Not sure it needs to be a debate, the moderator is merely there to keep everybody honest since each of you accuses the other of trolling/dishonesty.

The problem with deleting uncalled for insults is that each party would have the power to derail the discussion by claiming offence. There is bound to be instances where a perceived insult from one party is not at all perceived as an insult by the other. There will also almost certainly be instances of offence taken where none was intended, which is also not good for discourse.

I think a gentleman’s agreement for each party to try there best to keep it polite is the best you can hope for.
The moderator should for sure spend some time establishing some of the more obviously aggressive or passive aggressive moves each party has made in the past.

Someone said insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. A thread that’s just a replication of this discussion will obviously lead to the same outcome: none, spinning wheels and throwing shade.
Might I suggest a change that might lead to a different outcome, a real discussion perhaps?
Start the thread, but get someone to moderate the debate. Someone whose objectivity you can both be satisfied with. Then try this discussion again.
If you both intend on using rational argumentation there should be nothing for either to fear from having a moderator hold each of you accountable to the other. That should address the problems each of you have expressed about the others discourse.
How about it fellas?

Ok, thanks. :up:

I'll respond without trying to fool you even once. As I said, this is an assumption. It underlies all of science. It hasn't been proven and can't really be. You skepticism is an instance of Hume's problem of induction. How do we know that induction is valid? We know it inductively by observing it's effectiveness. Ditto with the Principle of Relativity. We know it because that's how it's worked so far. — T Clark

Ok, I understand that foundational value of assuming the reliability of of certain laws of physics. Like axioms but so far infallibly reliable.
Does science actually operate under the assumption that the laws of physics will always be the same everywhere and always though?
I thought that science would be open to them changing or operating differently somewhere in the universe, wherever the method takes them. Are you saying that it is necessary for science to assume that anything contradicting those foundational assumptions is erroneous and they should try and find data that supports those foundational assumptions? (That question isn’t meant to be rhetorical or baiting, This isn’t my area so I’m sincerely asking...maybe these foundational assumptions are that important.)
I mentioned quantum mechanics because our understanding of physics breaks down the quantum level, and perhaps naively I thought of the quantum level as somewhere in the universe as well. That would contradict the portions I quoted of yours wouldn’t it?

I wish I could properly respond but I’ve gotten the distinct impression you address me only to fuck with me. You’ll eject, and ignore me as it suits you. Your prerogative, but fool me once shame on you, fool me 8 times shame on me again...lucky number 9 though so I’m afraid not this time sir. :wink:

It is a fundamental assumption of all science that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in our universe, have been the same since the universe began, and will be the same forever. — T Clark

I’m not sure that’s the case...”everywhere in the universe”? ”will be the same forever”?
Aren’t both of those disproven by quantum mechanics? How does science account for variables of what is surely a vast amount of knowledge we do NOT posses about the way the laws of physics work?

Your example is about the nature of the subject, that’s not what cogito ergo some says anything about. It concludes only that there is a subject. A dreamer, a dreamer within a dream, a brain in a vat, a mind in the Matrix...none of those refute cogito ergo sum in any way because cogito ergo sum refers only to the undoubtable subject of ones own experience.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

Note that the word "religious martyr" tends to be applied to anyone who died "for religion", regardless of how they lived prior to that; regardless of the specific of their death (whether it's a bus full of schoolchildren dying in a bomb attack, or whether it's someone who prior to their public execution said some notable religious words); and regardless of who declared their death to be "for religion" (Romans might have killed a lot of Christians, but should we therefore surmise that they were all martyrs for Christianity?). — baker

My point is that it would take a true belief in god in order to sacrifice your life for god. Let’s not get lost in the weeds it should be clear the exact kind of martyr I was talking about.

Some of them are egomaniacs. It's taboo to name names in this category, but surely you can think of some people who are publicly regarded as "saints", but it is also known they had a "dark side", replete with sex and drug scandals, financial shenaningans, and so on.

Some just have nothing left to live for, nothing to lose, so in a last desperate attempt to make sense of their lives, they do something extreme and pin a religious label to it.

Some are pathological altruists.

Some are blackmailed into extreme actions ("We'll kill your family if you don't blow yourself up with this bomb in the middle of a busy public square").

