(Prolifer)ations 7-8-11
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN and Kelli
As always, we welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Live Action describes President Obama as “the best example of extraordinary pro-choice hubris since Margaret Sanger” but his presidency has spurred the pro-life community to greater action and legislative victories.
- On Facebook, Randy Alcorn has posted video of Scott Klusendorf’s debate with Nadine Strossen at Westmont College. We must be familiar with the arguments and tactics of abortion proponents:
- The Family Research Council urges readers to contact the Chinese embassy calling for an end to the brutalization of attorney Chen Guangcheng and his family. Chen is fighting his country’s one-child policy, which includes forced abortion and sterilization.
- Timmerie’s Blog invites readers to follow the Facebook and Twitter updates from the Survivors 14th Annual ProLife Training Camp, running July 6 – 16. There are several pro-life camp opportunities available this summer.
- Vital Signs points to a blog on the mental and spiritual disconnect of those who participate in premarital sex and abortion but claim to be practicing Christians:A growing number also see no connection between aborting their child and their relationship with God. Just this week, a young woman who attended church and claimed to be a believer stated that her abortion was okay because God would forgive her. When her advocate reminded her that God forgives, but there are consequences for our sinful actions, she became very angry and accused the volunteer of being judgmental.
Perhaps her church has been afraid of the same reaction and been holding back on teaching the sometimes hard truth of the Scriptures. Right and wrong have been watered down in a sea of overemphasis on love and acceptance.
- LTI has a post on worldview and “bumper sticker philosophy”:… [T]he first sticker that caught my eye on one sticker-clad red sedan was a parody of the Christian fish symbol — inside the fish was “DARWIN,” and the fish had stick feet. Just to the right of that sticker were two others (one placed just above the other) that respectively read, “Fight racism” and “Pro-choice.” Uh-oh. The owner of the red sedan was clearly not majoring in metaphysics….
- [T]he “Darwin fish” showed her hand — she was undergirding her ideas with a naturalistic worldview….
Not only that, the sticker… implied that she believed her worldview is better than others. But “better than” depends on an unseen scale of goodness. Naturalism cannot account for goodness, much less better than. According to her worldview, ideas are just the inevitable result of bombarding particles. So ideas can be different, but none can be better than others. The same problem extends to the views implied by the other stickers…. “Fight racism” implies that she thinks it is wrong to discriminate based on physical appearance — skin color, for instance. I agree. But “Pro-choice,” the view that advocates abortion, asserts that discrimination is okay on grounds of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.
Jul.08, 2011 3:30 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“the sticker… implied that she believed her worldview is better than others” – and christians driving around with fish symbols would be doing what?
For the bumper stickers, all I have to say is that people can express their views as they please. Having a Darwin fish doesn’t mean you think your views are better than anyone else’s.
Jesus said “I am THE WAY, The Truth, and the life: No man cometh to the Father but by me” (John 14:6 KJV)
Christians would be telling THE TRUTH, Reality.
That’s not a “world view”…that’s Gods WORD.
Um not everyone is a Christian. And those of us who are not are entitled to express our views too.
Christians would be telling their truth Pamela. That is their ‘world view’. Their belief.
Remember that christians are not in the majority so it’s only a ‘truth’ for some.
Others are just as entitled to display their truth.
I agree with the others about the Darwin fish. I’m an atheist, and I’m also 100% prolife. I like the Darwin fish, I think it’s funny and it expresses my beliefs as an atheist. To me abortion has nothing to do with religion, I don’t oppose abortion because a book tells me to (no disrespect to anyone who is religious, I just don’t agree). I oppose it based on my own morals (yes, atheists can have morals too), as well as simple scientific facts.
I am just amused at the irony of Pamela insisting that what she believes is true, on a post condemning someone else for apparently insisting their beliefs are true.
In my opinion, the Darwin fish is a direct attack on Christian faith, specifically. It is a mocking of a particular faith. Christians who ride around with Christian fish symbols on their car are expressing their Christian faith. The Darwin fish was made to MOCK those people. If you don’t see that, you’re pretty dense.
Maybe Darwinists would care to mock a Muslim symbol next time and see how that goes for them.
For the bumper stickers, all I have to say is that people can express their views as they please. Having a Darwin fish doesn’t mean you think your views are better than anyone else’s.
What it means, Jack, is that the person seeks to mock people of faith – more specifically, Christians. So, I guess having a Darwin fish just means you think your views are better than Christianity.
If Darwinists had their own symbol, it would be a different scenario. Instead, they swiped the Christian fish symbol and changed it to mock the Christian faith.
Attack is a pretty strong word. I don’t think someone having a Darwin fish on their car is attacking Christianity so much as disagreeing and poking fun. People who have those “English only” stickers are not attacking Spanish speakers or Latino/a people necessarily, they are expressing disagreement. Anyway, it’s free expression of ideas, so I really don’t see the big deal.
Very few symbols are actually endemic to any of the religions practiced today. Most of them were swiped somewhere along the way. I really don’t understand why people don’t just shrug it off.
I’ve never met anyone with a Darwin bumper sticker who says Christianity is fine or valid. Every single one that I’ve met has mocked Christianity openly and called Christians ignorant or crazy. They very point of “poking fun” is to say that an idea is silly and less valid than your own idea.
I think it’s more a mocking of creationists than christians per se.
If someone advertises their belief then others are entitled to demonstrate their own.
What about atheist billboards and bus signs which are outright refused display, forced to pay extra fees because of the potential damage, forced to relocate or just plain vandalised.
“I’ve never met anyone with a Darwin bumper sticker who says Christianity is fine or valid. Every single one that I’ve met has mocked Christianity openly and called Christians ignorant or crazy. They very point of “poking fun” is to say that an idea is silly and less valid than your own idea.”
So when Pamela or someone like her says that Christianity is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, no if, ands, or buts about it, that isn’t being disrespectful to us of no faith or other faith? I don’t care, she is entitled to her beliefs, but I hear that all the time. I get told that I am necessarily amoral because I am not a Christian, that I am rebellious, a bad father, blah, blah blah. People are going to argue about beliefs, and Christians can be just as nasty about it. Try to keep a sense of humor about it, I have to else I get really overly angry. It’s just a bumper sticker. It’s just disagreement.
I am just amused at the irony of Pamela insisting that what she believes is true, on a post condemning someone else for apparently insisting their beliefs are true.
