|
Barlow posted:Admirable, it takes intellectual courage to be flexible and thoughtful enough to reconsider ones points. Research did not support the argument I was attempting to make and was supporting yours. Might make me reconsider my own stance as well, really.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
Pulling a semantic switcheroo with the definition of "atheist" is almost as tired as theists bringing up Mao and Hitler as black marks on atheism. "Atheist" can mean a person who lacks belief or a person who disbelieves. I'm not familiar with any popular "new atheist" or secular figure who claims to know for a fact that there is no god. Recent common usage in my experience is almost always "a person who lacks belief". Going from your own link, Barlow, Carl Sagan was clearly unwilling to describe himself with the "one who disbelieves" definition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:It's like you didn't even read my argument. Yes, on this planet, there is indeed only one species that acts like we do. But there are billions and billions (:sagan:) of planets out there and the likelihood of some of them having intelligent life seems to get higher every day based off of our observations. These organisms could think and feel similar to how we do, but be based on completely alien biology. We don't even know how intelligence comes to be, and we only have ourselves to study, so it is a fundamentally circular argument to say that "human biology is the only thing that can produce intellect and emotions similar to ours." In the big scale of things, we could actually be quite stupid. I read your argument. In your original post, you start by saying that we have a sample size of 1 when it comes to knowing what an intelligent, emotional being could be like, which is false. Then you contradict yourself by noting the animal kingdom and its other examples of biology than can produce intelligent creatures. From those you somehow conclude that it's too big of an assumption that human biology is the only thing that can produce intellect and emotions similar to ours, but it's a conclusion that does not follow. If you maintain that it does, you'll have to demonstrate it more clearly. I'd start by resolving the contradiction in your premises. Is there any part of that argument I didn't address? You however, didn't read (or if you did, didn't address) the part of my argument where I corrected your simplistic notion of "intelligence" as some sort of nebulous homogeneous concept that a creature could either have or not have, (or at best, have at various levels of strength) which doesn't account for the huge array of types of intelligence displayed by different animals, which are all accidents of their evolutionary history and environment. Based on that notion, you could say that humans have 100% intelligence, chimps 90%, dogs 70%, and worms 0.5%. Based on that misunderstanding, you bring up the billions of planets and likelihood of other beings developing intelligence, as if "having intelligence" is the only thing needed for them to be human-like, and nothing more specific than that. It's as if I made an argument (before worldwide travel) that since other humans on the planet could surely have the ability to learn the Cherokee language (they have the neurology for language after all, and it's a big big planet!), it's too big an assumption to make that there can't be a community in the Middle East that speaks Cherokee. My example of a unique human trait that you explain with selfish gene theory is not the best, but still stands. Competition and kin selection is of course widespread through the animal kingdom, but, again, in different forms. Murderous conquest, rape, and brotherly feelings for those close to you are not literally unique to humans, but still relatively so. Most fish, for example, don't guard territory by killing other fish. If the Christian god was a fish-based god, we would expect the Bible to contain lots of references to squirting out as much semen in your environment as you could. But we wouldn't reasonably expect it to talk about killing the men of neighboring tribes and taking their women as "wives." However, since in reality he's an ape-based god, we do. Irony Be My Shield posted:I don't get why you think this is a relevant argument. Like firstly it only applies to people with a very literal and weird reading of the Bible so it's not remotely universally applicable (I don't think anyone on this forum would subscribe to that kind of interpretation in the first place), and secondly even if people were to accept it for some bizarre reason you haven't really gotten anywhere because there's nothing to stop them from having faith in a supreme being that has a biological component. To your first point, you're flat-out wrong. The majority of mainstream Christianity, not just the literalist section, holds that God is a person of some sort. To your second point, I have no illusions about most of the religious bending to logical conclusions to shape their worldview. However, by forcing the conclusion that they believe in an ape-based god, the small percentage that ARE rational would either have to abandon their belief, show why my conclusion is wrong, or admit that the belief is irrational (which Miltank seems to already have done, by referring to it as "what is already recognized as irrational"). Disinterested posted:
