"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"

[ChrisGB]

TheHeretic said:

You keep going on about that debate as though it is the final battle won by the religious. Can you please start telling us which bits of it you are referring to, and why you think anything has been debunked, etc. just saying it doesn't make it so.

I invite you to watch the whole thing, as I have sat through Krauss and Dawkins on something from nothing for 2 hours in response to a post on this thread. I'm slightly aghast at your lack of justice here. (edit: this is a tease, please don't take at face value)

Edited by ChrisGB on Friday 4th May 21:32

[TheHeretic]

ChrisGB said:

I invite you to watch the whole thing, as I have sat through Krauss and Dawkins on something from nothing for 2 hours in response to a post on this thread. I'm slightly aghast at your lack of justice here.

I've already seen it. It was linked to by Carmonk when it was released, but I'm not going to rematch it whenever you appeal to it. At least give a time stamp such as watch from 5:36 onwards, or something.

[ChrisGB]

TheHeretic said:

ChrisGB said:

The quote in the original presents a person suffering with a handicap. Are we to condemn the parents, the grandparents, we might add genes, society, the individual for their bad choices, or whatever for this, as has often been the custom and often still is, or are we to care and in so doing be transformed by the constraints that this care puts upon us in allowing us little free time, no career, a life financially poorer than we would be otherwise etc. By caring, we learn something about God, Jesus is saying, and reveal something of him to others. This is the sense of the text.

When I say I don't follow, it is because I have read your post and don't understand it. If it was plainly obvious, I wouldn't say I don't follow, I am not here to waste my time.

Excuse me if I don't accuse you of talking bullcrap. Here is your original post I was responding to;

Chris said:

This is what the Bible says - when Jesus is asked if a person with a handicap has that handicap because his parents have sinned, Jesus says no, but so that the glory of God can be revealed - in other words the true love that would be daily care or provision of daily care is a beautiful thing, and assisted suicide / old people as a burden etc is a road to dealing with people as objects for one's own convenience, not as a way for them to know they are loved and you to learn love.

...so please do not try to be disingenuous and pretend I am condemning anyone for looking after a loved one. It is an utterly ridiculous thing to say, and you know it. I was responding to your claim that someone is handicapped so the glory of God can be seen. I've even bolded it for you. So, as I said, bad things happen to people, they suffer, and struggle through their lives so they can see the glory of God? If it wasn't for religion seeping through your brain, you would see the ridiculous nature of that idea.

Jesus loves us... Yeah right.

The meaning of my questions to your first reply on this is clear and to be taken at face value - I didn't follow your original post, I am not making that up or winding you up or wasting my time playing games.
My second version of Jesus's quote gets you nearer the original, which you are still free to consult, and makes it clear that while my "so" makes it ambiguous, my second paraphrase doesn't.
In a normal conversation, someone spotting the unintentionally ambiguous nature of my first paraphrase might say Hang on, that sounds like.... Not all this insult and mock offence. I sincerely apologise for writing something open to ambiguity, but I sincerely doubt we will be swapping posts if you just wish to assume bad intentions.

[ChrisGB]

I will refrain from provoking you further TH, we have probably proved to each other's satisfaction that there is no dialogue here.

[TheHeretic]

ChrisGB said:

I will refrain from provoking you further TH, we have probably proved to each other's satisfaction that there is no dialogue here.

Provoking? I was responding to a point you made, and you twice took it to be something completely apart from what I said.

[Sticks.]

vescaegg said:

This sums it up quite nicely

Quick thought. All this does is to say that if there is a god it will behave in a manner which fits my definition of the term. Because it appears not to behave how I think it ought, it therefore doesn't exist.

[TheHeretic]

Sticks. said:

Quick thought. All this does is to say that if there is a god it will behave in a manner which fits my definition of the term. Because it appears not to behave how I think it ought, it therefore doesn't exist.

Not sure about that. It does show that it can be 3 things, assuming the premises are correct. You can decide which it is, or makes most sense.

[ChrisGB]

fluffnik said:

ChrisGB said:

fluffnik said:

There being something is a necessary prerequisite of any question, there need not be a why.

When Bertrand Russell was asked How come there is anything at all rather than nothing? he said You can't ask that.
Hegel thought the great question was Why is there anything? Wittgenstein said that THAT the universe is, is the marvelous thing, not how it is.

That the Universe we inhabit exists is axiomatic.

We do not currently fully understand the origin of our Universe.

We do not and quite possibly cannot know what instantiated our Universe.

We can speculate as to whether whatever instantiated our Universe had a concious purpose but it seems unlikely.