Jack, welcome to the neighborhood. ; )
The Chinese Communist Party will not be bothered by protest at their embassy.
Protest at Walmart to get their attention. The US is their biggest customer with Walmart being the largest seller of Chinese goods.
Original item says: “the sticker… implied that she believed her worldview is better than others. . . But “better than” depends on an unseen scale of goodness. Naturalism cannot account for goodness, much less better than. According to her worldview, ideas are just the inevitable result of bombarding particles. So ideas can be different, but none can be better than others.
Reality writes:
“the sticker… implied that she believed her worldview is better than others” – and christians driving around with fish symbols would be doing what?
Reality, once again you’ve spectacularly missed the point. The argument was that an atheist’s support of any world view makes no sense because an atheist can’t believe in any outside objective moral truth. If there is no such truth there is nothing to fight for — or against. It doesn’t make sense for an atheist to be against racism. If nothing exists except random molecules and atoms, then no morality or truth exists, and there is no basis for opposing racism, or anything else.
On the other hand, Christians and others who do believe that things outside of atoms exist, that God exists, a God of reason, because of whom the universe is rational and makes sense, can claim to be making some kind of sense when they say that there is an ultimate right and wrong, or that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. That in itself is not to say that they ARE right, just that it is not logically self-contradictory for them to claim they are right. You still have to decide whether they are right on other grounds.
Get it now? you of all people who are constantly deriding Christians and pro-lifers for having no basis for their beliefs, should get it. Of course, you simply have to constantly ignore the fact that you have no real basis for your own world-view. That is undoubtedly why you have the strange idea that simply contradicting someone is some kind of argument.
Well, if a person did not believe that their worldview was correct, or “better’ than others, I would seriously question why they would hold it. I fail to see why this would be a bad thing.
As far as the fish symbol, I have seen Jewish gefilte fish emblems on cars as well. I don’t see those or Darwin fish as “attacks” on Christianity. Just a play on the Christian symbol that was clever at one time and is just pretty common now.
I have also seen an emblem that was the regular, Christian fish that looked like it was eating or consuming the Darwin fish. Is that one an attack on atheists, or those who believe in evolution? It definitely gave off a more aggressive vibe than any others I’ve seen.
Attack is a pretty strong word. I don’t think someone having a Darwin fish on their car is attacking Christianity so much as disagreeing and poking fun. People who have those “English only” stickers are not attacking Spanish speakers or Latino/a people necessarily, they are expressing disagreement. Anyway, it’s free expression of ideas, so I really don’t see the big deal.
Hey, Darwinists are free to express themselves. But your and Reality’s arguments don’t fly, if Christians are using a traditional Christian symbol on their cars just to identify as Christian. Free expression of ideas and all that. It’s fine. But to adopt a Christian symbol and warp it in order to specifically disrespect those who hold that belief is most definitely a sign that someone in that car is mocking Christianity and Christians. It’s not just “creationists” who use that symbol. The fish doesn’t symbolize “Creationist.” It symbolizes “Christian.” Those who put the Darwin fish on their cars know this and are guilty of intolerance toward Christians.
Attack is a pretty strong word. I don’t think someone having a Darwin fish on their car is attacking Christianity so much as disagreeing and poking fun.
As I said – maybe if Christians weren’t so tolerant of others mocking their beliefs, it would be different. Try mocking Allah with a bumper sticker and see where it gets you. Would you do it? Poking fun at Christianity means you don’t have any respect for Christians. Period.
Typically, the Darwinists/atheists who go to lengths to put mocking symbols on their cars aren’t people I’d want to interact with in daily life, because it’s obvious they can’t show a modicum of respect toward a differing viewpoint.
“The argument was that an atheist’s support of any world view makes no sense because an atheist can’t believe in any outside objective moral truth. If there is no such truth there is nothing to fight for — or against. It doesn’t make sense for an atheist to be against racism. If nothing exists except random molecules and atoms, then no morality or truth exists.”
EXACTLY what I was talking about. How can you be offended over a bumper sticker, and say stuff like that?
I have also seen an emblem that was the regular, Christian fish that looked like it was eating or consuming the Darwin fish. Is that one an attack on atheists, or those who believe in evolution? It definitely gave off a more aggressive vibe than any others I’ve seen.
Len, don’t you think if someone created a counter-attack symbol to someone’s attack on the Christian fish and what it symbolizes that it’s OBVIOUS the Darwin fish was made first?
Well, if a person did not believe that their worldview was correct, or “better’ than others, I would seriously question why they would hold it. I fail to see why this would be a bad thing.
Thank you for saying this. I do believe the Christian worldview is better and more beneficial. I do not believe, however, that I am somehow personally better than anyone else who holds a differing worldview.
“The argument was that an atheist’s support of any world view makes no sense because an atheist can’t believe in any outside objective moral truth” – well, apart from the fact that here again we have someone claiming that their view is the only correct one, there is no ‘outside objective moral truth’. It is subjective because it is subject to change.
There is ‘moral truth’ through intrinsic human thought and development.
There is ‘moral truth’ created and developed by ever-changing societal norms.
And there is ‘moral truth’ which different groups possess according to what their beliefs are.
An atheist’s world view is just as valid as anyone else’s, and more rational.
“The argument was that an atheist’s support of any world view makes no sense because an atheist can’t believe in any outside objective moral truth. If there is no such truth there is nothing to fight for — or against. It doesn’t make sense for an atheist to be against racism. If nothing exists except random molecules and atoms, then no morality or truth exists.”
EXACTLY what I was talking about. How can you be offended over a bumper sticker, and say stuff like that?
Jack, are you saying that naturalism allows for objective morality and absolute truth? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Typically, the naturalist worldview holds the type of value system described in the quote above.
Yes, Kel, of course it’s obvious, but it also implies violence, which the Darwin fish does not. And how are those who display that on their car ANY different or better than atheists or Darwinists who “put mocking symbols on their cars” and “aren’t people I’d want to interact with in daily life, because it’s obvious they can’t show a modicum of respect toward a differing viewpoint.”?
Anyway, it’s not that I care one way or the other. Everyone is free to express their viewpoint on their cars and I don’t particularly care for ANY bumper stickers that are dumb attempts to be clever or poke fun at ANYONE else.