quote:That is, you're assuming [traditionally doctrinal] Christians believe that all human faculties are non-supernatural, which is of course a bit of a mistake when you're dealing with people who believe in souls. I'm not assuming that Christians think that. It's just that that is true, so any of their thoughts that don't comport with that will lead to false conclusions. quote:Re: God being angry: quote:This is 1274. There aren't really many new arguments to be had on this topic. Stop and think for just a second. Chew on the fact that "this topic" is predicated on the basis of moral feelings, emotions, personhood, social inclinations, intelligence, and communication acts, and the likelihood that there have been no discoveries or theory bearing on those topics from the thirteenth century to now, the twenty first. Would you say the same thing about physics, geology, astronomy, or chemistry? vessbot fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Pope Francis is pretty progressive, but he refuses to deal with underlying issues that directly relate to things he wants to tackle like Poverty: He refuses to push updating the Church's stance on contraception, which is a HUGE issue considering their work in Africa, and he is adamantly against Gay Marriage, despite his stance on that we should accept and be kind to gays. Basically, he is okay with you being Gay....as long as you do not be Gay. Extremist sects? I think most Buddhists dont recognize the Dalai Lama as the leader of Buddhism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Holy poo poo you utterly vapid individual. Of course none of it is true. There is no point in a theology without a God, though, so there is no point wading in to a theological argument without making the assumption of a God, still less of wading in to a theological one in Christianity without accepting its basic precepts. Just happily assert you don't believe it instead of trying to wade the gently caress in.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Extremist sects? I don't think most Buddhists recognize the Dalai Lama as the leader of Buddhism. I did not know that? Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
...Because the Dalai Lama has only ever been the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
The thing with Sagan...if we asked him "Do you believe in a god that is personal, impacts peoples lives, cares about the goings on of humans, and exists?" IF he says "I don't know god exists, so no I don't believe" then he's an atheist. I get the feeling from reading a lot of his stuff that this was his position. Am I wrong?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I did not know that? Why is that? There's a lot of different Buddhist groups out there of which Tibetan Buddhism is just one. I'm not sure on the numbers but it probably isn't even one of the biggest ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Of course none of it is true. Um... so we agree then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
zeal posted:...Because the Dalai Lama has only ever been the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists?  That is true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:28
|
|
vessbot posted:Um... so we agree then? Fact checking theology is an idiotic idea and probably one of the single worst trends in atheism, it just leads you down absurd blind alleys where you totally miss the point. You're better off just working on the root; the 'theo' part.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
If you go by the weak/broad definition of "atheism" (which is just as valid as the strong/narrow one, and probably in use by the majority of atheists) then Carl Sagan was an atheist, despite rejecting that label himself (he was clearly using the strong/narrow definition).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Fact checking theology is an idiotic idea and probably one of the single worst trends in atheism, it just leads you down absurd blind alleys where you totally miss the point. You're better off just working on the root; the 'theo' part. Why? Honest question. A huge majority of religious believers think that the conventional religious beliefs are true in the real, factual, objective world, and take theology to support that. You strike me as the type of academic theologian I wrote about in my first post in the thread, who is either in denial about his lay coreligionists actually believing the stuff, or has a reflexive revulsion against those beliefs actually being checked against reality because it would expose their glaring absurdity to the point of killing the enchantment of their traditional, communal, numinous etc. aspects. (This second choice can include atheist theologians like yourself) vessbot fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
If his own words on his identity/beliefs were so unclear, I'm gonna assert that this is resembles taqiyya, and therefore Carl Sagan was actually a secret Muslim 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Holy poo poo you utterly vapid individual. Of course none of it is true. There is no point in a theology without a God, though, so there is no point wading in to a theological argument without making the assumption of a God, still less of wading in to a theological one in Christianity without accepting its basic precepts. Just happily assert you don't believe it instead of trying to wade the gently caress in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Chin posted:If everyone had that much sense these threads would die instantly. I'm glad they don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
I used to think that Daniel Dennett was being somewhat of a pompous prick when he said that religion, in order to survive, requires the maintenance of a veil of ignorance to shield itself from reality. After seeing the reactions to my posts here, I now fully agree with him. A defensive taboo is being raised against fact-checking religion, and being partaken in by non-believing academics who appreciate it.
