressed to act do I assume that Free Will exists. In order to accept Free Will, I would have to reject the possibility of a deterministic universe. I’ve already said I can’t do that.
I don’t agree. However, I’m not well-versed on this topic, so correct me if I’m way off. It seems to me that The Apocrypha were kept around because the early church had some doubts about what were and weren’t ‘true’ writings. And if the early church had doubts, then I’m sure you understand my own.
Fair enough. But I can’t accept such a trusting position.
Indeed. But surely you’re aware of some of the disputes about the letters attributed to him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
Why is that inconsistent? If The author of Luke-Acts was indeed a companion of Paul, perhaps Paul simply told him all about his conversion experience. I can’t see how you come to the conclusion that Luke-Acts was an ‘independent’ corroboration since the author claims to have been a companion of Paul’s.
On the other hand, perhaps Luke-Acts was simply written quite a bit later and purposefully omitted later events to make it seem like an earlier writing.
In light of the fact that the author contradicts himself within his own writing, I can’t know what to take seriously:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/voice.html
That seems like a central point, why is it completely different in two otherwise similar accounts?
First, I don’t consider any of those things to be evidence of the supernatural at all. So when you ask “what else,” you’re loading your question. I apologize for not pointing that out before.
Second, I’ve already told you what I would require:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
Krys:
Eh, and what?sorry?who designs a database?
Key word there: code. You keep shooting yourself in the foot.
You made it about you long ago when you couldn?t contain your childish need to call those you disagree with names.
I haven?t. In your case the messenger is the message. A case in point:
If you weren?t hurt then you?d either laugh-off such remarks or ignore them altogether; but instead they sear you like a hot knife, causing you to lose it.
As a matter of fact, yes, he has. He?s demonstrated the real-world differences between you ?strong? atheists vs. his more even-tempered ?weak? atheism to me. My conversation with him here stands in stark contrast to the kinds I have with you and karen?he?s willing to engage in conversation with the intent to exchange information?you?re not. And since both you and karen have a history of being deeply disappointed (and yes, hurt) by Christianity then it only makes sense for the two of you to be so adamantly convinced that there is no God. And that explains why you meet with such hostility anyone who disagrees with you.
jcc
I’m not hostile to anyone who disagrees with me. In fact I just went out to dinner and a movie with 6 other women friends- all devout Christians. I even paused and silently waited for them to say the blessing before the meal in a public place without making a big deal out of it. I just didn’t join in, but I stopped cutting my salad while they went at it. And one of those women and I had recently had an email exchange concerning my atheism, so it’s not like they don’t know about it.
BTW, I don’t recall that KA was ever disappointed or hurt by Christianity.
You’re missing the whole point, jcc: it’s disorganized. It’s not well planned. I’m not shooting myself in the foot @ all.
You keep squirming & trying to redirect the conversation back to my personal status. When I distinctly told you that I was thru explaining myself to you some time ago.
& since you have no real points or answers, you embark on personal attacks.
Red herrings, tu quoques, I mean really, your ‘points’ are so loaded w/cognitive dissonance, it staggers the imagination.
& actually, yes, your remarks are quite amusing. You flatter yourself unduly.
Never answered the question I posed earlier: whose version would you demand be taught in the public schools?
For the record, I didn’t call you any names. Not in this thread.
Got 1 for you: I hereby dub thee Sloppy McGuire.
Do bear it w/pride. It was bequeathed to thee by Gunga Din.
(A hot knife. Chuckles, shakes his head.)
karen:
You recall correctly, m’love.
Jcc just thinks we all are writhing masses of tormented children weeping for the kindness of his imaginary friend, & he the itinerant schoolmarm, come to lead the lost sheep back to the fold.
Hmmm. Messy-anic complex, anyone? You can continue trying to reason w/this clown. I’m about done.
alatham:
That?s very interesting ? on several levels.
I?m sorry, but that?s a very confusing response to me. It sounded like, on the one hand?if you?re pressed?you accept free will, but on the other, all things being equal, you don?t. So, are you saying your belief in the existence of free will vacillates depending on what?s being said?
Yes, that is how I understand it to have happened.
Sure, but doesn?t the Apocrypha also demonstrate the Church?s dedication to wanting to know which documents are authentic?as well as it being willing to preserve those that they aren?t sure of?
Absolutely, but don?t forget that the seven letters that are undisputedly attributed to him are of extreme significance (even if Romans was the only letter attributed to him, it contains more than sufficient theology that is consistent with the life and teachings of the Jesus portrayed by the Gospels).