“Hey, Darwinists are free to express themselves. But your and Reality’s arguments don’t fly, if Christians are using a traditional Christian symbol on their cars just to identify as Christian. Free expression of ideas and all that. It’s fine. But to adopt a Christian symbol and warp it in order to specifically disrespect those who hold that belief is most definitely a sign that someone in that car is mocking Christianity and Christians. ”
I really don’t see why it would bother people so much, honestly. If you are right, then you are right. And the rest of us will suffer for not believing in the end. So why the offense, really? I have seen so much satire and derision directed towards non-Christians, even on this blog at times. And I just don’t get it. Why do you care so much if someone thinks what you believe is stupid? Especially if you think that what the believe is stupid.
Thank you for saying this. I do believe the Christian worldview is better and more beneficial. I do not believe, however, that I am somehow personally better than anyone else who holds a differing worldview.
And thank you for saying this! :)
Yes, Kel, of course it’s obvious, but it also implies violence, which the Darwin fish does not.
LOL! Ok. Big fishy eats little fishy. Oooh, cover your eyes, children!! Violence!
And how are those who display that on their car ANY different or better than atheists or Darwinists who “put mocking symbols on their cars” and “aren’t people I’d want to interact with in daily life, because it’s obvious they can’t show a modicum of respect toward a differing viewpoint.”?
I never said they were. But you have to admit, it probably pisses some people off to see a Darwin fish, so those not-so-happy people likely made a symbol expressing their anger toward those who would mock their deeply help faith. Frankly, I can see why they’d be angry. Again, would you care to make an Allah-mocking bumper sticker and see if anyone gets a tad miffed?
Personally, I don’t have any symbols on my car, because I don’t have much faith in the faux “tolerance” of others and don’t want my car keyed up or vandalized. Besides, I don’t think having a fish on your car really matters much at all in the grand scheme of things.
That quote basically boils down to saying those of us who are not Christian have no morals, which is untrue. I definitely have a moral code. I do believe there is objective morality, I am just not sure what it is yet or how to discover it (I am not an atheist, btw, I just think they are characterized very unfairly).
“I do believe the Christian worldview is better and more beneficial.”
“I do not believe, however, that I am somehow personally better than anyone else who holds a differing worldview”
Well since you believe that the view that you hold is better than someone else’s, it would appear that you do.
There is no ‘objective’ morality.
And there is no ‘absolute’ truth.
I really don’t see why it would bother people so much, honestly. If you are right, then you are right. And the rest of us will suffer for not believing in the end. So why the offense, really? I have seen so much satire and derision directed towards non-Christians, even on this blog at times. And I just don’t get it. Why do you care so much if someone thinks what you believe is stupid? Especially if you think that what the believe is stupid.
I don’t think atheists are “stupid.” I just don’t agree with their worldview. It just doesn’t fit at all with what I’ve seen and know to personally be true. I don’t want anyone to “suffer for not believing in the end.” That’s a horrible thought to me. :( I don’t think deriding people of a different worldview gets you anywhere. It just shows you can’t have a logical, respectful discussion with someone. And to me, that’s not showing Christian love. I have atheist friends who have not converted to Christianity, and I have friends who were once atheists who have converted. Did any one of them convert because a Christian berated them? No. But after having many respectful discussions (and after much prayer on Christians’ part!), they chose a different path. I rejoice in that. I don’t rejoice at the thought of anyone suffering in the end.
That quote basically boils down to saying those of us who are not Christian have no morals, which is untrue. I definitely have a moral code. I do believe there is objective morality, I am just not sure what it is yet or how to discover it (I am not an atheist, btw, I just think they are characterized very unfairly).
Jack, I totally believe that you have a moral code. I just don’t think it comes from atheism/agnosticism.
Yeah, Kel, I know the violence thing was a stretch, but I also think those particular symbols are the worst of the bunch.
Personally, I have seen several stickers mocking Islam. Maybe it’s the region I live in, and there is a pretty large Mosque near me. i have no idea if those who display them are ever the victims of Muslim intolerance or not, but they are usually of the “Calvin peeing” variety, which I find particularly distasteful, regardless of what he’s urinating on!
“I don’t think deriding people of a different worldview gets you anywhere. It just shows you can’t have a logical, respectful discussion with someone.”
Agreed. And I didn’t mean that I thought you would be happy about people suffering. I am just wondering why those who believe that there is an afterlife and that they are going there are so bothered by those who disagree and mock. It won’t really matter in the end. You are right that respectful discussions are best, but I just don’t see where all the offense about snarky bumper sticker comes from. I don’t like a lot of things like that, but I try not to take it personally. For example, I live in the south and I am part Latino, and there are a TON of subtly or blatantly racist signs or things of that nature down here. I can either get upset about it or shrug it off.
“Jack, I totally believe that you have a moral code. I just don’t think it comes from atheism/agnosticism.”
I don’t think it does either. However, I have my problems with Christianity that really makes me doubt that it comes from the Christian God. I’m still looking into it though. ;)
Reality, do you believe you are better than everyone who does not hold your atheistic worldview?
Believing/knowing your views are correct does not necessarily mean you believe yourself to be better or superior to others.
Romans 12:3 says, “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment….”
It boils down to the heart of Christianity, reality. It really does.
Philippians 2:3-8 says, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!”
It’s talking about dealing with other believers in Christ in these passages, but I think it translates to dealing with people in general.
Agreed. And I didn’t mean that I thought you would be happy about people suffering. I am just wondering why those who believe that there is an afterlife and that they are going there are so bothered by those who disagree and mock. It won’t really matter in the end. You are right that respectful discussions are best, but I just don’t see where all the offense about snarky bumper sticker comes from. I don’t like a lot of things like that, but I try not to take it personally. For example, I live in the south and I am part Latino, and there are a TON of subtly or blatantly racist signs or things of that nature down here. I can either get upset about it or shrug it off.
Snarky bumper stickers are a sign of a greater problem, I guess.
Hey Jack – if you ever want to talk about those problems you have with Christianity off this forum, my email’s in the right hand sidebar under “Team.” I know you’ve shared your story here about how you grew up and wonder if that may at least be a small reason for your misgivings.
Thank you Kel, you are probably right. Problem of evil and bad experiences make it difficult to look at Christianity objectively. I’m always up to talk to people about religion though, as long as it isn’t mean. :) And I haven’t seen you be mean.
“Reality, do you believe you are better than everyone who does not hold your atheistic worldview?” – no, but why do I constantly hear that my worldview is inferior or not valid compared to the christian version of worldview?