Some are just mentally ill.


These options seem more likely to be the explanations for the cause of religious martyrdom than religiosity. Of course, we can't empirically test this, and the available anecdotal data is limited. — baker

Sure, those are all reasons people might have for blowing themselves up. They don’t seem any more plausible than an actual belief they have that not only justifies but demands that behaviour.
Why are you so sure religiosity isn’t the reason even though that is the reason given AND we can see from the religious texts/religious leaders that they are instructed to do so?
Would you be equally dismissive of the reasons that I gave for any given action? If I told you I post on this forum because I want to practice debating would you suspect I actually was doing it for some other possible reason you can come up with?

Well I can respect that your on a spiritual journey of some kind, but I’ve never found any such beliefs to be convincing of their truth. Ups seem to be searching for meaning, most of us have been there.

Not sure you really answered my question there, but I understand what you are getting at.
What about modern religions? Scientology is newer than Christianity, let’s compare those then. Do you take Scientology more or less seriously than Christianity?

I said that I don't know anyone who does. I suppose there could be religious people who really, genuinely believe what they say. I just haven't met any. — baker

You’ve never heard of religious martyrs? Suicide bombers? You think these people don’t really believe in god and rewards of gods afterlife?
Why do you think they do it then? What is the reason why they are sacrificing their lives and claiming they do it because god wants them to?

If you meet someone who believes Apollo pulls the sun across the sky you don’t think of that belief as foolish?
Have you ever heard the expression to keep an open mind but not so open your brain falls out?
Do you really think of belief in Zeus as on the same footing as Christianity? You take them both to be more or less equally justified/legitimate?
I understand the desire to be open to everyone’s way of looking at things but there must be limits or you will end up talking nonsense. Some beliefs are just ignorant and erroneous.

Why do we think of believing in Zeus to be somewhat silly but not so for Christianity if they are both legitimate beliefs from the same source?

I’m having trouble with what exactly you are asking...are you basically asking if there is a commonality between all the different definitions of reality? Or am I getting that wrong?

We are all devastated.

Ha. Every once in a while you right something worth reading. Succinct and amusing.

Alright well if you will not respond to points against you then you have opted out of having a discussion and I won’t waste my time.

:up:

Have you ever questioned that your attachment to logic and science is emotional as well? — Zenny

Yes, I have. I consider it due diligence to question all my positions and attachments that way.

A series of defensive assertions. — Zenny

Lol
Ya, and?
Do you mean a baseless assertion? I provided argument with my assertions, none of which you addressed.

The last point exposes your "rationality" — Zenny

I don’t‘ think so, I think you failed to grasp the point I was making.

The most important thing that a human does is finding a partner and having a Family. And your claiming logic doesn't apply here. So when its something ultra important we turn to irrationality? Or is it that emotions are primary? Why abandon your number one tool,logic,when the going gets tough? — Zenny

It’s only your opinion that the most important thing is partner and family...speaking of baseless assertions. I said logic doesn’t apply when falling in love...you expanded/redefined that to finding a partner and having a family, then you used this thing I did not say to make an argument. That’s called a straw man argument, when you pretend I said something I did not and then argue against that pretend position instead of my actual one. No one said we should turn to irrationality either. Just stop, I’m not your enemy, I’m trying to have an honest discussion on which we disagree. There is no need for you to play “gotcha”.
When it comes to finding a partner and starting a family of course logic is involved. As I said before, logic and emotions are not mutually exclusive. An emotional desire to fix the car at the same time as logic is being applied to actually do it. Having a family requires planning and forethought (well, it should) and most of the time some sort of emotional connection like love.
Lastly, I was talking about falling in love and that isn’t something you have a tool for. Therefore it isn’t something in which I would be abandoning a tool like logic.

Now, I’m not sure why you ignored my actual arguments and instead focused on trying to conjure irrationality on my part but before we get lost in the weeds you should do so. I believe the points you ignored refuted your arguments. Show me where my counterpoints fail.