But even lay knowledge of the contents of the Pauline letters strains the credulity of your assertion. Even in the undisputed letters attributed to Paul there is considerable textual evidence corroborating Paul?s history with Luke and the other epistles (e.g. 2 Peter 3:15-16).
Good point?but a minor detail (to which the Christian response: http://tinyurl.com/4v2q6j was, I thought, plausible) over who did or didn?t hear a voice does not, in my opinion, completely destroy the overall credibility of Luke?s account of Paul?s conversion. Luke states at the outset (Luke 1:1-4) his intention to get the story straight from as many eyewitnesses as he could, and clearly Acts was written over a multiple year time span in which he may have quite possibly failed to double-check the details of his first telling of Paul?s conversion.
That?s interesting?
Have you considered the highly subjective nature of Ebon Musing?s list? Would any one point on Ebon Musing?s list be sufficient for you, or would you only accept the entire list?
Krys:
Hmmm. Don?t tell me you?ve already forgotten:
Oh, I know, that doesn?t qualify for what you consider to be name-calling?
karen:
My impression of you is such that if pressed long and hard enough on key issues that threaten the validity of your belief in atheism, you have a tendency to become, if not hostile (though, to be fair, you have tempered it over the years), then certainly caustic in your sarcasm.
Good! I think it?s great that you?re getting more than one Christian perspective. I hope the two of you can develop a close friendship.
jcc
I have a belief in not believing in any gods? You do try to press those buttons, don’t you? Why don’t you just say “threaten the validity of my atheism”? I don’t have a belief “in” atheism. There is nothing there to have a belief in.
But on to the key issues that threaten its validity. What would those be?
Yes, I have done quite a bit of healing in the last 3 years, and have been more successful in ‘tempering’ those alters who are most definitely hostile to the argument. It’s a unique situation that isn’t best described as simply being ‘hurt’ or ‘disappointed’ by Christianity.
I’ve known these women for over 20 years. I’ve been away on trips with some of them, slept in the same beds with some of them, played tennis with all of them, exchanged gifts with all of them, mourned the loss of friends with all of them. I
think we’re already as close as we’re gonna get.
jcc,
That’s not what I said though. I’m not sure how much more plainly I can state it. In case it helps, I’ll restate my thoughts.
I never accept free will. I only assume it when it comes up. For instance, I approve of the concept of law and punishment and in order to do that I have to assume that free will exists. If free will didn’t exist, then it would be absurd to punish people for crimes they have no control over. So in the interest of avoiding anarchy, I consider the existence of free will to be more likely than a deterministic universe, therefore I assume it when I’m forced to act. But when I engage in metaphysical debates, I can’t fully take that position due to my inability to test it.
My position that it is more likely than a deterministic universe never changes (well, I can’t remember it ever changing).
It may be able to be used as evidence to make that case, I’m not sure of the contents. I have to now ask you just how far ‘off-canon’ are the Apocrypha? Again, I’m not very familiar with them.
Are any of the Apocrypha outright blasphemous in the eyes of the church? If there are some that are, then I’d say you have a point. But if they’re just altered in mundane details, then I’d say they’re preservation doesn’t mean much beyond pointing out the difficulty that the early church had in authenticating them.
I’m not disputing that. The fact that Paul’s and Luke’s writings line up doesn’t affect either of our theories. If Paul had simply told Luke all about his conversion then it makes perfect sense that their writings would agree with minimal differences.
Is it impossible that Paul had a mundane (non-supernatural) vision and then explained it to his traveling partners and from then on dedicated his life to Christianity? Perhaps they ate some tainted bread and Paul had an allergic reaction (a common source of temporary blindness). They then used what they may have known about the teachings attributed to Christ to fill in the gaps and convinced themselves that God had intervened.
Regarding the voice that may or may not have been heard, I do agree that it’s a fairly minor detail, but it does at least reduce the credibility and it serves to point out that even eye-witnesses can disagree. But to the eye-witnesses, that would not have been a minor detail. Hearing God speak would make quite an impression, I would think.
As a side note, this page (http://tinyurl.com/5ynmm) addresses the Christian explanation that you mentioned (search for “PAUL’S CONVERSION”). I would still consider that a contradiction based on the way it has been translated (regardless of whether or not it’s based on eye-witness accounts).
You’re right, it is subjective. This is why there is no ‘right’ way to convert atheists, we’re all individuals and we all require different evidence. I can’t really answer this question until specific pieces of evidence are presented and I can investigate them myself. I realize that’s awfully vague, but nobody ever said that proving the supernatural would be easy.
jcc:
Why, yes I had. Sorry.
