Question for Atheists/Naturalist

[For_The_Kingdom]

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

Now, if I saw cars outside the dentist and the people gathered inside for such...I would probably think they are crazy, or at least, childish in their thinking. Why? Because I don't think a rational adult with common sense can believe in such a thing.

BUT, is that the same way that someone with an atheist perspective will look at us (Church members) who are gathered inside a Church to talk about/worship a geninue belief in God?

Like, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God whatsoever...what do you think about those that do? Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

Some of you on here are probably former believers? Do you sometimes think, "Man, thank goodness I don't have that "God" umbrella over me anymore. I can't believe that I actually BELIEVED that nonsense".

I don't want to fuss or fight...I just want to see your thoughts.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 66 by For_The_Kingdom]

The Bible is the Christian manual for determining what God approves of. Now, of course, the "B" word doesn't do much for you..but I am just answering your question.

Doesn't seem to be working too good then, what with all the denominations and sects and such. Why, up to and during the American Civil War, both sides had people citing the Bible as justification for keeping/getting rid of slavery.

I have evidence that is grounded in good argumentation which justifies why I believe what I believe. Can't say the same for Islam.

And you honestly don't think the ISIS member can't say the same? I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

Then we would have to examine the evidence for the truth value of Islam, and do the same for Christianity...and simply go where the evidence takes us.

I've done so, and my own stance on the conclusion is that neither the Christian or the Muslim/ISIS member present good evidence for their truth claims, whereas the Christian will say of the Muslim/ISIS member that he doesn't have it, and vice versa.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 67 by For_The_Kingdom]

Because the two aren't necessarily incompatible.

So let me get this straight. It's not necessarily incompatible to call someone/thing 'good' while admitting at the same time to not understanding that thing?

See, that is the difference between me and you...we look at God or the concept of God (Christian God) in entirely two different ways.

Sure. Agree to disagree then?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by For_The_Kingdom]

So, if I defined YOU as a necessarily existing being...does it follow that it is possible for you to exist necessarily? No, not at all.

Are you going to try and present us with a formal logical argument (i.e. premises and a conclusion) to prove my existence, but in a pre-amble define me in such a way that I necessarily exist anyway before the argument proper?
Still a cheat.
Necessary existence does not and cannot belong in the definition of the entity that one tries to prove exists using a formal logical argument. Doing so violates the entire purpose of the argument.

The reason human sacrifices weren't allowed was because all humans are sinful, so how can a sinful human give his life for the sins of another human, when he himself is not without sin? Catch my drift?

Jesus' sacrifice was fine and dandy precisely because he was WITHOUT sin...and therefore his sacrifice was SUFFICIENT.

All humans are sinful vs Jesus was without sin. Seems to me Jesus isn't human then?
Also think about the reason you just gave for why human sacrifices weren't allowed. It's not anything to do with it's, yucky, it's harmful, there's no point, it's evil etc...but because humans are sinful.
Meaning that if humans were not sinful, we could sacrifice each other without a problem?

Sorry to hear that.

How do I say this...but are you? I don't mean to sound crass, but what you just said before about Job and his attitude doesn't speak to me that you are actually sorry to hear about my situation with my sisters. Remember, you just said that Job was fine with losing his first batch of children, because he'd see them later in heaven (by the way, I could've sworn that [early?] Jewish belief doesn't involve a heaven or meeting dead loved ones later), suggesting that this is how you see the situation yourself.
If I was to think like you, I shouldn't be sad that I've gone 20 years without seeing my oldest sister because hey...I'll see her again after I die.

Well, why wouldn't it be ok? Again, who made the law that says wife beating isn't ok? They do it all the time in some sects of Islam. It is right to them. On naturalism, anything goes.

Does naturalism promote wife-beating? Funny, didn't hear about that at the last meeting...

Where is this sense of morality coming from? Who told you that wife-beating is wrong? Why?

Wait...I have to be told that Action X is wrong? That's the only validity you'll accept for why someone doesn't do a given action, if they're told to by someone else?

Well, you can probably point to a "story" in your life where you killed a fly or a roach. On a cosmic scale, your life isn't any more "important" than the fly that you killed. If you think your life is more important than the fly, then you are a speciest, believing that your "species" of life is more superior than others, which is the same concept as racism...which is a concept that most morally decent human beings are disgusted with.

My eyebrow is raised at this, because the Bible promotes just that 'speciest' view, in that we humans are supposedly God's most beloved children, so loved that he sent his only begotten son to die for us and all that jazz. Indeed, I've heard from numerous Christian personalities that if we ever do encounter extra-terrestrials (for real), then we cannot consider them as having been saved by Jesus, because Jesus only died for those descended from Adam i.e. humans.
Projection much?

I am obviously appealing to a higher standard than that of my own finite/created standards.