What I hear amounts to “well we know we are right because god tells us so but we’ll allow you to wander in the dark until you see that we are right” – yet your version of the world is far from a majority view.
“Snarky bumper stickers are a sign of a greater problem, I guess” – so is the resistence against and objection to atheist billboards.
I solemnly swear to not be mean. :D
Reality, I don’t know who said those things to you, but it wasn’t me. I don’t believe I’m right just because I read it in a book – I’ve experienced it and lived it – hence, it is my worldview, and it is active. I’m not bothered if my view isn’t the “majority” view. Not in the slightest. As a matter of fact, in a way it reinforces my faith to know that so many are against it. It lines up with what the Bible tells me will happen and how the world will view followers of Christ.
I’m not sure what you mean about “wandering in the dark until you see that we are right.” (?)
If atheists want to have billboards, that is their right, covered under the First Amendment. I would no doubt disagree with their sentiments, but they have a right to their opinions and can state those opinions publicly here in America.
(Me) “The argument was that an atheist’s support of any world view makes no sense because an atheist can’t believe in any outside objective moral truth”
(Reality)– well, apart from the fact that here again we have someone claiming that their view is the only correct one, there is no ‘outside objective moral truth’. It is subjective because it is subject to change.
There is ‘moral truth’ through intrinsic human thought and development.
There is ‘moral truth’ created and developed by ever-changing societal norms.
And there is ‘moral truth’ which different groups possess according to what their beliefs are.
An atheist’s world view is just as valid as anyone else’s, and more rational.
Reality, thanks for remaining so true to form and making all my points for me. Simple contradiction passing for argument is bad enough, but when you do try to argue, it’s actually painful. The only thing I managed to gather from your pile of nonsense was that you think that there is a “subjective” moral truth but not an “objective” one.
To begin with, you don’t even understand what the word “subjective” means. It doesn’t mean, as you see to think “subject to change.” It refers to what is limited to our own feelings and perceptions, what is inside us, rather than to the object thought about, which is outside us. You ended up, perhaps without knowing it, with the relativist credo that “this is true for me.” So we end up in this world with a few billion personal “truths” on every subject. Which pretty much makes nonsense of of any comforting thoughts you you might have about truth coming from “human thought or development” or “societal norms.”
You seem to think that there are “societal norms” that are true at one time and not at another. But you can’t tell if anything is true at any time, if our thoughts are just movements of atoms. Given this proposition, you can’t believe the atheist view is rational, because you can’t even believe in reason. Reason has to be objective. It has to be the same for everyone. If you haven’t got objectivity, you haven’t got reason. No one says “I don’t know about you, but 2+2=4 for me.” And no one else is going to say: “It equals 6 for me.”
But since you apparently do believe in reason, perhaps you can tell me on what grounds you believe in it.
I don’t why I’m asking this — the results are definitely not going to be pretty. I’ll just leave that thought out there and say goodnight.
I have a simple pair of propositions to resolve all of the above issues to everyone’s satisfaction.
And they are?
If the world hates you, you must realise that it hated me before it hated you.
If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you do not belong to the world, because my choice of you has drawn you out of the world, that is why the world hates you.
John15:18-19
Reason has to be objective. It has to be the same for everyone.
And that is why there ARE objective moral truths, even to atheists.
And Jack, you will find most of the Christians here to be nice to atheists, most of the time. It was always my experience.
Lori Pieper: Reason has to be objective. It has to be the same for everyone. If you haven’t got objectivity, you haven’t got reason.
Exactly.
“And there is no ‘absolute’ truth. ”
Is that statement absolutely true, reality?
Darn, I forgot my pair of propositions.
;-)
“There is no objective truth”…reality
Really, reality? Get real!
The only thing that’s painful Lori, is your miscomprehension.
Something is subjective because it is subject to factors including perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires and discoveries. These are all subject to change.
Morals have varied and do vary between societies, times, cultures, history etc. They are subject to change due to the factors which are indicative of subjectiveness.
Therefore, moral truth is subjective because it is subject to change. Or, indeed, it is subject to change because it is subjective.
“You seem to think that there are “societal norms” that are true at one time and not at another” – and that is the case. They also vary between different societies.
“Given this proposition, you can’t believe the atheist view is rational, because you can’t even believe in reason.” – rubbish. I only said that an atheist view is ‘more rational’ than a theist view. This is self-evident.
Show me an ‘absolute truth’ which everyone agrees with, always.
So xalisae, is “Adventure of Huckleberry Finn” one of Mark Twains numerous autobiographies?
“Show me an ‘absolute truth’ which everyone agrees with, always.”
So reality, you seem to be claiming here that
“If there does not exist an absolute truth that everyone agrees with, then absolute truth does not exist.”
Is that absolutely true? Also, if there is nothing that everyone agrees with, how does it follow that absolute truth does not exist? I certainly cannot produce a truth that everyone has ever agreed with. What about the nature of truth follows from this? How are you even going to attempt to make an argument, given that you can’t even produce a statement which is absolutely true?
And remember, you claimed above that “absolute truth does not exist” and in doing so, you made an absolute truth claim. Thus, I ask again; is the claim that “there is no ‘absolute’ truth” an absolute truth?
Oh very good Bobby, very good :-) I like it.
It’s a bit like the statement “everything I say is a lie” isn’t it.
I guess I can’t claim it to be an ‘absolute truth’, but the question is, does that then of itself make it so?
Oh, the ignominy of it all. I’m shattered! Argh, eyesight failing, getting weaker……nah, I’ll just get on with it!
“It’s a bit like the statement “everything I say is a lie” isn’t it.”
Yes, it’s called a self-refuting statement.
“I guess I can’t claim it to be an ‘absolute truth’, but the question is, does that then of itself make it so?”
Okay, so if it isn’t an absolute truth, then there are exceptions to it- that is, there are exceptions to to the proposition “there are no absolute truths.” Hence, there exists at least one absolute truth. Perhaps it is evolution or that atheists are more rational than theists, but whatever it is, one simply cannot hold that there does not exist absolute truth without simultaneously affirming it.
This is good stuff Bobby.
So is the concensus that the only absolute truth is that there is only one absolute truth?
The only absolute truth is that there are no other absolute truths?
Show me an ‘absolute truth’ which everyone agrees with, always.