I’m tempted to write that 1 on the calendar – jcc corrected me, I was wrong.
1st time for everything, as they say.
Oh, & to top this thread off…drum roll please…
http://tinyurl.com/6oy9e2
Yoko’s winning. Good for her.
Of course, it would’ve tanked w/o her, but it’s pretty sweet.
karen:
I beg to differ. I believe you, like Krys, have made it quite clear on many different occasions that God absolutely does not exist. Since you have no definitive proof of such then you must believe that to be true.
Are you saying there?s nothing to atheism to believe in, or theism to believe in?
The first thing that comes to mind is the notion of absolute morality?abortion and homosexuality?are always hot-button issues for us.
It?s amazing what you can accomplish when you set your mind to a something.
I didn?t mean to say that Christianity caused your hurt, but rather the disappointment you felt in it when it seemed to you to have failed to protect and heal you.
I meant it was good that you?re apparently now discussing your personal beliefs with each other.
jcc
I cannot prove a negative. All evidence leads me to the idea that gods are man-made constructs. If anyone can give me definitive proof of a god’s existence, I can certainly examine it and change my stance. Do you maintain that yours, of all the thousands of gods, is the only one that really exists?
I was referring to atheism, but now that you mention it, since I regard the theisms as mythology, there is nothing there to believe in either.
I’m sorry. I don’t see how these issues threaten the validity of my non-belief in deities. It would seem to me that the only thing that would be threatening would be proof of a god’s existence. Am I missing something?
Yes, isn’t it? But I fear you are being sarcastic, when I have held all along that the wonderful complexities of the mind are what allowed me to survive in the first place.
I never expected it to heal me, but as a child, I did naively pray for protection. I am gradually undoing the harm of broken promises as interpreted by a preschooler by giving her the facts as opposed to fairy tales. And love instead of original sin.
I’ve discussed my personal beliefs with several of these women in the past. One, when I said I was an atheist, simply said, “No, you’re not.” I said, “Yes, I am; have been since I was a teenager.” She said, “You’re too good a person.” Can you imagine if I had said the same things if the conversation had been about her being a Christian? Two of the other women know, and just seem to choose to ignore it and hope it will go away somehow. There is no real in-depth discussion. They are afraid, I think.
alatham:
So are you saying that from your own experiences, you are unable to determine whether your thoughts are simply the deterministic consequence of other thoughts that were themselves the responses to external stimuli, or if they are truly, and in many cases, purely the product of your consciousness? In other words, do you regard this to be a false dichotomy? : Either your consciousness is a manifestation of your thoughts or your thoughts are a manifestation of your consciousness.
To be honest, I haven?t done much research on their content (I?m not Catholic) but this site has some interesting information on them (though it?s not sympathetic to the Catholic point of view, the author has apparently done quite a bit of homework on their origins and content): http://tinyurl.com/4jsszn
No, it?s not impossible, but I?d say it is improbable. But when you follow that up with:
then it becomes even more improbable because of the inconsistency with other NT references to Paul having been personally acquainted and closely associated with the other Apostles. There?s just too much textual corroborating evidence (either intended or not) among the independently written documents that inextricably links Paul personally with the eyewitnesses in the early church.
I understand your skepticism there, but to its credit, don?t multiple accounts from different perspectives also tend to lend credibility to an event?despite the inescapable discordance of some (minor) details? Sure, it includes seemingly conflicting descriptions, but overall, they?re quite consistent on the same primary events: Christ?s life, death, and resurrection. And like I said, I?d rather think the more accounts there are that generally agree are far more trustworthy than only one told from a single perspective (such as the Koran).
Would you rule out the possibility of you ever having an experience that you could not explain by natural means (i.e. the feeling of being imbued by something that you wouldn?t otherwise have been able to do, or arrive at, on your own)?
Krys:
Apology accepted.
karen:
I wasn?t asking you to. I simply stated that you have unequivocally stated that no god or gods exist despite the lack of contrary evidence that would validate such a claim.
And, as I?ve mentioned before, I believe your inventory of acceptable evidence is subjectively discriminatory as a result of your personal history.
I maintain that the God of the Bible is the only one that can logically exist and is the only one to have left credible evidence of His intervention into human history.
I?m confused. You?re on record for asserting that there is no god (which is consistent with the definition of ?strong? atheism) yet, you refuse to acknowledge that form of atheism (one that intrinsically requires one to believe in its veracity) as a belief system.
If absolute morality exists, then existentialism (the philosophical foundation of atheism) cannot be true?that?s the threat; and it?s one we?ve argued at length over.
