Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Inconnu · 06-26-2003, 03:53 AM

I see the theist in the debate can only come up with "I dont know how x, atheists cant explain x, so god must have done x!". Is this the strongest theistic argument there is?

Theli · 06-26-2003, 04:28 AM

Howard:

Quote:

Our mindset and emotions are always involved in the decisions we make. We can't escape them. But the rightness or wrongness should not be based on such things. It should be based on the circumstances of the situation.

But isn't the morality implied in the situation also in question?
I mean, how do we reach the conclution that it is less immoral to kill someone if it being an act of vengance, or in war? The way I see it, no two situations are excacly alike, so there can't be a set code of morality to apply to all instances in a single situation. If the outcome of the action differs because of the situation, then the morality of the act changes.

Quote:

In reality, people have different value systems and often react to the same situation differently, so it often does come down to personal taste.

If a value system, such as racism is deemed immoral because of the damage it inflicts on society and a group of people then we cannot refer to any action following that value system "moral". If you cannot justify your value system or code of morality then how can you justify following it?

Quote:

What is right for me may not right for you. Who�s to decide?

Why should anyone "decide"? If the word "moral" describes a certain basic idea such as acting to better society and aiding people living in it (non-selfishness), an idea that is the basis for all moral systems (however they include alot of crap also

), then we couldn't decide what is right or wrong anymore than we could decide if the earth is flat or round.

Quote:

Theli:
Would you argue that no judgement by the parents of the murdered children can be an immoral one?
Howard:
Of course not. But I would say it's less wrong to kill someone who murdered your children than to kill someone for racial reasons.

Over to my new question then, how do we decide the moral difference between murdering out of vengance or out of racist beliefs? They are both acts of hate.

Quote:

Good going back and forth with you Theli, but I'm going out of town until next week. I'll be back though.

I've enjoyed our little chat too, seeya!

Vylo

Quote:

There is deviance in society which attempts to disrupt the current moral order. Often desire for power drives people to do things, despite them being fully aware they are wrong.

I agree that most many of people who challenges the current moral standards in society are out for power, and the people who resists wants to keep their power. However this is not often their whole agenda.

Quote:

While not to the same degree as before, I have witnessed first hand that these views are still very much alive and well.

Yes some people tends to hold on their beliefs refusing to question them, or let anyone else do it. Christians, I'm looking at you...
I think most people are afraid to question beliefs of other cultures, why, I don't know. Political correctness, perhaps.

Theli · 06-26-2003, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Inconnu

I see the theist in the debate can only come up with "I dont know how x, atheists cant explain x, so god must have done x!". Is this the strongest theistic argument there is?

And most of the time they don't know anything about x, yet they can with certainty say that it is the act of god, and their god to be precise.

Keith Russell · 06-26-2003, 02:14 PM

Good afternoon.

I did not read the entire debate, but the theist stated my own primary reasons for rejecting the notion of a 'Creator God':

matter is a form of energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

To reject the idea that existence exists in favour of the idea that existence 'came into being', and yet state this fact of existence, is a gross evasion on the theist's part.

K

Secular Pinoy · 06-27-2003, 05:05 AM

I have a vague idea who the theist is, but the atheist is a mystery to me. Who is he?

Spenser · 07-01-2003, 03:06 PM

I had to quote the following from Psycho Dave on Theology Online as it will probably soon be diluted by the mass number of comments that are post for this debate:

Quote:

How does a material formation, without the property of emitting light, become a material form that has the ability of emitting light.
Well, the current cosmological theory is that gaseous clouds (consisting of Hydrogen, Helium and some other elements), which can be found anywhere in the universe, due to the mutual gravitational attraction of the atoms residing in the gas, contract, becomes more dense, and therefore hotter, which decreases the average distance between atom nuclei, until all of a sudden, the process of thermo-nuclear reaction is ignited, causing the material object in becoming a light emitting star.

This is a very simple demonstration how in the material world, that of anorganic matter, new properties come into existence, which were not previously there, and which is also an example of the general dialectical law in which quantitative changes (increase of density and temperature) cause a new qualitative property (thermo-nuclear reaction). This kind of phenomena within matter is to be found throughout all of the material world (transformation of quantity into quality).

Another property of the anorganic material world is that within matter, we can find traces of previous actions working on matter, which is a primitive and passive form of reflection. Like for instance if iron is magnetized, remains of the magnetic field can be seen in that iron, and all kinds of rock formation showing signs of previous occurrences to this rock formation.

Which shows also that the material world has a history, and traces of earlier occurrences are being kept in a passive way (reflection), and shows a progressive development in that new properties come into existence due to material interactions.
For instance in stars lighter elements are used in nucleo-thermal reactions and form the higher elements, after the star explodes and emits it's outer cores, this material is brought into the galactic space, and is used in newly formed planets and stars, etc.