This still doesn't work, because how you do determine that this 'higher standard' is indeed even higher to begin with, while at the same time admitting that you lack any qualification to do so given your own finite created status?
This to me makes as much sense as me declaring that my next door neighbour speaks perfect Swahili and should be allowed to teach it in classes, while admitting that I know not a single word of the language.

Appealing to a higher standard won't work anyway, because then you're just chucking the entire process of moral evaluation out the window and essentially following orders. This is a problem with the way the US has set up its nuclear launch capability. At present, there is a way for US military personnel to verify that orders given to them to launch nukes are indeed given by the president. However, there is no way for them to verify whether the president is sane when he gives those orders. There was a major sacked in the 1970s for asking how he could verify the president's sanity.

If you leave the process of moral evaluation up to some other being, don't do it yourself, how are you any different than a robot? Why are you not taking the risk of evaluating something morally, taking the risk of getting it correct or incorrect?

The question would be; "Did God order his death"...and if the answer is "yes"...then it would be a justified death ordered by the ALMIGHTY.

How does one justify the answer of yes? How does one verify it?

It is not up to me to judge why a person committed an act. If the person is lying on God's name...that is a no-no in Christianity...and that person will be judged accordingly, by God.

No. Stop. That does nothing to answer my question. Pretend right now you're outside and a man steps up to you with a gun. He points the gun at you. He says "God says you have to die".
How do you know whether or not God really has said for you to die? How do you know whether or not God did indeed instruct the shooter to shoot you?
The only correct answer is you don't know. We cannot know. If you reply with some variation of you'd allow the shooter to shoot you, this basically invites any person to shoot another and you'd give them the defence of 'God told me to'.

As an aside, watch this clip from the Atheist Experience (1 min 42 secs long)

Also try this one
(15 mins long) but she gets her point across in the first minute or so
As humans, we hold each other to a standard in pretty much all societies. If someone is being harmed, raped, murdered, we expect other humans to do what they can to try and mitigate it.
I'm not a law expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if Person A rapes/murders Person B while Person C stands there, says or does nothing at all and C is treated as an accessory to the crime.
Also think about what you said. You said that someone can do an action here on Earth and then later, after death, be punished for it. This implies to me that God doesn't intervene on Earth, will only react in the after-life. What does this say about prayer? What about the numerous times people say they've prayed to be saved from this aggressive person and that somehow, God intervened to help them?

Depends on which God we are talking...the one TRUE God (Christian)...or the bootleg, fake version (Islamic).

I am facepalming right now, because you refuse to look at this argument from the ISIS member's point of view. What do you think he'd say about YOU? He'd say the exact same thing. He'd say 'the one TRUE God (Islamic)...or the bootleg, fake version (Christian)'.

Sure...he could have..but he didn't.

So then he's not the executioner.

[For_The_Kingdom]

From where does this moral landscape/foundation come from? And how do we even know if THAT is even right or wrong? There is just no answer to this on naturalism...and if you don't believe in objective moral values..you have absolutely no basis for being judgmental about anything...sure, you can certainly express your opinion, but so can every else. So it is one big cosmic stalemate.

So your argument for a "God" boils down to nothing more than your own personal opinion that there needs to be a cosmic authority to decide what is absolutely right or absolutely wrong?

That's a pretty weak argument for the existence of an absolute authority don't you think?

I mean, your argument itself can't be shown to be anything more than your own personal subjective opinion.

I'd like a response to my post #57, please. I put to much intellectual juice in it for you to completely IGNORE it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 71 by For_The_Kingdom]




[center]The conclusion means everything. Reasoning.. a bit less.
Part One[/center]

I am just telling you what Jesus said...you see, this is Christian theology stuff...and I don't expect this kind of stuff to mean anything to a non-Christian. But to actual believers, it means EVERYTHING.

"It means EVERYTHING."

What you describe is an almost TOTAL bias... that you need to confirm above all else.
You are not describing critical thinking, but ... dogmatic adherence to a belief.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Why are you so intent on abandoning critical thinking to preserve your conclusions?
  
  

____________

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 71 by For_The_Kingdom]

So, if I defined YOU as a necessarily existing being...does it follow that it is possible for you to exist necessarily? No, not at all.

Why not?
Could you demonstrate your reasoning?

Because if it was possible for Blastcat to exist necessarily, it wouldn't be true that Blastcat existence is contingent.

Do you understand how that works, sir?

[For_The_Kingdom]

They tried that defense at Nuremberg... didn't work for them. "Just following orders" doesn't seem to be good enough for modern people.

I guess I am drawing a distinction between "just following orders" from modern people...and "just following orders" from the Almighty Supreme Being of the entire Universe and Everything that Exists.