Evidence for which I?ve offered you here multiple times, in multiple ways, but you continue to reject it on a personally subjective basis.
No, I was quite serious. You said it yourself. Your mind, i.e. your will?not your brain?has been the primary factor in your recovery.
I personally don?t find that to be so outrageous. Are you saying that, in general, from a global perspective, (in the 20th century anyway) that atheism (i.e. thanks to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) has a better reputation than Christianity?
But about the other one you?re discussing it with via email?do you think that doing so will be of benefit for the two of you?
jcc,
Your use of the phrase “in other words” is confusing here because first you present a dichotomy (free will exists vs. free will does not exist; though why you restated it in an even more confusing light is beyond me), and then you say “in other words” and ask me if it’s a false dichotomy. The second question doesn’t follow from the first.
To answer the first question, nothing in my experience has led me to believe that free will exists and nothing has led me to believe that free will does not exist. So I am indeed unable to determine that. I thought I had made that pretty clear, but I can’t read my own writing back objectively, so perhaps I was unclear.
You also asked me if this is a false dichotomy: “Either your consciousness is a manifestation of your thoughts or your thoughts are a manifestation of your consciousness.”
I would need a definition of “consciousness” in order to answer that. Defining “conscience” is one of the biggest philosophical problems out there, I don’t think I’m ready to tackle it. So I can’t answer that question.
At this point I need to point out that I made an error earlier (probably 2 weeks ago at this point). Christianity and a belief in Free Will are compatible in the case that God isn’t actively altering our thoughts. My apologies.
It sounds like you’re saying that because the other apostles accepted Paul, you accept his account as well (am I correct?). I think that only slightly diminishes the idea that Paul may have had a mundane vision. All it requires is that Paul did his research and was a halfway decent actor. I still consider the existence of a supernatural deity far less probable.
Multiple eyewitness accounts (especially when they’re written down years after the fact, as the Bible’s were) only add up if the witnesses were separated and unable to discuss the event afterwards. If 10 people witness an event and 1 of them is certain of what happened and the other 9 are unsure, then that 1 person can pretty easily convince everyone else of their own perspective, especially if the unsure people are not all that bright. In that case, the details will differ, but the major events will all line up with what the 1 person believed.
Even setting aside the uncertainties of the authorship of the Bible, the eyewitness accounts are far from convincing.
No. But just because I can’t explain something by natural means does not mean that something supernatural was involved. That would be an argument from ignorance and/or a jump to conclusions.
jcc
Quickly, as I’m getting ready to go away for the weekend-
I’m with Dawkins on this-99.99% certain, but can’t prove it. I invite any gods existing to strike me dead as I write this to show their existence and ruin my weekend. There simply is no evidence to validate that something ‘isn’t’ there. You must prove to me that it is.
Yet oddly, it aligns very well with what alatham found at ebonmusings. Imagine that. Alatham, ebon, and I must have all had the same traumatic experiences. Or my inventory isn’t all that subjective after all.
“He ” didn’t leave the evidence; fallible men of the time made it up. As said on ebonmusings, and as I’ve said before, if a divine omni being had delivered the word, it should have contained more information than was known at the time.
And logical? How is something that exists outside time and space yet interacts within those realms logical?
I can also state there are no unicorns in my house. But I don’t have any belief in no unicorns.
The other factors being therapy, drugs, hospitalization, time, friends, lots of reading and introspection. No gods involved.
I don;t think absolute morality exists.
See ebonmusiings comment above.
That’s it, drag out Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao. Now am I supposed to counter with the Crusades? Or how about Mother Teresa? That’s keeping it 20th century. And I could drag out the Catholic priests’ sex scandal, the murders and rapes in Africa, American fundamentalist preacher scum.
The point was, she was making a judgement about atheism out of ignorance and bigotry. She had an atheist right in front of her and was denying the fact because she thought I was too good to be one, when in fact, atheists are decent moral people. Of course you don’t find it outrageous. But maybe you could understand if I had countered her remark with, “Well, I thought you were too intelligent to be a Christian.”
No. She abruptly stopped the email exchange after I politely rebuffed her invitation to church services.
jcc,
You said this to Karen:
Can you justify that statement knowing the existence of Christian Existentialists such as Kierkegaard?
Your statement is total BS. Absolute morality and existentialism can easily co-exist unless you redefine either ‘morality’ or ‘existentialism.’
Existentialism is (from wikipedia) “a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to deities or authorities creating it for them.” (Emphasis in original).
Existentialism takes no stance on the existence of a deity, nor does it take a stance on morality.