Reality, as I already pointed out to you above, the truths of mathematics are absolute. Is there any time when 2+2 does not equal 4? Then it is an absolute truth.
Note that an absolute and objective truth doesn’t necessarily mean one that everyone agrees with. It is absolute because it really exists outside of our individual minds with their individual atoms and their individual whims. Granting for the moment your laughably wrong definition of “subjective,” it is not subject to change.
According to the true definition, it is outside each individual “subject” or thinking mind. A mind that is not intelligent or for the moment not rational (say under the influence of alcohol or drugs) may actually say “Two and two are five,” but you’d be ill advised to build a bridge on the basis of this calculation, because it is false, and relying it will ruin the construction. That is why 2+2=4 is an objective truth. It is true whether people think it is or not.
The truths of mathematics are both objective and absolute.
I could say much more about your nonsensical misunderstanding of my words about rationality, but why bother? I doubt you’ll even understand this.
“your laughably wrong definition of “subjective,”” – really?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective?show=0&t=1310351116
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/subjective.html
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/subjective
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective
Really?
“Is there any time when 2+2 does not equal 4?” – try some astrophysics.
“The truths of mathematics are both objective and absolute” – not always.
“I could say much more about your misunderstanding of my nonsensical words about rationality, but why bother?” – there, fixed.
Show me an ‘absolute truth’ which everyone agrees with, always. read the actual words.
Lori: The argument was that an atheist’s support of any world view makes no sense because an atheist can’t believe in any outside objective moral truth. If there is no such truth there is nothing to fight for — or against. It doesn’t make sense for an atheist to be against racism.
An atheist can be as much or more against racism as a theist. If they think it’s wrong, they think it’s wrong, same as for others, regardless of what they might attribute it to.
_____
the truths of mathematics are absolute. Is there any time when 2+2 does not equal 4? Is there any rational person who would disagree with this? Then it is an absolute truth. It is absolute because it really exists outside of our individual minds with their individual atoms and their individual whims.
I agree there are logical and mathematical truths. “If all A are B, and all B are C, we can then say that all A are C,” for example.
2 + 2 = 4 because there are already agreements in place, such as the method of counting, i.e. 2 + 2 = 11 if we go with base 3 rather than base 10.
Really, though, “outside of individual minds” there is no mathematics. Consideration of quantities is internal to the mind, not external to it. Things with physical existence will be there whether or not there is an observer, but mathematics and any counting are processes of sentient minds.
Reality: Show me an ‘absolute truth’ which everyone agrees with, always.
There’s not much, eh? But there is at least, “There is such a thing as consciousness.”
There’s very little we can *truly* prove, but I think the acknowledgment of consciousness is one real a priori deal for us. Maybe the only one?
Reality, are you nuts? Every one of those definitions agrees with mine. None of them says that “subjective” means “subject to change” which is what you said. Of course, you did add that subjective things were subject to person’s opinions, etc., which is correct, but that was not your basic meaning of the word.
My main point was to point out to you that “objective” truth does not mean a truth that everyone agrees with and that your definition is wrong. Simply repeating your definition doesn’t help things.
Doug, I would agree that an atheist can be against racism — but he has to forget his atheist principles to do so. He has to believe in an objective moral truth, which is what just believing something wrong is. How can you believe that and believe nothing exists outside the mind?
Your fooling around with base number system is meaningless, because the actual number relations are the same.
So, Doug tell me – if someone (or everyone) can’t add and thinks that a 2+2 length of bridge girder will fit across 5 feet of bridge space, will the girder fit or not?
Your locating of mathematical truth solely in the mind doesn’t leave any room for the fact that people make mistakes in calculation all the time. If one person thinks a mathematical formula (let’s say it’s much more complicated than 2+2) has one answer and another person thinks it has another answer, who is going to judge which is correct? They both have sentient minds, so according to actions of their sentient minds, both answers are correct, aren’t they? Or does the answer exist outside of anyone’s mind? That’s the only way to judge the rightness or wrongness of the answer.
Something is subjective because it is subject to factors including perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires and discoveries. You say you agree with this Lori. Yes?
These are all subject to change. Do you agree that perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires and discoveries change? Yes or no?
Morals have varied and do vary between societies, times, cultures, history etc. They are subject to change due to the factors which are indicative of subjectiveness.
Therefore, moral truth is subjective because it is subject to change. Or, indeed, it is subject to change because it is subjective. If something is subjective then it must be subject to change because the very factors which define subjective are factors which are subject to change. Do you follow?
“I would agree that an atheist can be against racism — but he has to forget his atheist principles to do so” – how the heck do you come to that conclusion?
“Your fooling around with base number system is meaningless, because the actual number relations are the same.” – yet Doug just showed you that they aren’t necessarily.
“So, Doug tell me – if half the people in the world can’t add and think that a 2+2 length of bridge girder will fit across 5 feet of bridge space, will the girder fit or not?” – I think you’ve missed Doug’s point.
Reality, please take a look at the definition you yourself sent me.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
subjective:
a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b
This is the definition philosophers use when talking about the question of whether reality and truth are subjective or objective. This is the definition you are going to have to use if you want to engage in any rational discussion on this subject.
Until you learn this, there is no point in going on.
Doug, as a correction, I recall that some atheists do believe that some things are objective and outside the mind. It may not match up well with their philosophy, but some atheists do believe in these objective truths. Others who don’t may want to retain objective moral truths, but they usually just forget their atheist beliefs for the moment when they do so.
Wow, you need to ignore 90% of the provided definitions of subjective to try to prove your case?
“This is the definition philosophers use when talking about the question of whether reality and truth are subjective or objective” – prove it.
Even if we do contemplate only what you are trying to say we must, which basically means ‘a perceived reality rather than an independant reality’ are you saying that preceptions do not change?
And I’m still waiting for an explanation for “I would agree that an atheist can be against racism — but he has to forget his atheist principles to do so”
Lori, some atheists and agnostics are looking in this direction for objective morality, without forgetting their principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape
Not saying I agree with it, necessarily, but I think you might be characterizing atheists incorrectly. Some, like Reality, may not believe in objective truth. Others do, and have secular reasons for doing so.
Reality, the definition I offered is not MY definition. It is the one philosophers use for these types of arguments. Look at its opposite, “objective” at the end. In this case, ignoring the other definitions is the right thing to do. Don’t blame me if you came up with the wrong definition. Until you learn to use the right definitions of “subjective” and “objective” for this purpose, you will simply be talking at cross-purposes with everyone you engage in argument with. Exactly as you have been doing. Can you possibly, just once, think and act like a grownup here?