I think that your point about the Bible being written by humans is important. It does involve considering how it was written is essential. We have to consider what got included and what was excluded. This involves the history of the Church, especially the climate of tension and what were considered to be Gnostic and, thereby cast outside, especially under the authority of Origen.The Gospel of John and his Book of Revelation, somehow made it into the canon of accepted teachings, whereas many other ended up in the collection which was discovered in Nag Hammadi. — Jack Cummins

Sure, there is history and the churches cherry picking to consider but none of that makes the stories any less man made.

But, apart from this we have to consider the migration of ideas, and the way in which ideas in the Old Testament, were drawn from diverse sources, probably including Egyptian ones. It is interesting to see how certain themes and symbolic ideas are similar in Christianity and other religious traditions. — Jack Cummins

Why do we have to consider it? For what purpose?
I mean this is even worse, the made up stories were stolen Friday m other made up stories.
You didn’t answer my question. Zeus, Odin, Ra...are these made up? What’s the difference between them and any other god concept?

However, I do believe that ideas cannot be dismissed simply because they are symbolic, because that is the language of the human psyche. In that way, I don't think that they should be seen as made up. It makes a big difference whether we see the ideas in the Bible, or in the sacred texts of other religions as literal or symbolic, but I think that we could still see the realisation of symbolism as being from a divine source, even if this involves some kind of juxtaposition of these ideas within the human mind. Also, we could ask how much is based on historical facts and how much on the symbolic interpretation of certain facts. Thst is where I think it gets rather difficult. — Jack Cummins

Sure...made up stories that have meaning, even deep meaning. Like most fairy tales. Symbolism...ya, like so many stories do.
It doesn’t seem difficult to me at all. None of that speaks to the truth of religion. Nothing you’ve said indicates to me a divine source.
Why do you think Christianity (for example) has a divine source but not Zeus or Odin?

There is no false equivalence. I said both sets of people ultimately determine this on their beliefs and emotions. Feelings if you will.
Everything you mentioned you do with feelings. You fix your car according to to the beliefs you have. Either do it yourself or if you don't feel able you ask a mechanic. — Zenny

It’s not either or, it’s both. As I said, you experience emotions of course but your emotions are not what you are relying on when you fix your car. Really strong feelings don’t fix a car engine...to fix the car requires logic and rationality. That occurs simultaneous with emotions that a person feels. The reason you have for fixing the car might be emotional, but you aren’t relying on them to actually do it.
The emotions might be present, as they always are with humans, but they are not the means.

What you claim as logic is really memory of a task,plus some creative tinkering and pushed by your desire to fix your car. — Zenny

No, there is memory of the task, “creative tinkering”, a desire to fix the car AND logic. Again, you are trying hard to ignore the presence of logic/rationality so that you can make a false equivalence, to try and take away the very solid ground science has so it can be considered the on the same (sorry, not trying to be rude) feeble basis upon which religion is based. Religion doesn’t give you answers, it gives you place holders for questions to which you have no answers. The correct answer to any questions you think religion answers is “I don’t know”.

Tell me,in meeting a partner do you get a tape measure and engage in dialectics and a DNA test to assess their suitability? In everyday life,very few use scientific logic or philosophy. — Zenny

Yes, feeling emotions towards someone is an emotional thing. Obviously.
It comes off as pretty disingenuous to use an example like that. It should be obvious that I wasn’t claiming logic motivates people in situations which are explicitly not logical like falling in love.

I think that reason is essential to trying to understand any of the questions underlying religion. I think that it important to be able to step into the perspectives of the people who wrote the religious texts. We are in such a different position of information than certain other eras, but I definitely don't think that the ideas were just made up. I do think that people were searching for answers and, even now, I don't think that science provides all of them. It provides basic models but they should not be taken too concretely, just as literal interpretations of sacred texts often leads to misunderstandings. — Jack Cummins

Of course it was made up...the bible is a man made text. Why would it be any different than other mythology? Zeus, Odin, Ra...these aren’t made up?
Yes religion was a first attempt at finding answers when we didn’t know anything but it wasn’t about the spiritual questions you imply religion is able to answer today...it was answers to many questions science came to answer. What’s going on with that volcano? What’s that big glowing ball of fire and how does it move across the sky? Why has this persons face broken out is sores and growing up blood? Gods, demons, Apollo were the answers religion had...and science gave us better, not made up answers.
You only shift the answers religion is for now because religion has had to give so much ground to science already. All that’s left is the gaps of science, the answers it doesn’t have, for the believer to insert their made up stuff.