vessbot fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I used to think that Daniel Dennett was being somewhat of a pompous prick when he said that religion, in order to survive, requires the maintenance of a veil of ignorance to shield itself from reality. After seeing the reactions to my posts here, I now fully agree with him. A defensive taboo is being raised against fact-checking religion, and being partaken in by non-believing academics who appreciate it. You have killed the God, but he doesn't realize it yet 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:07
|
|
vessbot posted:I used to think that Daniel Dennett was being somewhat of a pompous prick when he said that religion, in order to survive, requires the maintenance of a veil of ignorance to shield itself from reality. After seeing the reactions to my posts here, I now fully agree with him. A defensive taboo is being raised against fact-checking religion, and being partaken in by non-believing academics who appreciate it. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
OK then why do you bristle at the fact-checking of religion? Don't say "that's not the point of it" because you'd be wrong in implying that the religious don't hold their beliefs to be factually true.
vessbot fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Presumably none of them are itt (even kyrie doesn't believe in the literal creation myth, I hope) so using literal factchecking makes as much sense as, I dunno, critiquing Brave New World based on the fact that none of the characters actually existed. Also in Summa it's stated quite clearly that the Bible contains both literal truths and allegorical / analogous truths.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Stop schisming, unbelievers! That's our thing!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Presumably none of them are itt (even kyrie doesn't believe in the literal creation myth, I hope) so using literal factchecking makes as much sense as, I dunno, critiquing Brave New World based on the fact that none of the characters actually existed. You're wrong in implying that the religious don't hold their beliefs to be factually true. (This includes those who are not literalists. For example, the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, does not hold to Biblical literalism and yet still believes in a god who is a person and therefore succumbs to my refutation) vessbot fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Presumably none of them are itt (even kyrie doesn't believe in the literal creation myth, I hope) so using literal factchecking makes as much sense as, I dunno, critiquing Brave New World based on the fact that none of the characters actually existed. If we go by what Kyrie says, the only reason he doesn't belive the creation myth is because he's Catholic and they don't acknowledge the creation idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
vessbot posted:For example, the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is not literalist and yet still believes in a god who is a person and therefore succumbs to my refutation) lol. God, according to Catechism, is a being the essence of which is equal to its existence. It isn't a person, because a person also bears a substance, and therefore is composed of accident as an additional component, which can't be present in God.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You have killed the God, but he doesn't realize it yet 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
vessbot posted:To your first point, you're flat-out wrong. The majority of mainstream Christianity, not just the literalist section, holds that God is a person of some sort. Humans excel over animals by our physical traits, but "excelling" as it is used here is entirely conceptual. There is no scientific basis for what "excelling" might mean, so it cannot be irreducibly tied to physical traits. In the same way that we perceive ourselves to excel over animals on earth we perceive God to excel over us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Specifically: Descriptions of God having bodily parts refer metonymically to his operative power, not to a factual, physical body. This is not a theological peculiarity, it's an every-day sort of turn of phrase, and not being able to comprehend it doesn't speak well of the "critic". Furthermore, when we consider that God made man in his image, and made man to excel above other creation, we must consider what essential property is present in man and not in other things, and which therefore is the cause of man's superiority and likeness to God. It is, in short man's reason and free will. However, these faculties are only present in man in a delegated form, derived from the more perfect abstract forms into the concrete form of an individual person. So what we can say based on this - not much. Only that God's faculty is at least partially similar to reason, but pure and undiluted - and that there is no reason to consider HIm as having a body. However, we can't positively describe His essence in any certain terms, He remains largely unknowable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So what we can say based on this - not much. I gotta take a break and will come back with a full reply later, but basically all the non-fact checkable word salad that's left after fact checking, amounts to this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Let me try a different take on vessbot's argument. There has been a great deal of research done on the link between the brain and personality (which I'll define loosely as a person's emotions, reactions to things, interests, desires, etc). I'm sure most of us have heard of Phineas Gage, a man who suffered severe brain injury that changed who he was as a person. And it seems to be a trend that altering the physical brain - not just by traumatic injury, but also with chemicals/drugs/what have you - alters the person, to some degree. People who