JackBorsch,
Thanks, I hope to have time to investigate those links. I do know of many atheists who believe in objective truth, which is why I issued the correction I did above. I don’t think Doug does though.
You really are struggling to come up with something to negate my argument aren’t you.
I did not say that it was your definition. I asked you to prove that it is the only definition that philosophers use, as you claimed it is.
“Don’t blame me if you came up with the wrong definition.” – how do you get that, given that you agreed with the definitions I gave. “Every one of those definitions agrees with mine.”
Far from talking at cross purposes I find that you are being very selective in what questions you respond to and what supplied information you will act upon. I think that speaks for itself.
And since you have repeatedly avoided the question I will tell you that I am fervently anti-racist and always have been. Yet I do not believe that there is ‘absolute truth’ or ‘objective morality’. And I am atheist.
Great, now you don’t even understand what “talking at cross-purposes” means. Good night!
Reality, for curiosity’s sake…
Since you don’t believe in objective morality, do you believe that there are circumstances where racism is moral? I’m not ragging on you, just curious on how you see the world.
No Jack, I don’t.
I have seen no evidence of any valid reason for racism. Biologically, scientifically, socially etc.
Yes we can have have different facial features, cultures and skin colors. But I see no reason why that makes one better than the other. We have different attributes but that doesn’t make anyone lesser or better.
But that’s my morality. Others have a different moral position on it.
So if someone has a moral position in which they support racism or discrimination, do you think their viewpoint is as valid as yours?
Well I could ask them if they have a valid reason for supporting racism. Do you think they could provide one?
If they were able to provide a true biological, scientific or social reason then I may have to contemplate the validity of their position further. Do you think they would be able to?
I can’t stop someone from being racist, valid or not.
No, I dont think they would be able to provide a valid reason for racism. However, they think their justifications are valid. The racists I know base their bigotry on a whole host of incoherent tripe. But I just wonder how subjective morality would allow you to believe that these people are wrong. Their worldview allows for it.
Yeah, fun stuff indeed!
“So is the concensus that the only absolute truth is that there is only one absolute truth?
The only absolute truth is that there are no other absolute truths?”
Well, no. First of all, it is quite ad hoc to think that it should end at this point. Second, now that we see taht at least one absolute truth exists, we should be more open to the idea that possibly more exist. Third, the proposition “there is only one absolute truth” is another absolute truth which expresses a different truth claim than the other absolute truth claim. So there are at least two absolute truth claims. But that last sentence is also an absolute truth claim, different than teh first two, so we have a third, ad infinitum.
I might then begin to look into the nature of reality. Round earth vs. flat earth, for example. Are you willing to say that it is not absolutely true that the earth is round? Even if we don’t KNOW the best scientific truths, it is still very reasonable to assume that they exist and are out there. Otherwise, what are we doing with science? Is not science the search for ways to describe teh universe in a true sense? I could also point out teh absolute truth that “Reality believes absolutely that absolute truth does not exist.” Any sort of proposition about a person’s beliefs or preferences is an absolute truth in the sense that it is true for everyone regardless of their opinions. True, a person may change his or her beliefs over time, but here and now, it is absolutely true.
In fact, reality, above I see you have been discussing morality with Jack. You seem to be saying that in order for a racist’s opinion to be as valid as yours, they need to have some sort of biological or scientific argument for their racism. But is that an absolute truth- in other words, you seem to be affirming the objectivity of the statement “If you have good scientific and biological justification for holding a moral viewpoint, then your view is legit.” So I’m trying to understand if there are no absolute truths, how one can even claim to critique another;s view in any sort of way that should appeal to teh other person? When you’re trying to show someone else not to be racist, what kinds of things can you say to them if you can’t say any objective truths to them? Are you just appealing to their emotions? It seems that if you want to convince someone not be be racist, you must appeal to something outside yourself that in theory you both can agree upon.
I can actually comment quickly on Sam Harris’s “Moral Landscape.” In his book, Harris begins by DEFINING the good to be whatever contributes to human flourishing. If this is what is the good, then of course science can tell us what is good. The problem is- why believe that we should define the good as human flourishing? How does science tell us that that is what is good? The answer is that it doesn’t and it is a philosophical presupposition. Thus, the ENTIRE PREMISE of Harris’ book is faulty. He “shows” that science can determine what is good by redefining the good. This of course also leads to conclusions like if killing one small infant can save 1000 lives, then it is moral because it contributes to human flourishing.
The problem is that Harris is a junk philosopher who has no business parading around as if he is well educated in philosophy. I might recommend an actual philosopher (who is an atheist) Walter-Sinnott Armostrong’s book “Morality: Without God?” for a more rational look at objective morality from the atheist POV.
“But I just wonder how subjective morality would allow you to believe that these people are wrong” – I think that kind of speaks for itself doesn’t it. My subjective morality and my version of truth says that the evidence shows they are wrong, theirs doesn’t. Does this not underpin that there is no objective morality or absolute truth?
“But that last sentence is also an absolute truth claim, different than teh first two, so we have a third, ad infinitum” – yes, but it’s all pretty much the same one isn’t it.
“you seem to be affirming the objectivity of the statement “If you have good scientific and biological justification for holding a moral viewpoint, then your view is legit.” – not quite, I said that I may have to contemplate the validity of their position further. That doesn’t mean that anything will change.
“It seems that if you want to convince someone not be be racist, you must appeal to something outside yourself that in theory you both can agree upon” – I mentioned social as well as biological and scientific. You and I may see no valid reason to justify racism yet the racist might.That means that there is subjectiveness.
I am not familiar with Harris’s work but from what you say I agree with what you have said based upon what you have stated of his theories. But is that the absolute truth?
Doug, I would agree that an atheist can be against racism — but he has to forget his atheist principles to do so. He has to believe in an objective moral truth, which is what just believing something wrong is. How can you believe that and believe nothing exists outside the mind?
Why would he have to “forget his atheist principles”? Why would he have to believe in objective morality? I’ve never said that “nothing exists outside the mind.” I would say that by definition, morality is subjective and internal to the mind – there has to be “somebody” – some mind there in the first place to care about something, to feel the good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm in relation to something. Doesn’t matter if the subject believes in “higher” beings, deities, etc.