I know that the Universe in concious and self aware because I am, as it would seem are a great many of my fellow beings.

It seems likely that the same physical processes that gave rise to self aware consciousness here will have done so in many of the other places where similar conditions pertain.

There are many unanswered questions out there but that does not mean we need anything supernatural...

I think a reply I just made on a similar point deals with this, but happy to come back to it if I missed something.

On the many other places for consciousness, that is to assume the origin of life here was a commonplace event, and I don't think there is any reason to do so, is there? How did life arise? It's still begging the question to say that because life arose here, life must be common, because we think there are other places where some of the conditions that pertain here also pertain. Isn't it just assuming life arises simply and spontaneously given similar conditions when in fact that is the very thing that needs to be shown about the Earth and that we can't show?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

OK, 431 pages of this nonsense on my computer, so I'm guessing about 8000 posts. About 50 of which were mine before I lost interest.

So......has any atheist found god as a result? Has any religious person lost their faith as a result?

Assuming that the answer is NO, can we call it a day now.

Thanks.

Ps. There is no god, it's a made up load of lies. (runs)

[Huff]

ChrisGB said:

Revelation is the belief that the God deduced from negative theology has communicated something about himself. So for example through philosophy we can argue that what we call God is that perfectly simple which creates and maintains all in being and is being itself, and read in Exodus 3, part of what Christians take as revelation, that the Christian God's name is "I am who am", "I am what I am"

Popeye is God? Cool; all I needs is enough Spinach, an' I's saved.

(OK, yes that bit is fatuous)

The point is: endless circumlocution, poor transliteration and the subjective interpretation essential to Apologetics make for a total lack of convincing argument.

[fluffnik]

ChrisGB said:

On the many other places for consciousness, that is to assume the origin of life here was a commonplace event, and I don't think there is any reason to do so, is there?

I don't see why not.

Physics seems to be consistent across the observable Universe so there's no good reason to expect chemistry and by inference biology to be any different.

We don't have any evidence of extra-terrestrial life yet but equally we have no evidence of any intrinsically earth specific conditions that would prevent it.

It would surprise my if the Universe was not hooching with RNA...

[fluffnik]

ChrisGB said:

fluffnik said:

I don't in any way accept that "God" sidesteps the infinite recursion problem. I just don't see any reason whatsoever that I should.

If I ask How come anything instead of nothing, then any answer about which I could also ask How come that answer instead of nothing, is not really the answer. In other words, I think you can say with absolute confidence that whatever the answer to the How come question is, that answer could not be subject to any regression.

That's as maybe but I don't see how "God" avoids the regression problem.

I don't have an answer to the First Cause issue but I find the eternal deity suggestion utterly uncompelling.

ChrisGB said:

fluffnik said:

Oh, and what is revelation?

Revelation is the belief that the God deduced from negative theology has communicated something about himself. So for example through philosophy we can argue that what we call God is that perfectly simple which creates and maintains all in being and is being itself, and read in Exodus 3, part of what Christians take as revelation, that the Christian God's name is "I am who am", "I am what I am" and "I am the one who is". I'm sure you knew this word, why are you asking me? (This isn't meant to be a gripe, I'm happy to give an answer).

Revelation is another theological concept that I just don't get, I wondered if your take on it might enlighten me.

I'm still unclear how it varies from taking something without evidence on trust.

It all seems much more dodgy trader than divine...

[Strangely Brown]

fluffnik said:

ChrisGB said:

fluffnik said:

I don't in any way accept that "God" sidesteps the infinite recursion problem. I just don't see any reason whatsoever that I should.

If I ask How come anything instead of nothing, then any answer about which I could also ask How come that answer instead of nothing, is not really the answer. In other words, I think you can say with absolute confidence that whatever the answer to the How come question is, that answer could not be subject to any regression.

That's as maybe but I don't see how "God" avoids the regression problem.

If it is possible to accept that God created the universe and that God has always been there, then why not skip a step and say that the universe has always been there? Why is there a need to invent something?

The question of infinite regression will always be there and will always be avoided by religionists.

"It's turtles all the way down!"

Edited by Strangely Brown on Saturday 5th May 10:45

[TheHeretic]

It is their biggest problem, in my opinion, especially when they try to enter a logical, and scientific debate on the issue.

[fluffnik]

ChrisGB said:

fluffnik said:

I am handicapped as a result of my own shabby motorcycling but I love my life and would protect it fiercely if threatened.

...yet I can foresee situations where I might want to leave it, mainly involving (further) loss of autonomy...

I assume from this that all this maximum negative liberty makes you the loudest defender out there of freedom of conscience.