If you were to redefine morality to require being given a “meaning” then you would have a point. But as it stands, your statement is ridiculous.
Further, atheists are not required to be existentialists. For instance, existentialism requires Free Will, therefore an atheist determinist could certainly not call themselves an existentialist, but they would not be in the wrong calling themselves an atheist.
Stop treating atheism as a philosophical movement, such treatment is patently false. You were unable to prove that statement earlier, so why bring up an erroneous belief again?
J(esus)C(hrist),
Your statement is questionable, however, there is more justification to credit christianity with the invasion, by Geo Duhb Bush (christian), of Iraq.
At the time of the invasion, I lived in a very christian community. There were two christian perspectives; The war with Iraq is necessary to fulfill the will of god-idea and/or christians need to get rid of the muslims. JC, christians put their faith in their fantasy and supported the invasion of Iraq, causing massive destruction and massive unnecessary loss of life.
JC, there may have been someone in the past that killed, claiming atheism as their justification. I don’t know that, if you do could you provide a verifiable statement?
However JC, you know we can find lots of times christian fantasy has been used as justification and/or to gain support for killing. As an example, the US military uses christian fantasy extensively.
JC, would you have us include all the people that have killed and also incidentally were christians.
JC, as you know, christians are disgusting.
Jcc’s a dualist. The important part of his comment was that he italicized ‘mind’ because he believes the mind to be the primary mover and the brain the middle-man between the mind and the body.
I doubt it. As I continue to point out, atheism is a belief, a conclusion. It doesn’t lead to any other thoughts, much less any action. If Jcc wants to know why Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did what they did, a library should suffice.
Before someone jumps on me, I’d just like to correct myself: atheism, while having to do with beliefs, isn’t itself a belief. Its a disbelief (which somehow manages to sound weird to me).
Just to correct something real quick. When Jcc was talking about Karen’s friend’s reaction he was not justifying the reaction, merely saying it was not unexpected given the common theists opinion of atheism.
Still disgusting, but not surprising.
According to Behe, astrology is science.
From the Dover v. Kitzmiller case, under oath, in court:
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that’s correct.
alatham:
Again, I apologize for the delay in responding.
My apologies for belaboring the point, you have indeed answered my question.
Is, ?the state or quality of being aware of oneself? insufficient or too ambiguous for you to use to attempt an answer?
Not a problem, apology accepted.
Yes. But don?t forget that the other Apostles were initially highly skeptical and suspicious of his motives because of his well known prior reputation for persecuting Christians?but clearly his later actions proved his loyalty.
Then he certainly endured considerable hardships (resulting in multiple imprisonments, floggings, stonings and ultimately being executed) as a result of his ?good acting.? What could all that have accomplished for him personally if he knew it was all a sham?
And for most of his life, so did Anthony Flew.
That sounds like a prejudice point of view.
If they (the Apostles) conspired to fabricate the entire scenario, then perhaps you?re correct in what seemed to be your prejudice above. They must not have been very bright, especially considering the fates that befell them all as result of their collusion.
A jump to a conclusion or a conscious experience that transcends comprehension?
Sure. As I understand it, Kierkegaard?s existentialism is no different from that of Nietzsche?s in that both assert existence preceding essence and that man is free from imposed moral values. These are both demonstrably antithetical to orthodox Christian doctrine.
Well, that?s a pithy refutation.
Are these not central tenets to existentialism in all it?s forms?: 1) Personal choices become unique without the necessity of an objective form of truth, and 2) existentialism requires that a person should be forced to choose his/her actions and be responsible for them without the help of laws, ethnic rules, or traditions.
Or, can you please direct me to sources that clearly reject the notion that the individual is ultimately responsible for choosing his/her own code of personal conduct (i.e. morality) in any form of existentialism?
I would argue that existentialism, (in any form) when followed to its logical conclusions, ultimately does require its adherents to take a stance on the existence of a deity?and the same for morality. If one is free to choose one?s moral code under it?s precepts then a moral stance is unequivocally made.
Are you saying the term ?morality? has no commonly accepted, concrete definition?
Superficially, perhaps not. But I would argue that functionally, the vast majority end up behaving as existentialists by default?as evidenced by your own words; you have admitted a lack of certitude in specific intellectual situations (i.e. the existence of free will), therefore, functionally, you assume a default position.
Then how would you characterize it??Can you seriously say that regarding it merely as a ?non-belief in a deity? has virtually no effect on any other personal viewpoints, attitudes or presuppositions?
karen:
Agreeing to the same general criteria as on Ebon?s list doesn?t objectify the individual standards that you individually have to fulfill each requirement?hence the intrinsically subjective nature of each item on that list.