______
Your fooling around with base number system is meaningless, because the actual number relations are the same.
Lori, it’s still “counting,” yes. While the symbol we use for the quantity, be it “4” or “11” really doesn’t matter, it remains an agreed-upon system, a process of sentient minds. It’s still an internal thing.
___
So, Doug tell me – if someone (or everyone) can’t add and thinks that a 2+2 length of bridge girder will fit across 5 feet of bridge space, will the girder fit or not?
No, it’s not going to fit too well. If somebody lays that old girder down in the space, and then hurriedly steps onto it, he’s going to have a Wile E. Coyote moment.
As I said, “Things with physical existence (here, the girder and the bridge space) will be there whether or not there is an observer,” just as the presence of matter and energy isn’t commonly seen as needing “anybody” to “see” it, for it to exist. Yet any consideration of quantity – any measuring or estimating of the lengths, etc., takes place within the mind. Without the mind, there is no count.
_____
Your locating of mathematical truth solely in the mind doesn’t leave any room for the fact that people make mistakes in calculation all the time. If one person thinks a mathematical formula (let’s say it’s much more complicated than 2+2) has one answer and another person thinks it has another answer, who is going to judge which is correct? They both have sentient minds, so according to actions of their sentient minds, both answers are correct, aren’t they? Or does the answer exist outside of anyone’s mind? That’s the only way to judge the rightness or wrongness of the answer.
It doesn’t matter if given people calculate correctly or incorrectly for mathematics to take place in the mind. Without a mind, there never is a mathematical answer in the first place. There can be physical reality without the mind, but any consideration of quantity as it relates to that physical reality can only occur with a mind at work. Without the mind, there is no mathematics and no answers, period, no questions, no replies.
Doug, as a correction, I recall that some atheists do believe that some things are objective and outside the mind. It may not match up well with their philosophy, but some atheists do believe in these objective truths. Others who don’t may want to retain objective moral truths, but they usually just forget their atheist beliefs for the moment when they do so.
Lori, I’ve never really understood why somebody would be an atheist. How in the world can it be stated that there are no gods? Such a thing cannot be proven, so why state it? We can never know such things. My opinion, there. In the end, I think that atheists have a need for their beliefs, just as many people do.
As for “objective things outside the mind,” well – what can we *truly* prove? How do we establish that all our perceived experiences thus far are not akin to a dream, and that we’ll later “wake up” and find out that reality – or at least our new perceptions – are much different? Can’t do that either.
I’m not saying that our existence necessarily *is* a dream as I certainly can’t prove that either. I do assume that there is matter and energy in our universe, and that you, me, and many others are individual minds and bodies. I’m assuming, too (heh) that others are assuming that too. Okay, so all fine and good thus far. And then we come to where the assumptions diverge, and that’s where the arguing begins.
I certainly don’t see any necessary “retaining of objective moral truths” for somebody to be against racism. All that’s required is for them not to like it, to be against it, to feel it makes people suffer needlessly, etc.
I might then begin to look into the nature of reality. Round earth vs. flat earth, for example. Are you willing to say that it is not absolutely true that the earth is round?
Bobby, our earth is a gnarly old girl, or, not to be sexist, a gnarly old dude. Mos’ definitely not perfectly round. But it ain’t too bad.
As far as the stuff about “absolutely true,” I say let’s look at what can be proven without any assumptions. Other than the fact of an entity’s consciousness, what else is there?
____
In his book, Harris begins by DEFINING the good to be whatever contributes to human flourishing. If this is what is the good, then of course science can tell us what is good. The problem is -why believe that we should define the good as human flourishing? How does science tell us that that is what is good? The answer is that it doesn’t and it is a philosophical presupposition. Thus, the ENTIRE PREMISE of Harris’ book is faulty.
Very good, Bobby, and I totally agree. Why people pretend that such presuppositions aren’t in place does not make sense to me.
I also think what you wrote is a good example of how this stuff really works. Yes, if we define what is wanted, then from there we may chart an objective course – that which works toward the stated end. No different than if we say that such-and-such works toward what God wants, what society wants, what is best for Oompa-Loompas, etc.
There has to be something taken as granted, as a given (or on faith), in the beginning, though, and there has to be desire on the part of a mind or minds, before there can be such a thing as morality.
subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Lori, that sure works for me.
“I’ve never really understood why somebody would be an atheist. How in the world can it be stated that there are no gods? Such a thing cannot be proven”
I can only speak for myself Doug, but I shall try to explain. To be slightly flippant before I progress, have you heard of the saying “you and I are both athiest, I just believe in one less god than you do”?
You would agree that the gods which the Greeks vehemently believed in are no longer considered real? Why? Or indeed why not?
Leaving aside all the other gods evoked by a multitude of faiths and sticking to the basic abrahamic version, in this instance christian to be specific; what supporting evidence is there that such a god exists?
Why would such a god exist? What causes people to need faith. “Oh you just have to believe” – why?
If the answer is creation then I find that the overwhelming weight of evidence is against this claim. You and others might not.
Numerous versions, variations, interpretations and translations of the bible still leave us with no more than self-supporting evidence. “god is because the bible says so and the bible is the word of god” is a circular claim.
Miracles, visitations etc. are, in my opinion, no more than desired manifestations of both explained and unexplained phenomona. ‘I don’t know the answer therefore god’.
The generally accepted body of scientific ‘knowledge’ several hundred years ago allowed for the majority of god-causal biblical claims to seem reasonable. Geocentrism etc etc.
Yet over time more of these god-based theories have been shown to be false and as science edges relentlessly forward, the room for god-causal ‘science’ shrinks.
Things which were evangelically espoused as scientific a few hundred years ago no longer are, apart from the odd fringe element.
Maybe we can’t 100% prove the non-existence of any god/s, but when the science shows that all past and current claims for god are unattributable to him/her/them, what then? Do the apologists and accommodationists create some sort of ‘wall theory’ whereby “yes but, yes but, god was outside of all of that and caused it to happen”?
There is no demonstrable evidence for god yet science continues to march towards the conclusive finale.
I recently read of a fringe evangelical (thinks even ardent catholics are satanic monsters because of their biblical interpretation) whose wife fell ill, seriously ill.
He thanked god for light traffic for their journey to hospital.
He thanked god for a quick, easy and convenient parking place at the hospital.
