Posted on 02/06/2014 1:58:22 PM PST by celmak
On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.
Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?
Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.
Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.
After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You did appeal to a deistic authority in post 305, so it is logical to assume that you have not made it to the third grade! BAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAA !!! Another good one! Keep going... :-}
I think it's a completely valid criticism of belief though, and I think it's provable in that people choose their religions. Even within Christianity, you choose which denomination you want to follow and associate with.
Try this thought experiment...
Is there anything within your faith that you "wish" to not be true? Is there something you "wish" were different?
While I do agree that it can be true for non-belief, most people I know who are non-believers tend to say "I wish there was a God and a Heaven, but I just don't see evidence for it."
I don't think it's to the same degree, because if you asked most non-believers if they "wished" that it was all over after you die, I'd assume most of them would say no, and that it would be great to have a relaxing eternal paradise.
If God doesn’t exist, you can do whatever you want.
Well, this is a great theory, but it's just not true. It might make sense in a classroom (just like the welfare state is SUPPOSED to help the poor), but it doesn't in real life.
Human solidarity and a respect for others is not something that is unique to theism, and like I said, the incarceration rate is highest among believers. People tend to do bad things and hurt people regardless of whether they believer there's a God. Fear of eternal punishment or violating God's law is no more a deterrent than earthly laws and justice and one's own individual conscience, and this is just a 100% proven statistical fact.
But if God does exist, we all will be held accountable by a judge who has control over everything.
Also a great theory, but even Christians don't have a 100% objective idea of God's law. Some Christians think non-religious dancing, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, watching R-Rated movies, and whatever else are sins.
You can pretend that there is a known 100% objective law from God, but the reality is that there's mostly disagreement on a lot of vices, and that the serious crimes are already accepted as such by non-theistic societies and people.
I don't murder because I'm against hurting other people, and would not want to be murdered myself. Confucius spoke the "Golden Rule" a couple of hundred years before Christ, and had no knowledge of the God of Abraham. This gives you an idea that the virtue of not hurting people is somewhat ingrained into us as advanced (but flawed) primates. Societies and cultures that are founded upon murder, rape, torture, and slavery tend to die out, and don't stick around long enough to populate the gene pool and evolve.
Asking someone to consider their own authority, is not an example of the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Telling someone that they should consider not drinking because they've made a commitment to themselves not to imbibe is appealing to self-reflection. The speaker is not bound by the same commitment.
I don't lie because of my conscience, not because of the same authority metmom answers to.
Right, so in your worldview they are the same crime. My point all along. To a reasonable person that is a paradox.
So, just what title do you prefer?
educated
ppffftttt......
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
All those evos with non-science degrees?
Not a chance.
If they had any working knowledge of science, they’d know better than to believe in evolution.
I don’t intend to force anything onto you so forgive me if my comments made you feel that way. I had hoped to be of service to you and to learn from you as well, based on your initiation of our talk in post #281.
Again, I’m not referring to whether or not believers/nonbelievers engage in certain behaviors. It’s not the topic here. We’re speaking of psychological motivation to believe. Whether or not belief then motivates behavioral constraint is an entirely separate question which has no bearing on whether or not there exists a psychological motivation to believe. (The question therein would be something like how much influence does belief have on behavior.)
Atheists/agnostics choose their belief based on weighing a worldly existence against a Godly one. How much do people enjoy money, alcohol, drugs, sex, the self in general, and even relationships with other people? These things and more are what Christ tells us to give up in order to follow him.
And the pleasures on this list are held in such high regard that the motive to convince oneself that God doesn’t exist is as psychologically powerful as any other psychological phenomenon, including the motive to desire eternal life. And worldly pleasures have the additional motive that they are available in the here and now, appealing to the universal human trait of impatience.
If there is no God, everything is permissible goes the Dostoyevsky quote. Sartre took it a step further, making the conscious decision to believe there is no God in order to believe he was free to choose his experiences and thus his form of existence.
Atheists have no more or less physical evidence, and no more or less juice in their IQ than theists. This is very difficulty for some atheists to accept, but the question of God’s existence is not a test of intellect. It’s a test of passion, emotion, will, volition, desire—you get the concept.
My view of the severity of the crime of child molesting is not different from yours.
Where we differ is in our view of the severity of the sin of rejecting God.
Then you quote metmom, and then ask: “Oh, so you're going to appeal to authority?” as though she is setting you up for a logical fallacy.
And now you say: “Asking someone to consider their own authority, is not an example of the appeal to authority logical fallacy.”
First, an appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
Now let’s break down your questions:
“What would God think…”. Here you are person A, making a claim and are an authority on (S) – metmom’s knowledge of God (the God of all).
You as A comtinue, “…about you spreading lies like saying that teaching evolution is teaching atheism?” Here you give a good example of Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Now it is logical to conclude the third part, Therefore, C is true.
So:
1 - Your question not only fits the criteria of the example of the appeal to authority logical fallacy, it also fits the loaded question or complex question fallacy.