Since you weren?t there, isn?t that ultimately a presupposition on your part?
I know, the prophesies in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel don?t count?it was all made up by fallible men.
How is it not? Does it violate simple set theory?
Yet you seem certain that ?fallible men of the time made [stuff] up [in the Bible].?
Key word there introspection. Could that be an act of your will?
Never would I ever try to rationalize the brutality of the Crusades or all the other events you mentioned that misguided Christians are guilty of, but if we?re talking about which side has outdone the other in racking-up the bigger body count, your side, without question, takes the cake.
And my point was, given the millions who?ve died under the tyranny of atheists compared to the thousands by the hands of ?Christians? over time, I?m not so sure people are as ?ignorant? of your side?s reputation as you think.
And how many times have we been over this? You just said:
so, if that?s true and you?re fine with people choosing their own morality, then why wouldn?t someone be surprised by that?
I believe you?ve alluded to as much quite a lot on this blog (and about me personally, if memory serves).
I suppose, for your sake, it?s a good thing she wasn?t a Muslim who took the Koran literally and had to kill you after unsuccessfully trying to convert you, huh?
jcc,
The original question:
Based on that definition of consciousness, I think that is a valid (but still undetermined) dichotomy. I can’t see any other option unless consciousness and thoughts are separated. But I think they’re inseparable (at least, as far as humans are concerned).
I shouldn’t have used the word ‘actor.’ Paul could certainly have truly believed what he saw. In that case, Paul could have been devout and still never have experienced anything supernatural.
Simply because someone suffers for their beliefs does not validate them.
After all, I would argue that Islamic terrorists believe just as strongly that their deity is personally intervening and are able to convince sympathetic people all the time, but (I hope) you and I both consider those sorts of experiences to be shams. Likewise with Joseph Smith and his posse. Likewise with people who believe Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind. Why is Paul’s conversion more convincing than any other seemingly supernatural experience? Remember that I regard the Bible as a biased source and since we are so far removed from the original source of the writings I find doubting it far more satisfying than trusting it (which is why I put a high importance on extra-biblical evidence).
So?
Absolutely. I don’t think it’s possible to have a point of view that isn’t prejudiced.
Conspiracy is only one possibility of many. I don’t seriously doubt that at least some of them truly believed the things they wrote. But again, people believe all sorts of things that I think are nuts.
If we’re talking about an experience that transcends comprehension, then it’s not (by definition) possible to rationally comprehend it. Ergo, making any hard judgment about this experience is necessarily a jump to conclusions.
But if a “true Christian” is defined as someone who ?[confesses] with [their] lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in [their] heart that God raised him from the dead,? then I don’t consider Kierkegaard’s Christianity to be lacking.
You said that the Bible is up to interpretation. Who decides what can be interpreted figuratively and what must be read literally?
Strong words for strong feelings. I prefer to communicate plainly whenever possible.
#2 is certainly not a central tenet of any form of Existentialism that I’m familiar with (though I would never claim to be an expert). There is nothing to stop Existentialists from using laws or tradition to develop their views if they so choose. For an example, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sartre_and_bad_faith
(specifically the section “Sartre’s Examples”)
Really this concept isn’t much different from your idea that God purposefully limits his own powers to grant us Free Will. I can no longer argue that Christianity and Free Will are incompatible for the same reason that you shouldn’t try to argue that Existentialism and absolute morality are incompatible. It’s a matter of choice, not a matter of the choice being made for you.
Then how is that I am able to agree with Existentialists and still not take a stance on the existence of a deity?
You also said:
But again, even if one is actually free to choose, then why is it impossible to choose to follow an absolute morality?
Well, that may be true, but I could never say for sure. Treating this blog (and me specifically) as accurate portraits of the average atheist leaves a lot to be desired. I know a few atheists who believe that we are slaves to our DNA and are powerless to make choices, but the rest of the atheists I know could be very roughly described as Existentialists.
No, I can not say that a non-belief has no effect on other views. But I can say that non-belief has no universal effect on many, many personality traits. The issue is whether or not atheism is a philosophy, not whether or not it’s an important aspect of a person’s life.
The definition of ‘philosophy’ that we’re using here is something akin to “A system of thought based on logical reasoning and concerning inquiries into the nature of reality, knowledge, or values.” (conflated from answers.com)
Based on that definition, atheism is not a philosophy because it is not a system of thought. There is only one requirement for atheists, we are all over the board when it comes to many other philosophical questions. Atheism is only a subset of an atheist’s personal philosophy.