He thanked god that the hospital was quiet enough and well staffed to the extent that his wife received immediate attention.
He thanked god for a good and capable surgeon.
He thanked god for good care in the hospital.
He thanked god for his wife’s complete recovery.
He didn’t thank anyone for his wife falling ill in the first place. Why not?
Was it a test from god? Why test a woman of profound faith and ‘moral purity’.
Did she pass or fail the test by recovering? Or was he being tested? At her expense?
I repeatedly see differing outcomes for identical scenarios and identical outcomes for differing scenarios all being justified as ‘god’s will’.
And if prayer can cure the ill, beat cancer, restore sight etc, how come no-one has regrown a limb?
Doug, you are talking about mathematical calculation (a process) necessarily being in the mind. I don’t doubt that at all.
What I am talking about is that mathematical truths – the answers, that is, the right answers – are outside the mind; they are objective because they are independent of our fallible ways of thinking and perhaps mistaken methods of calculation. We can know and test the answers because we are dealing with relations, with things, that exist in the real world, outside our minds, like up on that bridge.
Forgive me for thinking you a atheist!
(and love that “Wile E. Coyote moment”!)
What I am talking about is that mathematical truths – the answers, that is, the right answers – are outside the mind; they are objective because they are independent of our fallible ways of thinking and perhaps mistaken methods of calculation. We can know and test the answers because we are dealing with relations, with things, that exist in the real world, outside our minds, like up on that bridge.
Lori, agreed that there is physical reality – as with that which exists in our universe, as with the bridge and girder example, and indeed there are truths there which exist outside the mind. I see math and logic as special cases, since it is only in the mind that questions and answers arise in the first place. There need be no connection to anything outside the mind, as with “thought problems.” I’m not really disagreeing with you, above, though – when there is only one correct answer, that a given mind does not see it or agree with it matters not.
Contrast this with morality, where there is no necessary connection with anything external in the first place. It is only in the mind that the moral realm can exist. It is the mind where all the good/bad/right/wrong of morality occurs.
I can only speak for myself Doug, but I shall try to explain. To be slightly flippant before I progress, have you heard of the saying “you and I are both athiest, I just believe in one less god than you do”?
Reality, no, never heard that one. : )
___
You would agree that the gods which the Greeks vehemently believed in are no longer considered real? Why? Or indeed why not?
In the main, yes, certainly, they aren’t believed in now. The “why” of it wasn’t a sure thing beforehand, it’s just the way things have worked out. Given the tendencies for humans to dislike uncertainly and to take things on faith to varying degrees, I think that in the end the number of religions would shrink as some fell by the wayside or were more or less forcibly decreased.
____
Leaving aside all the other gods evoked by a multitude of faiths and sticking to the basic abrahamic version, in this instance christian to be specific; what supporting evidence is there that such a god exists?
Why would such a god exist? What causes people to need faith. “Oh you just have to believe” – why?
If the answer is creation then I find that the overwhelming weight of evidence is against this claim. You and others might not.
“Creation” is no argument for a god or gods. We simply don’t know. Humans tend to have fears – of the unknown, of dying, etc., and many take solace in religion, but this is “on faith” rather than having any objective evidence for it.
____
Numerous versions, variations, interpretations and translations of the bible still leave us with no more than self-supporting evidence. “god is because the bible says so and the bible is the word of god” is a circular claim.
Miracles, visitations etc. are, in my opinion, no more than desired manifestations of both explained and unexplained phenomona. ‘I don’t know the answer therefore god’.
The generally accepted body of scientific ‘knowledge’ several hundred years ago allowed for the majority of god-causal biblical claims to seem reasonable. Geocentrism etc etc.
Yet over time more of these god-based theories have been shown to be false and as science edges relentlessly forward, the room for god-causal ‘science’ shrinks.
Things which were evangelically espoused as scientific a few hundred years ago no longer are, apart from the odd fringe element.
Maybe we can’t 100% prove the non-existence of any god/s, but when the science shows that all past and current claims for god are unattributable to him/her/them, what then? Do the apologists and accommodationists create some sort of ‘wall theory’ whereby “yes but, yes but, god was outside of all of that and caused it to happen”?
There is no demonstrable evidence for god yet science continues to march towards the conclusive finale.
That there will be a necessary conclusion is what I disagree with. Yes, superstitions, myths, fantasies, etc., have been and are being revealed as not reflective of reality, but again – we simply don’t know if there are any “higher” beings than us earthly humans. That some of our ideas about them have now been ruled out still leaves a good bit. I’m saying we may never know.
Also, who knows if “we” or the entire planet, or all known space and matter, for that matter, is an experiment on the part of “higher beings” or even a more-evolved version of ourselves? My problem with atheism is the stating of a fact that we really can’t establish – here too, regardless of all that has happened in what we regard as our past, it is taken on faith that there is no god or gods. Seems to me that if we are really rational about it, then we must be agnostics.
“an experiment on the part of “higher beings” – ah, the white mice theory a la Hitchhikers.
“My problem with atheism is the stating of a fact that we really can’t establish” – and my problem with religion is that there are no facts for it.
Numerous religions and god/s which have come, gone and stayed yet only one consistent discipline of the sciences, hm.
“it is taken on faith that there is no god or gods” – perhaps, but given that so many ‘facts’, theories and beliefs based on religious stories, writings etc. have been debunked I know where I’m placing my bet.
Reality: “an experiment on the part of “higher beings” – ah, the white mice theory a la Hitchhikers.
If so, cool. I read it, but don’t remember that. Really just speculating, but there too – we just don’t know. The idea of a large “simulation game” makes sense to me, but who knows the mind of any “higher beings,” really?
_____
“My problem with atheism is the stating of a fact that we really can’t establish” – and my problem with religion is that there are no facts for it.
Numerous religions and god/s which have come, gone and stayed yet only one consistent discipline of the sciences, hm.
Sure, but does that really matter? Is it like we are a significant way down the road to proving “no gods”? Are we even 1% of the way? And, does it really matter. If we don’t know, we don’t know.
___
“it is taken on faith that there is no god or gods”
– perhaps, but given that so many ‘facts’, theories and beliefs based on religious stories, writings etc. have been debunked I know where I’m placing my bet.
Why have to “place a bet” at all? Again, this speaks to the human dislike of uncertainty, our fears, etc., and to assuage such without real proof is to me, while a definitely human phenomenon, not a sensible one.