say, for instance, "I'm just not the same person when I'm on Prozac" actually mean that literally. We're said to be made in the image of God; perhaps that is not meant that he looks like a human, but certainly that the way we operate reflects the way He does. He's ascribed all sorts of human emotions: anger, jealousy, love, and he is said to desire certain things, like the redemption of the world, and hate certain things, like sin. So I think even Christians would agree that the "image of God" descriptor of humans indicates, at least in part, his "personality" (as defined above). But personality is tied closely with the physical brain, right? I mean, altering the brain alters the personality, and we have no evidence to think it comes from anywhere else. So does this mean God has a brain? I know it seems like a dumb question, and one easily answered by theology: no! God is not made of physical matter like you and me. His "mind" such as it is exists the same way souls exist, separate from the material world. Does that mean, though, that the soul is the essence of who a person is, and not the brain? How can that be, when the brain is seen to effect who someone is as a person so directly? Is the brain, an object of physical matter, somehow able to interact with and effect the soul, an object of nonphysical matter? When we die and the soul is separated from the body, does any "brain-changing" get reversed? To what? What is our neutral, non-affected state? What about a person born with, say, down syndrome, who has never had the "neutral" brain? Do they get "repaired" upon death? To what? Can we really even say it's the same person, then? And what is a "mind" anyway? Is it separate from the brain, or merely an activity the brain performs? All evidence seems to point to the latter - one's mind, like one's personality, is affected by the physical brain. So how can we say God has a "mind" without having a brain? How can we say he has a personality without having a brain when our only conception of personality is a direct product of something physical? Of course, there are also parts of the Bible that clearly indicate the God is meant to have certain human features, like a back, hand, and face, which certainly aren't human-exclusive features, but naming them in that way certainly seems to imply they are human-esque. All this to say that God, at the very least, is meant to be anthropomorphic. Which, to a Christian, is no big deal: God made us to be the top dog of all creatures on Earth, why wouldn't we look like Him? But from an evolutionary perspective, it is quite a perplexing claim: God resembles a species of ape that, in their present form didn't even exist until a scant quarter million years ago? This is what, I think, vessbot is getting at. It seems much more likely that we invented Him. What's that quote? God created man in his image, and man, being appreciative, likewise made God in his?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I gotta take a break and will come back with a full reply later, but basically all the non-fact checkable word salad that's left after fact checking, amounts to this. Yes, and Christians are open about it. That's not a scathing criticism, that's a cornerstone of their faith, you moronic troglodyte.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes, and Christians are open about it. That's not a scathing criticism, that's a cornerstone of their faith, you moronic troglodyte. Well no that's complete bullshit, because Christianity professes a whole host of things it claims to know about God. On one hand the burden of proof is on me to provide those things, but on the other, I'm getting tired and they are trivially easy to look up, and are also ingrained in Western culture. Only someone under delusion, or not arguing in good faith, would claim otherwise in the face of so many overwhelmingly easy to recall examples.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Let me try a different take on vessbot's argument. Even ancient people knew that there was a relation between the physiology of the body and the functioning of the soul. They used therms such as humours, or ascribed changes in spiritual disposition to various changes in levels of physical suffering. They also understood diminished spiritual capabilities due to mental disorders. But in the end, they realized that man isn't perfect in that his soul could function independently and optimally. Furthermore, man is a collection of a limited set of essential properties modified by particular accidental properties of his person, and as such is inherently imperfect even without possible dysfunctions of his body. God, on the other hand, is the ultimate abstraction of all beings, and the origin of all substances. It is crucial to realize that as the origin of things, He is more general than any specific being. When people use terms such as "will" or "hand" in relation to God, they use concepts appropriate for the level of specificity they inhabit. So we have tendency to understand them as if we were describing things on our level, or below it. But in the case of God, we are talking about the most possible generalized meanings of these words. In short: When we say that God" has a hand" we do not say that God has a human quality. It's the very opposite - man has a quality derived from the original essence, which is God. God is the origin of the concept of hand, but in Him it is not demonstrably manifested on the same concrete level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I think even Christians would agree that the "image of God" descriptor of humans indicates, at least in part, his "personality" (as defined above). Personalism, a theological outlook that came out of Boston University in the early 20th century did think God had a personality. A number of other theological views like those of Paul Tillich or Process theology would disagree. As for descriptions of body parts, they were probably written as literal descriptions but most