Perhaps the basis of your argument is your insistence that the question “Does God exist?” is central to the formation of our views as human beings, but I do not agree (which is why we probably won’t see eye to eye on this). Just because your answer to “Does God exist?” is central to your person does not mean that my answer is equally important to me. To me, the question is no more important than “Do unicorns exist?” It simply comes up far more often in conversation.
In the end, if my answer to that question ever changes, I do not expect to undergo any radical personality changes. I’ve known ex-atheists who would agree with that sentiment (in particular, my sister, though just how much of a theist she is now is questionable). The only exception is if I end up adopting particular forms of theism in the future, in that case I may be adopting a whole new philosophy, but that does not mean that my atheism currently comes with a philosophy attached.
jcc,
Allow me to explain why I am not bothered by the fact that Stalin and Mao were atheists. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I do think it’s important that you hear this particular atheist’s reasoning. Keep in mind that I don’t accept atheism as a philosophy while you’re reading this.
Stalin and Mao were almost certainly atheists. I have no intention of denying that. I won’t deny it for the same reason that I can’t deny they were both males in their middle ages when they committed their atrocities, it’s simple fact.
The reason it doesn’t bother me that I am an atheist as well as they were is simple, I don’t think it matters one bit. I think the fact that they were staunch authoritarians was far, far more important to their ideologies than atheism was.
If you look at a list of all the atrocities committed and sort it by religious belief, yes atheism does look bad. Very bad indeed. But if you then take that same list and sort it by authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian the list suddenly becomes much more useful. Almost all the major atrocities have been committed by authoritarians. Remember that correlation does not equal causation, especially when there is another factor which correlates much more strongly.
That is why I’m not bothered that Stalin and I share an atheist label. I’m more more impressed that we don’t share an authoritarian label.
For reference, see this site. It’s from a bunch of Christian apologists and I don’t completely agree with it. But I do agree with their conclusion:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html
alatham:
Have you heard of stories like this one: http://tinyurl.com/3sn2ln ? Would the fact that there is repeatable (not just anecdotal), scientific evidence for this phenomenon among transplant recipients ( http://tinyurl.com/4oagc2 ) make you reconsider your position?
Fair enough.
No, but having done so certainly doesn?t hurt his case though.
Yes. And the interesting connection between those particular groups is quite telling. Each are adherents to ?works-based? religions; i.e. ones that assume that salvation depends on specific deeds, not the divine intervention of its god. Christianity stands alone among religions for it?s distinct lack of such.
Because of who he was?an educated Pharisee and Roman citizen?those two attributes alone lend tremendous credence to his story.
Just pointing out that other atheists (and prominent ones at that) who once shared your mindset have, in light of scientific evidence, changed their minds about theism.
I apologize if this seems too personal, but I?m just curious if you?ve ever experienced anything of that sort?
But if one believes in the resurrection then one must also believe in the existence of the soul?which is irreconcilable with existence preceding essence.
I believe I said the Bible is open for interpretation?to a point. I?m pretty sure I also said it can?t mean what it wasn?t meant to mean.
I believe the larger point of that second tenet was that from the existentialist?s point of view, the individual is not morally, intellectually, or physically obligated to use such laws or traditions?which is not the same as a existentialism?s prohibition of their use.
I disagree. We don?t ?break? God?s moral laws, we break ourselves on them (that is, we?re certainly free to commit adultery?the universe has no apparatus to physically restrain us from doing so, but the objective reality is that there will always be a consequence for doing so?someone else will always be hurt by it)
Not to choose, is in fact, to choose.
Again, we are free to comport ourselves according to whatever moral code we like, however, doing so does not relieve us of whatever objective moral responsibilities we ultimately have.
Would you say that you regard that question as being trivial because if God did exist in your eyes, you cannot attribute omniscience and omnipotence to him?
I believe the phrase, ?never say never? is like abstinence, it works every time it?s tried.
And I would argue that the thirst for totalitarian power is the natural consequence of the abandonment of a higher, objective moral code?a resulting mindset, I believe, that adherence to atheism ultimately fosters.
A) That would usually be considered strong evidence for the argument that consciousness and body are inextricably linked if it weren’t solely based on personal testimony and plagued by confounding variables.
B) One doesn’t normally find a christian who embraces physical reincarnation.
Historically and scripturally, christianity is very much a works based religion. “Show me your faith without works and I’ll show you my faith by my works.” (somewhere in James, I’m about to go to bed)
Isaac Newton was an alchemist, go figure.
I have answered this claim in another thread.
A) Appeals to authority are merely amusing.