2 - Asking metmom, “What would God think about you spreading lies like saying that teaching evolution is teaching atheism?”, then asking, “Oh, so you're going to appeal to authority?, is called hypocrisy.
3 - You stating that you were “Asking someone to consider their own authority, is not an example of the appeal to authority logical fallacy”is a lie.
Details, details.
Well, likely, IF I was lying, He wouldn't like it.
However, if you think I'm lying, show me the truth to measure my statements against to prove that I'm lying.
You do have a corner on the truth market, don't you?
What is your absolute standard of truth by which you measure things so that you can accuse people of lying?
How do you know it's valid or legitimate?
Do you have all knowledge of all time about all things?
The psychological motivations for belief are ingrained in us. It's quite clear from a study of homo sapiens that religion and belief in the supernatural is as instinctive as procreation, war, and power. There is some sort of evolutionary advantage to religious belief; it could be that it builds community and homogeneity, aids in fighting hopelessness and depression, or something else. So belief and non-belief are not two sides to the same coin; non-belief is something that goes against instinct, so I think it is unique.
Atheists/agnostics choose their belief based on weighing a worldly existence against a Godly one. How much do people enjoy money, alcohol, drugs, sex, the self in general, and even relationships with other people? These things and more are what Christ tells us to give up in order to follow him.
I just find this amazingly off base. Maybe you've constructed your entire impression of non-believers off of a few quotes from Sartre and Huxley, but we KNOW that belief in God is not a barrier for most people to engage in excessive vice.
Also, the idea that people make a decision based on some cost/benefit analysis on how much vice they'll be able to take part in just seems cursory and unrealistic. We already know for a fact that for most people believing in God is no barrier to vice.
Sartre and Huxley seemed to approach vice and behavior from a philosophical point of view, and they wrote about their unique individual experiences. But to cast their very specific reasons for unbelief as the entire basis for why people come to different conclusions about the supernatural than you is just wildly shortsighted.
In my experience, one generally arrives at non-belief through a combination of reason, logic, evidence, and unique life experience. People who reject religion(s) do so for the same reasons that you reject Thor, Odin, Apollo, Allah, Vishnu, and the Great Juju in the sky. They just go one god further and include the God of Abraham in the mix.
If there is no God, everything is permissible goes the Dostoyevsky quote.
Well, it's a dumb quote to begin with, since everything is already permissible. We know that God doesn't strike people down for vice.
It's also wrong in the sense that it insinuates that if people stop believing in God, they'll immediately start raping, pillaging, shooting up heroin, banging prostitutes, and killing people for fun. We know for a fact that there's no evidence for that at all.
It also draws the wrong conclusion by saying that somehow, individuals don't have a defined earthly, personal, and moral reason to not help one another, hurt oneself, or otherwise engage in unhealthy activities or lifestyles.
No, not in any way.
Asking someone what God would think of them telling lies is not the same as pointing out the evolution is not disproven simply because the "scientists" in your family say so.
Get it now?
Actually, the difference is bigger than that. You believe in the idea of thought crime, and I do not.
In post 289 you said that teaching evolution is teaching "atheists secular humanist creation", which is false.
So you're either ignorant, or you intentionally lied.
You haven’t processed this concept, as stated in my last post:
Again, I’m not referring to whether or not believers/nonbelievers engage in certain behaviors. It’s not the topic here. We’re speaking of psychological motivation to believe. Whether or not belief from there goes on to motivate behavioral constraint is an entirely separate question which has no bearing on whether or not there exists a psychological motivation to believe.
You’re right, non belief seems to go against instinct. But when I use the term I mean nonbelievers in God. Atheism is a religion, as is environmentalism, universalism, humanism, existentialism and postmodernism. These all fulfill the instinct that has been associated with the “God spot,” the pineal gland, or whatever biological mechanism forms the basis for the instinct you mention.
In other words, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who truly believes in nothing.
I stand by the assertion that one of the most common atheist arguments has been neutralized as explained in my past several posts.
I would say thought crime” completely distorts the essence of what we’re talking about.
Sin from the heart, knowable spiritually by the Creator of the universe, is very different from something you read about in Brave New World or 1984.’
Very convincing.
“Asking someone what God would think of them telling lies is not the same as pointing out the evolution (the evolution?) is not disproven simply because the "scientists" in your family say so (you should re-write this sentence).”
The last half of this statement relates to which statement in which post? Maybe you did write it, but I have not seen in any post in this thread where you state that, “...pointing out the evolution (?) is not disproven simply because the "scientists" in your family say so.” The 2nd logical conclusion of hypocrisy from what I have shown in post# 330 still stands
And you have not addressed the other logical conclusions:
1 - Your question not only fits the criteria of the example of the appeal to authority logical fallacy, it also fits the loaded question or complex question fallacy.
3 - You stating that you were “Asking someone to consider their own authority, is not an example of the appeal to authority logical fallacy”is a lie.
These two also still stand.
Everyone has faith in something. It's a matter of what that faith is in.
For some the faith is in God. For others it's in themselves or some other force.
But there is no non-belief because non-belief in God means belief in something else.
For those who reject God, science has filled that need being the something else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.