contemporary Jewish and Christian traditions I'm aware of read those as allegorical interpretations of something beyond comprehension. Aquinas is a decent example, remember he regards even the feelings that God has as being simply approximations that the Biblical writers had to resort to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Well no that's complete bullshit, because Christianity professes a whole host of things it claims to know about God. On one hand the burden of proof is on me to provide those things, but on the other, I'm getting tired and they are trivially easy to look up, and are also ingrained in Western culture. Only someone under delusion, or not arguing in good faith, would claim otherwise in the face of so many overwhelmingly easy to recall examples. Christianity encompasses an incredibly broad range of beliefs. Your arguments may carry water with regards to groups that subscribe to literal readings of the Bible, such as Baptists or Pentecostals. However, the largest single denomination in the world, Catholics, do not subscribe to this idea. Arguing that God is necessarily anthropomorphic does not work with Catholics as Catholicism views significant amounts of the Bible through the lens of metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Well no that's complete bullshit, because Christianity professes a whole host of things it claims to know about God. On one hand the burden of proof is on me to provide those things, but on the other, I'm getting tired and they are trivially easy to look up, and are also ingrained in Western culture. Only someone under delusion, or not arguing in good faith, would claim otherwise in the face of so many overwhelmingly easy to recall examples. Why are you hellbent on arguing things of which you are utterly ignorant? quote:It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower. Now the mode of being of things is manifold. For some things have being only in this one individual matter; as all bodies. But others are subsisting natures, not residing in matter at all, which, however, are not their own existence, but receive it; and these are the incorporeal beings, called angels. But to God alone does it belong to be His own subsistent being. Therefore what exists only in individual matter we know naturally, forasmuch as our soul, whereby we know, is the form of certain matter. Now our soul possesses two cognitive powers; one is the act of a corporeal organ, which naturally knows things existing in individual matter; hence sense knows only the singular. But there is another kind of cognitive power in the soul, called the intellect; and this is not the act of any corporeal organ. Wherefore the intellect naturally knows natures which exist only in individual matter; not as they are in such individual matter, but according as they are abstracted therefrom by the considering act of the intellect; hence it follows that through the intellect we can understand these objects as universal; and this is beyond the power of the sense. Now the angelic intellect naturally knows natures that are not in matter; but this is beyond the power of the intellect of our soul in the state of its present life, united as it is to the body. It follows therefore that to know self-subsistent being is natural to the divine intellect alone; and this is beyond the natural power of any created intellect; for no creature is its own existence, forasmuch as its existence is participated. Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God, unless God by His grace unites Himself to the created intellect, as an object made intelligible to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Christianity encompasses an incredibly broad range of beliefs. Your arguments may carry water with regards to groups that subscribe to literal readings of the Bible, such as Baptists or Pentecostals. However, the largest single denomination in the world, Catholics, do not subscribe to this idea. Arguing that God is necessarily anthropomorphic does not work with Catholics as Catholicism views significant amounts of the Bible through the lens of metaphor. I doubt that Vessbot's arguements would even apply to them. Even the most devoted Evangelicals and Pentecostals would not argue that God was literally a man. Their views have issues, but even their cosmology and manner of interpreting scriptures is more complicated than that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
vessbot posted:OK then why do you bristle at the fact-checking of religion? Don't say "that's not the point of it" because you'd be wrong in implying that the religious don't hold their beliefs to be factually true. Trying to convince a person that some of the beams in their theological structure are faulty is pointless when they're operating under the assumption that the entire building is held aloft by magical pixies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
What's the point of the whole "GOD IS AN AEP" tangent anyway? It's stupid to call God an ape regardless; we only call humans apes (which is factually incorrect) when we are trying to be intentionally insulting. If you browbeat a Chrsitian into admitting that God was, in fact, an ape, with the same supernatural qualities attributed to the God whose genus and species was indeterminate, would it invalidate any theological arguments that were previously valid? Just in hopes of this going away, is it possible to convince you that the mammalian brain is not the sole possible source of advanced intellect? Protostomes like the octopus and cuttlefish are considered intelligent, and their brains evolved completely independently of the evolution of brains in Deuterostomes like birds and mammals. A silicon computer chip can make intelligent decisions, even if it's not yet up to snuff compared to an actual human. If intelligence can arise from non-human brains, why can't God's intelligence arise from a non-human brain?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:00
|
|