B) Anthony Flew is a deist.
C) From what little I’ve read, he doesn’t seem to want to provide any rational for his conversion to theism, which is counter to your ’scientific evidence’ claim.
D) Seriously, appeals to authority are less than impressive. Why not use the arguments that worked for Flew rather than just pointing out he was convinced?
Do psychotic depressive episodes count?(I realize you were asking Alatham, but I thought I’d just throw that out there; the experience is certainly ‘incomprehensible’ at the time; in fact, a lot of things are incomprehensible when you’ve lost touch with reality)
Not if Strong AI holds true. Which may not be applicable considering I have very little idea of what Kierkegaard believes. I’ve also read that there are pantheist christians (or pandeist which is different in a very important way that you can look up if your so inclined). Strange.
What about the word ‘not’ don’t you understand?
‘Objective morality’ is an oxymoron because morality is always dictated by a society.
Present your arguments.
jcc,
I’ve heard of the phenomenon. It’s similar to the old flatworm experiments in the ’60s:
http://www.seaslugforum.net/display.cfm?id=10192
To answer your question, every piece of new evidence makes me reconsider my position. That’s the scientific way. In this case, I’m not sure what this has to do with separating consciousness from thoughts, though the idea that memory may be stored throughout the body is certainly an interesting one. It just goes to show how little we actually know about memory and psychology in general. Casting further doubt is that there are a mere 70 or so case studies compared to the thousands of other who have had transplants and haven’t reported anything like this, it smells like “counting the hits, ignoring the misses.”
True. But examples of people suffering for their beliefs are everywhere.
Only specific sects of Christianity.
Catholicism certainly requires one to make confessions and atone for sins, not merely to believe. I’d consider that “work.”
Philip K. Dick has a similarly extreme conversion story. If you care to read about it, it’s partly explained in his book VALIS. I have to warn you though, it’s difficult to read.
Likewise with Gautama Buddha (assuming he even existed in the first place). According to the stories, he was a prince with three palaces of his own, but he gave them up in order to resign himself to a life of little material wealth.
I’m perfectly aware of that. At this point, I disagree with their conclusions.
I’ve experienced things that I can’t personally explain, but since there is plenty I don’t know, I can’t say if I’ve experienced something that truly transcends comprehension. In order to know for sure, I’d have to be omniscient.
Why is it impossible for a Christian to believe that the human soul is created upon the beginning of life? The distance between negative infinity and positive infinity is just as infinite as the distance between zero and infinity.
I’m not quite sure what your objection is, but I believe it has something to do with Jesus’ soul existing since ‘the beginning’ (since souls are apparently infinite). If that’s true, then why must the human soul fit the same mold as Jesus’ soul?
If that’s not what your objection was, then I’m afraid you’ll have to explain it better.
Who’s deciding (and communicating it perfectly) what the Bible was ‘meant to mean?’
Indeed, but that doesn’t answer the question.
I’ll ask again, why do you believe Existentialism is incompatible with an absolute morality?
What?
This was supposed to explain what you meant in the above quote, but I don’t know what you’re talking about.
You seem to be saying that there are real-world consequences to behaving immorally. I agree. It seems to me that one could then conclude that God didn’t dictate morality, he simply extrapolated it from reality. But what does that have to do with your perceived incompatibility between Existentialism and absolute morality?
So what choice have I made regarding the existence of a deity?
The only choice I’ve made is regarding the making of the decision. I have not made a choice regarding the existence of a deity despite your objection.
Well, assuming an objective morality exists, I agree. But again, that doesn’t answer the question.
No, I regard it as trivial because I haven’t encountered an acceptable way to test any answer to it. The problem is partly compounded by the vagueness of any definition of ‘deity.’ It’s similar to asking “Do snargalumps exist?” The obvious answer is “What’s a snargalump?”
So, I ask myself “what’s a deity?” A being with supernatural powers. Ok, how can we test for supernatural powers? Nobody has come up with a good way to do that, being that they’re supernatural. Oh well, I guess I’ll go discover something else and continue to live my life based only on the most reasonable assumptions I can make given the available evidence. Let me know when something new comes up.
Indeed. I suppose only time will tell, won’t it?
I’d like to hear your argument, but until then, I’ll ask you this: Why is it that not all atheists thirst for totalitarian power? I can think of only a small handful of examples. Almost every atheist I personally know falls into the moderate anti-authoritarian, moderate economic liberal mold. Though there are undoubtedly Ayn Randian types who fall into the staunchly anti-authoritarian, economically libertarian mold (I don’t actually know any of those).