I would say either according to their reasoning religion is rational. Or they feel science is not qualified to deal with the human experience and its aspirations. — Zenny

Religion can at times be internally consistent which creates the illusion of rationality, but outside the strict, self serving parameters of religious dogma the reasoning does not hold up.
Also, just because you feel science doesn’t deal with the “human experience” doesn’t mean you should just make up an answer which is what religion does.

Ultimately I think whether a person is religious or not or science based depends on emotional belief factors.
I think rationality in terms of cold logic is a myth.
But that's not to say emotional belief is irrational per se or untruthful. But it can be. There are true beliefs and false beliefs. Deciding which is which is again a personal emotional decision. — Zenny

I just couldn’t disagree more. First, you yourself just submitted that some scientists are religious so obviously it’s not an either/or situation. I’m not sure what you mean by “emotional belief factors” but it sounds like you are trying to draw a classic false equivalence between the basis for believing in religion and the basis for believing in science.
It’s obviously not true that “rationality in terms of cold logic” is a myth. This, if you will forgive me for saying, is an attempt to ignore rationality in order to create legitimacy for religion by taking it away from rationality and by extension science. This is the false equivalence. Religious ideas have no real comparison with science, you know this, admit this and practice this every day in everything except religious ideas. You would never fix your car, plan a route to work, follow a recipe to make a meal, figure something out or any number of things on the basis of personal emotional decisions. You might have some emotions but the tool you rely on is rationality, logic. It’s only for religion this tool is suspended. If you didn’t suspend it, you would come to the conclusion that religion is false.

Not necessarily irrational no...at least no more irrational than anyone else.
I don’t think science inoculates a person against being duped by emotional appeal which is what most religion is. The persons failure of reason on religion doesn’t mean their reason no longer functions.
I would say of these scientist who believe in religion that they are in error to doing so, but I can draw no conclusions about their general rationality.
What do you make of these scientists?

:cool:

I am logging out for tonight, but I am thinking that the main issue to be addressed is the underlying source of consciousness, whether it is explained in religious or scientific terms. — Jack Cummins

Nothing really gets explained religiously, all of its answers are made up. Sure religion claims to have answers but there is no substance to the claim, no power for those answers to be demonstrated because its all imaginary, mythological.
Why would religions answer to consciousness be any different? It will just be made up, like everything else in religion.
No, the answer to your question is actually “neither”. Science nor religion explains consciousness, it is a mystery. Again, religion claims to explain it but it cannot demonstrate that knowledge any more than science can.
As to whether one or the other will eventually give us answers? I’ll bet you anything it will be science, a bet I would have won over and over and over throughout all of history...the first only time religion gives any answer to anything is when it relies on the same basic tool science utilizes: reason. They only get answers right when they apply reason, and do not apply religion.

Nice work - agree. A lot of people who have been socialized into religions seem unable to even hear the definition in order to grasp it and seem willfully culpable of misrepresenting atheism wherever possible in order to trash the idea with some interpretive smear or another. Of course many atheists do similar things to theism, so I guess it's par for the course... — Tom Storm

Yes, dishonest argumentation knows no group boundaries Im afraid.
It’s the nature of the internet too...it’s pretty easy to wiki or google an argument for or against whatever you choose and repeat it without really understanding it. You see it a lot with logical fallacies, people are always making accusations of ad hom or argument from authority without really understanding the fallacy.
It’s strange when you find atheists who are dogmatic about it...you would think coming to atheism requires some thought but alas many come to it through anger at religion as well. Understandable of course given religions horrors but not a sound process.

As to the religious...well they already believe in fairy tales and myths so expecting an honest, straightforward conversation is a long shot from the get go. They have already drawn their conclusion and all argumentation is just a attempt to rationalize that conclusion. This of course is the exact wrong way to come to conclusions.