But I guess some people don't think such a distinction is necessary. *shrugs*

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 85 by For_The_Kingdom]



[center]
Necessary vs. Contingent existence
Part Two[/center]

[Replying to post 71 by For_The_Kingdom]

So, if I defined YOU as a necessarily existing being...does it follow that it is possible for you to exist necessarily? No, not at all.

Why not?
Could you demonstrate your reasoning?

Because if it was possible for Blastcat to exist necessarily, it wouldn't be true that Blastcat existence is contingent.

Do you understand how that works, sir?

What I'm trying to figure out is how you want to make it work.

Ok, so if you DEFINE me as necessary, I can't be contingent.
Got it.

That's what necessary existing means, it's the opposite of contingent
I can't be both if they are opposites.

If you define me as P, then, you are saying that I am P and I can't be ∼P at the very same time without defying the law of contradiction which states that:

" for all propositions P, it is impossible for both P and not P to be true, or symbolically ∼(P · ∼P), in which ∼ means “not� and · means “and�

https://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought


Hope I got this part right.
What comes next?



P.S.

You don't have to call me "sir".
You can just go ahead and call me "Mister Blasctat, sir".

[For_The_Kingdom]

Thank you for saying that. To be honest, I expected you to say that the Hebrews must have disobeyed God, to make their enslavement in Egypt fit in with the later stories we read in the OT about them disobeying him and him letting foreign powers conquer them. However, you didn't. Instead, you say you don't know.
Is this because you didn't think of the answer I expected of you, or because you did but dismissed it for one reason or another? I'm curious as to your thought process here.

LOL. Trust me, I thought of that option, too...but I just don't have a Scriptural basis for going that route.

Poor wording on my part perhaps. I meant that Genesis closes with Joseph being very highly favoured by Pharaoh, it ends, then we cut to the next book of the Bible and there's a new pharaoh who just decides to be evil and enslave the Hebrews.

Point? The new pharaoh was a human being, right? And some human beings can be evil at times, can't they?

Here's the thing. You lack any and all justification for calling something good if you don't know anything about it. I have no reason to believe that the reason is 'good' if you, the person telling me that it was in fact good, admit you know nothing of it.

Well, I don't know or expect to know the reason behind every single act that God either committed/didnt commit...prohibited/unprohibited....permitted/unpermitted.

But what I do know is that I believe that there is a such thing as objective moral values and duties, and I believe that such a belief is only sufficient if there exists a standard that transcends the beliefs/outlook of contingent human beings.

I have independent arguments that back up the idea of a transcendent personal Creator of the Universe...and I don't believe that it is a coincidence that my belief in a transcendent lawgiver correspondes to my evidence in the necessity of a personal Creator.

I don't believe that this is a coincidence. So I feel justified in my belief in a transcendent, personal Creator of the Universe who is the foundation of objective moral values and duties.

Imagine you're handing me a box to me on my birthday, saying that inside the box is the greatest gift one can give to another. I ask excitedly 'what is inside?' and you say '...dunno'. I would say the exact same thing then as I am here.

The approach you take with something that is unknown is that 'oh it must be good'. Me, I take it as a hole in the theology, something that helps expose it for being not so sound after all.

But my approach is based on what I believe to be pretty solid background evidence for Christianity being true. If Christianity is true, then it seems to me that it follows that whatever action that God takes is "good" even if you know know why/how it is good.

And for you to even judge any action that God commits as good or bad, you are casting judgement based upon an unidentified presupposed standard where you don't have a clue as to where it came from or its foundation. You just "have it".

And with that, you've just admitted that slavery is objectively moral.

I am saying that God apparently had a morally sufficient reason for allowing their slavery. Now, as long as it is even merely POSSIBLE for that to be true, then you don't have any basis whatsoever for condemning God's actions as wrong or evil.

Of course, you can then say "well, there could have been a better way for God to do it".

And I will say, "Well, if there was a better way, then God would have done it that way."

I'm constantly hearing from folks like yourself that God is the source of/dictates what is moral/immoral. Well then...slavery is moral. Slavery can be morally justified.

I think you are looking at it the wrong way...first off, by slavery in this context we are talking about forced slavery of innocent people. I don't mean to get technical, but I want to distinguish between the forced slavery of innocent people, and the forced slavery of lets say, prisoners of war.

Those are two different concepts that I think needs to be distinguished. Now, it isn't as if slavery (of innocents) can be "morally justifed" in the sense that it is something that God would command people to do, like "Go to that village and force all of those people into slavery despite their innocence".

No, rather God allows the forced slavery of people for whatever morally sufficient reason that he had/have.

Now, I don't know if you are buying that explanation...but then again, on naturalism, there isn't anything objectively wrong about slavery anyway.