In the bio-chemical world, we find demonstrations of this principle in that new chemical structures, seemingly random, can construct themselves out of pre-existing an-organic and organic matter, that can manifest new properties. One of those new properties being that a certain type of macro-molecule had the property of being able of making an exact copy of itself, which then quite quickly would dominate the oceans, until variations of this molecule did their copying tasks even better.
Test laboratoria which simulate the supposed biochemical conditions at earth, have already showed that most of the compounds necessary for life, dig up in this test as a result of the chemical components, water and sunlight. We have of course no way of knowing what exact condition were existing 3,2 billion years ago, but at least it present the likeliness of the emergence of life from non life, based on nothing more as the physical and chemical properties of matter.
The most basic feature of life and evolution, which is the ability to self reproduce, the outside influence on the material causing variations in the early life form, and the adaptation to the environment and perhaps also competition between variations of self reproducing macromolecules, form the basic ingredients for life. The gradual changes taking place, causing new and different types of pre-life self-reproducing macromolecules to take on new shapes and "try" new copying strategies, lead for instance to larger clusters of coexisting macromolecules, and finally to the form of life we called one-celled life, in which there is a complex system of molecules working together. Here is where we find the first evidence of the emergence of such life forms from geology.
From here, life takes in a new direction, in which more cells begin to work together, ultimately leading to specialization of certain cells, performing different tasks for the organism.
Necessary for life is not only it's ability to self-reproduce, but also the intake of energy and other chemical or biological compounds, to sustain itself, and it's ability to use energy in order to be able to react to the outside environment. This will be already the case from the one-celled organisms. As new cells are being added to the organism in the course of it's reproduction and variations, more and more cells specialize. For example cells that can take in chemical and biological compounds from the environment, while other cells specialize in motoric properties, enabling the organism to displace itself, and also cells that are able of reacting to outside influences, like sunlight, heat, etc. which become the sensory organs. Already in this form of life we find then the ability of the organism to react on different stimuli, and to act accordingly, to take in food in order to provide the energy necessary for any reaction and sustenance of the organism, etc.
This is also the birth of the most primitive form of consciousness, which is based on the ability to reflect on the outer world, and which causes an inner and/or outer reaction by the organism.
In plants for example this means they can bend to the light, in order to catch more sunlight, and for animals to react on light, heat, etc, and to move to a different place, in order to enlarge the possibilities of self-sustenance. Of course, at first these ways of reflecting on the world are almost purely mechanical, and do not show any signs of thought, but in the course of evolution more complex form of reflection on the outside world came into existence. Consciousness as in human beings, therefore has had many ancestors, although in more primitive and significantly less complex forms.

Jobar · 07-01-2003, 08:29 PM

Er, let me get this straight. This Psycho Dave is defending the atheist side of the argument? I certainly hope not, he's doing it very bloody badly! (Come to think of it, I can't tell just what he thinks he is arguing; that first sentence is laughably wrong. And though he does have bits and pieces right, he needs to watch several hours of 'Cosmos' to get straightened out!))

KnightWhoSaysNi · 07-02-2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goriller
Believe it or not, 2 heavy-weights have decided to put their big ego's on the line in a debate on the existence of God. Why don't debates of this quality happen more often? See: http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulle...&threadid=7709

-- Begin shameless advertising:

How about starting a quality formal debate on the existence of God right here at IIDB!

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=75

-- End shameless advertising.

Nightshade
Moderator, II Formal Debates

Spenser · 07-17-2003, 05:02 PM

I'm begining to enjoy the number of Atheists showing up on TheologyOnline.com to pick apart the weak ass arguments of Bob and his peanut gallary!!!

Leviathan · 07-17-2003, 06:40 PM

Wow, an atheist website complains about a theological debate on the existence of God. How surprising.

Open your mind folks.

07-17-2003, 05:02 PM	#39
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	Fun With Theists I'm begining to enjoy the number of Atheists showing up on TheologyOnline.com to pick apart the weak ass arguments of Bob and his peanut gallary!!!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2003, 03:53 AM	#31
Inconnu Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: here Posts: 121	I see the theist in the debate can only come up with "I dont know how x, atheists cant explain x, so god must have done x!". Is this the strongest theistic argument there is?

06-26-2003, 02:14 PM	#34
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Good afternoon. I did not read the entire debate, but the theist stated my own primary reasons for rejecting the notion of a 'Creator God': matter is a form of energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. To reject the idea that existence exists in favour of the idea that existence 'came into being', and yet state this fact of existence, is a gross evasion on the theist's part. K

06-27-2003, 05:05 AM	#35
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	I have a vague idea who the theist is, but the atheist is a mystery to me. Who is he?

07-01-2003, 08:29 PM	#37
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Er, let me get this straight. This Psycho Dave is defending the atheist side of the argument? I certainly hope not, he's doing it very bloody badly! (Come to think of it, I can't tell just what he thinks he is arguing; that first sentence is laughably wrong. And though he does have bits and pieces right, he needs to watch several hours of 'Cosmos' to get straightened out!))

07-17-2003, 06:40 PM	#40
Leviathan Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Georgia, United States of America Posts: 115	Wow, an atheist website complains about a theological debate on the existence of God. How surprising. Open your mind folks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.