My own impressions on the link between philosophy and so-called mental illness (depression, suicide, or worse) is that it (the connection between the two) is, inter alia, about how emotionally invested we are in a particular philosophy. At a minimum, becoming involved at the level of feelings with a certain philosophical theory/hypothesis makes one susceptible to all kinds of mental ailments from anger & frustration towards those who hold an opposing view (e.g. theists vs atheists) to total insanity/inanity. — TheMadFool

That doesn’t answer my question. How are you able to tell the difference between philosophy as a cause of those things (anger and frustration to insanity) and other pre-existing conditions (like certain personality types/traits for example) that cause those things?

You have a theory about philosophy as a cause but you haven’t at all demonstrated that it is.

:lol:

Right and breathing kills because every dead person did breathing.
Buddha obviously had some sort of eating disorder I bet that’s what killed him.

As you can see, there are certain areas in philosophy (Nihilism, Absurdism) that have known negative effects on our mental well-being and that, in my humble opinion, if not counteracted with an opposing positive force, this force either itself another philosophical perspective or, as in most cases, Prozac, could lead to matters spiralling out of control until the inevitable happens...suicide. — TheMadFool

How did you determine philosophy of any kind leads to suicide? How have you determined that any philosophy leads to spiralling out of control?

To summarize, in the simplest sense, should books on philosophy carry a statutory warning like cigarette packets do: SMOKING PHILOSOPHY KILLS? — TheMadFool

No, because there is no evidence that philosophy kills. At all.
If you want to lay some instances of mental illness at the feet of philosophy you have to be able to show how you can tell the difference between the philosophical cause and a pre-existing mental illness. How would you be able to tell when it was the philosophy doing it?

I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

Religion is mankind’s first attempt to explain the world around them, born of fear of the unknown. Fear of death is at the foundation of religion and from that fear comes a need for comfort.
So, fear and comfort.

Indeed, and some religions criticize believers who obey religious laws out of fear of punishment or out of hope for a reward. — baker

A red herring I think. These religions that make such criticisms simply fail to recognize that fear of punishment and hope of reward are the basis for their beliefs as well.

Yeah, completely agree. It’s funny how once a drug epidemic started affecting mostly white suburban and rural kids they changed their tune. Yet with the crack epidemic all anyone wanted to do was increase policing, especially in predominantly black neighborhoods. I’m willing to remain open minded about the intent behind these efforts, maybe it’s coincidental, I don’t really know. But it certainly sends the message that we, as a country, care more about white people than other minorities. — Pinprick

Or they care more about a people with money than those without. The crack epidemic was in poor black neighbourhoods, and suburbs are generally doing much better financially.

That said, when it comes to drugs, or laws in general, what I look for first is the justification for prohibiting that act. If that appears reasonable, then I look at whether or not that justification is applied consistently. The justification for banning drugs seems to be because they’re harmful and addictive, at least that’s the primary justification as I see it. That’s true enough, but if all harmful and addictive things should be banned, then McDonald’s should have been shut down a long time ago. So I think the best solution is to try our best to allow each other the liberty to make our own decisions when those decisions only affect ourselves. — Pinprick

Well the research into drugs and drug addiction is showing that it’s less about the drug and more about the person. Trauma is what leads to addiction, not drugs. Everyone who has had surgery has been given opioids yet rarely do people come out of these surgeries craving more. This is because of the setting and reason for taking the drug...if your trying to fill a hole with drugs that’s when you’re going to face addiction.
That’s one of the reasons legalizing drugs is a good thing, that frees us to learn more about them. That’s what we do with all drugs already except the ones arbitrarily deemed dangerous.

Very well put sir.
If you only do the right thing because you are commanded to you are not acting morally, you are acting the slave.

I don’t know why this question has gotten 13 pages of mileage.
Asking if atheists hope there is no god is like asking if atheists like vanilla ice cream. They may or may not, as like their taste in ice cream whether or not they hope god doesn’t exist will vary with each individual.
Hoping whether god exists or not isn’t definitive of atheism, what’s definitive of atheism is whether or not you believe there is a god and that’s it.
Some atheists might like the idea of god bit just are not convinced there actually is one. Other atheists are anti-theists and reject that there being a god is a good thing.

Just asking this question displays an ignorance of what atheism is.

How about a method? — ssu

Wouldn’t the method be the tool?

Well that’s another topic but caring doesn’t seem the sort of thing you need a good argument for. You either care or you don’t, and whether or not you should care about something has no bearing on if you actually do.