Well in this case, we have a problem of conflicting passages.
Indeed, just a few lines down from what you yourself quote, I see
"Then you must go with the leaders of Israel to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has revealed himself to us. Now allow us to travel three days into the desert to offer sacrifices to the Lord, our God.’" That is indeed the exchange that happens in Chapter 5.

Did it he say that the Hebrews would return after those three days? No.

So I have one of two possible scenarios here
1) The goal all along was for the Hebrews to go into the desert for the three day feast. All that talk about freedom and a promised land was just that...talk.

2) Moses here is being ordered by God to lie. Think about that for a moment. If God can and seemingly does order Moses to lie, where else can this be said to have happened? What does this do the trustworthiness of the Bible?

As I pointed out...God had made it explicitly clear that the plan was for them to exist Egypt to the point of no return. I don't know exactly what was so significant about the "three day journey" for the festival when it was clear that they were to be gone for obviously longer than three days.

Either way...I don't see any issue.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 72 by For_The_Kingdom]




[center]Presuppositional apologetics:
Part Two: Quite possibly maybe YES, and quite possibly maybe NO.[/center]

Oy!

How can we ever forget !
That's not an argument, it's a bald and very bold assertion.

Big deal.
Anyone can make those up.....

Oh yeah, try it.

You want me to TRY to make a a bald, bold, baseless assertion?
I have to wonder why I would want to waste my time doing that?

You don't think I can make things up out of thin air and pretend to you that they are real? There is nothing wrong with my imagination, friend. Oh, and by the way, I used to "try it" when I didn't have a clue how to debate properly. Now.. when I make an assertion, I either back it up with evidence or I admit the error and DROP IT.

If it's possible that necessary beings exist, then they must.

True proposition.

I think you made a hasty assessment of the truth of the proposition, my friend.

The proposition you call "true" above, represents VERY bad reasoning.. I used it as an example of the same fallacious reasoning you have been using with "necessary being" . You should rethink this.

Your thinking is very flawed.

It's actually saying that everything that possibly exists actually exists.

Yeah, it's a tricky bit of logic, for sure.
The word "possible" is tripping you up.

Let me give it a whirl:

1. Everything that possibly exists, may exist, or may not exist.
2. Everything that is possibly necessary might be necessary or might not be necessary.
3. If it's possible that necessary beings exist, then they must does NOT follow from 1 and 2.
4. What would actually follow from 1 and 2 is "If it's possible that necessary beings exist, then they MIGHT necessarily exist, or they might NOT necessarily exist.

We find you here endorsing a quite fallacious bit of reasoning.

If it's possible for matter to exist, then it does.

That is false. Matter is contingent.

You missed the point entirely.
I suggest you re-read my statement.

The two CONTINGENCIES here is matter MIGHT exist, or it might NOT exist. It would not follow that matter MUST exist if it only exists POSSIBLY.

I now have to question if you know how to use the word: "contingency".

I suggest that you start using that dusty old dictionary.
Would be a start.

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IF X EXISTS POSSIBLY THAT X NECESSARILY EXISTS.

I think you completely overlooked the word "possible" in my fallacious statement. ( I used the fallacious statement ONLY to expose the fallaciousness of your reasoning )

If it's possible that you are right, you must be.

Contingent.

I don't know what you mean by that one word answer.
Elaborate.

If you imagine that presuppositional apologetics makes any kind of sense, it does.
Hey, it's at least POSSIBLE.

It's also possible that you are completely over your head.
So by your reasoning, you must be.

All we have to do is to throw in the word "NECESSARY", and were good.

You clearly don't understand the difference between contingent/necessary truths. What a pity.

Discovering ignorance might be a pity for you.
Not for me.

I rejoice when I start learning something new.

But it's not a pity to be ignorant for me even IF I didn't understand the difference between contingent/necessary truths. ( and I thought you were talking about existence, not truth )

When I find out that I'm ignorant of something, I rejoice.
It's a learning opportunity.. nothing at all to be pitied, my friend.

A little bit of learning helps the ignorance immediately.
Not to worry.... If I have doubts, and as a skeptic, you see I ALWAYS DOUBT....that I don't understand something, I will endeavor to investigate.

I might not fully understand the difference.
If true, I should fix that lack of understanding.

Now.. the question is.. could you explain to me what mistake I'm making?

When I use the word "possible" it's a conditional word.

So, IF X is possible, it's also POSSIBLE that X is not possible... The word "possible" means "Possibly YES, and Possibly NO" ...
The word "possible" is just a short cut to those two choices.

The word "possible" is like the word "maybe".. because the word "maybe" really means "Maybe YES and Maybe NO".

Confusing, no?

Language not easy always be.

But I should pay attention if you can help me out with contingent vs. necessary existence. They aren't the most SIMPLE of philosophical terms, after all.. It's quite possible that maybe I don't understand every nuance.


Possibly maybe yes, and maybe possibly no.


I wonder how I am going to find out?