It's a two way street...

...and what do you mean by "negative liberty", I see only positives.

ChrisGB said:

You are writing to your MP appalled at the treatment of the Glasgow midwives, you are even writing to Obama protesting his bill to force employers who think abortion is evil to pay for employee's abortions.

I think it reasonable that civilisation should require a universal health care provision a payroll levy is one way of funding it.

Just because the employer is funding it doesn't mean that they should control the form it takes; would you be happy for JW employers to refuse to fund blood transfusions?

It is of course open to those with an issue to avoid being employers...

ChrisGB said:

I think you see the freely given consent of the individual as the highest expression of moral value, so forcing people to do what they know to be seriously wrong - you are outspoken in your opposition to this?

Consent is very, very important indeed, autonomy more so.

I think it is reasonable for society to place obligations on its members, such as the funding of education and health care.

I think it is far more worrying that we are all compelled to fund the religious indoctrination of children who are unable to give informed consent than health care morally acceptable to its informed and consenting recipient.

ChrisGB said:

My point about law is that it shapes morality. People mistakenly often think that what is allowed in law must be morally acceptable. Think of Nuremberg, I was just following orders - what I did was completely legal, etc. except that no, there is another standard that trumps the law, Nuremberg shows. I don't imagine you disagree here.

All the law does is define what is legal.

I considered and dismissed the idea of a career in the police because I find much of the law morally indefensible...

ChrisGB said:

But your final point sort of proves mine - your will to live depends on your inclination towards life, not on a moral absolute that tells you life is a gift and it ends when it naturally ends, come what may. So once you are, heaven forbid, in a state where you would be easy to manipulate, your continued living will just be, if euthanasia laws are relaxed further, at the whim of others.

I don't think there should be euthanasia without an explicit and rational request, ever.

ChrisGB said:

And to make it clear, what your love of autonomy lacks is any sense of the common good. There are things an individual may do, for example choose to binge on chocolate, that will render him more of a burden to society than a force for good through his diabetes and obesity than if he hadn't.

Tax refined sugar and legalise amphetamines, job jobbed.

There are all sorts of potentially costly activities...

ChrisGB said:

In the strict espousal of maximum negative liberty I think you subscribe to, there can be no mechanism to say this is bad behaviour needing to be avoided. If I have recreational sex with a consenting partner and we are completely honest and free of other attachments that place obligations on us, and then we get pregnant, the resulting abortion is against the common good in refusing to allow any consent to the nascent autonomous individual desirous of its maximum wotsit.

As there are no souls I don't see that the biochemical process that is an embryo has any rights over those of the womb's owner, indeed it disgusts me that some American States will compel women to have cesarean sections.

Conversely, once born I don't think parents have any right to deny a child scientific medicine that works...

[TheHeretic]

The Obama administration has a dispensation for Christian charities, Christian companies, or companies whose role OS to deal specifically with Christians that they do not have to pay for anyone's abortion. These things are often lost in the racquet. It is the same dispensation used in some state legislation.

[ChrisGB]

fluffnik said:

ChrisGB said:

fluffnik said:

I don't in any way accept that "God" sidesteps the infinite recursion problem. I just don't see any reason whatsoever that I should.

If I ask How come anything instead of nothing, then any answer about which I could also ask How come that answer instead of nothing, is not really the answer. In other words, I think you can say with absolute confidence that whatever the answer to the How come question is, that answer could not be subject to any regression.

That's as maybe but I don't see how "God" avoids the regression problem.

I don't have an answer to the First Cause issue but I find the eternal deity suggestion utterly uncompelling.

ChrisGB said:

fluffnik said:

Oh, and what is revelation?

Revelation is the belief that the God deduced from negative theology has communicated something about himself. So for example through philosophy we can argue that what we call God is that perfectly simple which creates and maintains all in being and is being itself, and read in Exodus 3, part of what Christians take as revelation, that the Christian God's name is "I am who am", "I am what I am" and "I am the one who is". I'm sure you knew this word, why are you asking me? (This isn't meant to be a gripe, I'm happy to give an answer).

Revelation is another theological concept that I just don't get, I wondered if your take on it might enlighten me.

I'm still unclear how it varies from taking something without evidence on trust.

It all seems much more dodgy trader than divine...

Forget the label God - whatever the answer to my question, you couldn't regress it, I think this much is clear.

Faith as what comes after reasoning stops, I'd say, rather than on trust but no evidence. Like trusting the person you fall in love with enough to make a promise to stay with them come what may and be faithful until death - you will collect "evidence" before marrying, but then take a step that is beyond reason, a step of faith, trust etc, but based on plenty of good reasons.

[ChrisGB]

fluffnik said:

ChrisGB said:

fluffnik said:

I am handicapped as a result of my own shabby motorcycling but I love my life and would protect it fiercely if threatened.

...yet I can foresee situations where I might want to leave it, mainly involving (further) loss of autonomy...

I assume from this that all this maximum negative liberty makes you the loudest defender out there of freedom of conscience.

It's a two way street...

...and what do you mean by "negative liberty", I see only positives.

ChrisGB said:

You are writing to your MP appalled at the treatment of the Glasgow midwives, you are even writing to Obama protesting his bill to force employers who think abortion is evil to pay for employee's abortions.

I think it reasonable that civilisation should require a universal health care provision a payroll levy is one way of funding it.

Just because the employer is funding it doesn't mean that they should control the form it takes; would you be happy for JW employers to refuse to fund blood transfusions?

It is of course open to those with an issue to avoid being employers...

ChrisGB said:

I think you see the freely given consent of the individual as the highest expression of moral value, so forcing people to do what they know to be seriously wrong - you are outspoken in your opposition to this?

Consent is very, very important indeed, autonomy more so.

I think it is reasonable for society to place obligations on its members, such as the funding of education and health care.

I think it is far more worrying that we are all compelled to fund the religious indoctrination of children who are unable to give informed consent than health care morally acceptable to its informed and consenting recipient.

ChrisGB said:

My point about law is that it shapes morality. People mistakenly often think that what is allowed in law must be morally acceptable. Think of Nuremberg, I was just following orders - what I did was completely legal, etc. except that no, there is another standard that trumps the law, Nuremberg shows. I don't imagine you disagree here.

All the law does is define what is legal.

I considered and dismissed the idea of a career in the police because I find much of the law morally indefensible...

ChrisGB said:

But your final point sort of proves mine - your will to live depends on your inclination towards life, not on a moral absolute that tells you life is a gift and it ends when it naturally ends, come what may. So once you are, heaven forbid, in a state where you would be easy to manipulate, your continued living will just be, if euthanasia laws are relaxed further, at the whim of others.

I don't think there should be euthanasia without an explicit and rational request, ever.

ChrisGB said:

And to make it clear, what your love of autonomy lacks is any sense of the common good. There are things an individual may do, for example choose to binge on chocolate, that will render him more of a burden to society than a force for good through his diabetes and obesity than if he hadn't.

Tax refined sugar and legalise amphetamines, job jobbed.

There are all sorts of potentially costly activities...

ChrisGB said:

In the strict espousal of maximum negative liberty I think you subscribe to, there can be no mechanism to say this is bad behaviour needing to be avoided. If I have recreational sex with a consenting partner and we are completely honest and free of other attachments that place obligations on us, and then we get pregnant, the resulting abortion is against the common good in refusing to allow any consent to the nascent autonomous individual desirous of its maximum wotsit.

As there are no souls I don't see that the biochemical process that is an embryo has any rights over those of the womb's owner, indeed it disgusts me that some American States will compel women to have cesarean sections.

Conversely, once born I don't think parents have any right to deny a child scientific medicine that works...

Maximum equal negative empirical liberty - definition of libertarianism, which I take you to be a follower of.

This line of if you don't like it, don't get involved is not really fair. An employer who finds something evil imposed on him is not going to say OK, I give in, I was wrong to expect you to seek my consent and not impose something evil on me - they are going to fight it. Otherwise, your god of consent only applies to people who are like-minded. This is the totalitarian heart of liberalism.

You seem to say that things you approve of (healthcare paid for by people who think aspects of it are not "care" but killing) can trump consent ("place obligations"), but then things you disapprove of (religion) can't / oughtn't trump consent. Again this is the intolerance of liberalism.

What makes birth the moment when we can no longer kill? A baby cannot consent, why should it have a right to life? Where is consent in an abortion? Why not wait a couple of years and ask the former fetus if it wants to be killed, wouldn't that be fairer?

Abortion is not wrong because of souls or because of religion, it is wrong for exactly the same reason most killing of people is wrong - it deprives the thing killed of all possible future.

[fluffnik]

ChrisGB said:

Faith as what comes after reasoning stops

But reasoning never stops...

[bikemonster]

ChrisGB said:

Abortion is not wrong because of souls or because of religion, it is wrong for exactly the same reason most killing of people is wrong - it deprives the thing killed of all possible future.

How is that different from the denial of millions of possible futures brought about by rubbing one out, or a wet dream, or swimmers n+1 to end or a vasectomy?