rainbow walking

alix: Stating that you cannot imagine such a proof does not free rw of the responsibility of offering one. He has made a firm statement: man is not responsible for his own mortality. He could offer several possible proofs: a demonstration that some other entity is wholly responsible for man's mortality; a refutation of the fact of mortality (unlikely to be successful, in my opinion - as you have pointed out); a condition of responsibility that alleviates man from the definition of it, etc.

Your rebuttal does not seem to be meaningful. Certainly, man is mortal. Why? Some logical entity (whether an agorithmic process, personal intervention, etc.) could be implicated as a cause.

rw: If you actually read my OP with an intent to comprehend you would have picked up on the fact that religious claims to man's mortality declare it to be a result of his moral deficiencies. Do I need to prove to you that this is not the case? Or do you support these religious assertions also?



alix: But that's not the point; we are not arguing the truth of the Bible. Rw has stated that Christianity has lied (positive statement). Unless it demonstrated that Christianity is actually false, rw's statement is unsupported personal opinion.

rw: Then you believe that christianity's claim that man's mortality is the result of a moral deficiency is true? There is not one shred of evidence supporting the Xian's claim, so I'm positing nothing that needs proving. If man's mortality is not the result of his moral deficiency then it must be the case that those who insist it is, without any evidence to support that claim, are mis-leading people. When this has pointed out scientifically and philosophically to them ad naseum, and they continue to preach this tripe...what other conclusion can be drawn except an intentional mis-leading? Man is not an immortal, indestructable being. This has nothing to do with his moral deficiencies, if any, and I defy you to prove otherwise.



alix: Actually, that is my point. rw is making a universal negative: no Gods exist. As you so politely point out, this statement cannot be proven - but rw's argument depends upon its truth value.

rw: And you need to learn to read for comprehension. I stated positively that all religions are false. This is not a universal negative. I did not state that no god exists. I did not state that religions had to be true for a god to exist. I almost hate to interrupt your intimacy with this straw man but you really should make an effort to practice safe sex even when porking a straw person.



alix: rw is making arguments based on the position of what I believe is called 'strong atheism': no God exists.


rw: Still porking away...


alix: As you indicate, this is unprovable; therefore rw's arguments cannot be assumed to be valid, since this fundamental proposition is unsubstantiated.

rw: I know a good, (well, maybe not good, but good enough for you), church that would love to have you as a soprano in their choir. Want the number?

Normal

Not true, I presuppose nothing about death, since I can know nothing about it. It is neither wrong nor right.

Considering neurological research costs often run into the millions of dollars, a cheap procedure is hardly a likely possibility. Even procedures to replace basic limbs with artifical ones can cost as much as a new house.

Even if it did cost as much as a new house, that would effectively remove over half the population of the earth from ever being able to afford it. How many people can buy two houses?

Have you been to China or Japan recently? There is no room on this planet to save everybody. There are trillions of planets, true, but we can't create an atmosphere of sustainable life on them (yet). Attempting to prolong our own lives because we have ungrounded presuppositions about the wrongness of death is pure selfishness. I don't mean to imply that there are people "waiting at a station to exist", I mean to imply if people had the same attitude as you about death then you might not of been born. Death is not a problem at all, it is as effective a motivator for diversity and growth as birth.

rainbow walking

rw: So do you, if not, you'd be dead.



normal: Not true, I presuppose nothing about death, since I can know nothing about it. It is neither wrong nor right.

rw: Huh? You don’t know that the physical body ceases to function and the person it supports ceases to function and is no longer able to bless you with their physical presence? Is this a good thing?

rw: This unwarrented assumption is the crux of your criticism. What if it turns out not to be that expensive? Or what if it costs about as much as buying a new house? How long is the average mortgage? 30 years? If you could purchase a treatment to arrest your aging process for 500 years, what's a thirty year mortgage to that benefit?



normal: Considering neurological research costs often run into the millions of dollars, a cheap procedure is hardly a likely possibility. Even procedures to replace basic limbs with artifical ones can cost as much as a new house.

rw: I’m glad you brought this up. Yes, initial research is expensive. But the cost is easily recouped when the benefit is spread out over the population. Imagine if we spent as much on research as we do on military research. As it stands now, the majority of research is funded by private dollars. But how long would it take to over-come the obstacles if this research became as integral an aspect of institutional commitment as NASA, or the Pentagon? And why do we currently invest as much as we do in medical research if it weren’t considered a viable avenue of investment? If all men feel as you do, why bother to waste our money on any research? Let’s just all live as long a natural life as we can and accept our fate when it comes without seeking medical attention.

normal: Even if it did cost as much as a new house, that would effectively remove over half the population of the earth from ever being able to afford it. How many people can buy two houses?

rw: You seriously under-estimate the power of new technology. You know how much the payments are for a 100,000.00$ house on a 30 year note? Depending on the down payment roughly 1100.00$ a month. Now imagine if you sign a 250 year note. Less than 50.00$ a month. See any reason why everyone can’t afford a house in light of that information? Do you know how much more money the lending institution would make from interest on a 250 year note? The net worth of mankind would jump astronomically in direct proportion to the extension of man’s life span. How many more tax dollars would be available to the government of a nation of people who’s average retirement age was 500 years instead of the 67 years it currently exists at? Talking about rescuing Social Security.

rw: Why does this seem fine? Why do we have to give it up? Why does our existence preclude the existence of those coming after us? You make it sound as if there are people waiting at the station for me to die so they can be born. The universe contains many, many planets. Ample room for trillions of 1000 year old people to call home. Science, my friend, is a far more parsiminous cure to man's problems than religion, nihilism or politics could ever hope to be. I suggest you think a little deeper about your reservations. Especially if you made reservations in heaven.



normal: Have you been to China or Japan recently? There is no room on this planet to save everybody. There are trillions of planets, true, but we can't create an atmosphere of sustainable life on them (yet).


rw: Compare a scientific mind that has five hundred years to research with one that is limited to 50 or 60. Want to guess how much more progress will be made? Besides, man has methods of moderating his birth rate and population growth at his disposal now.

normal: Attempting to prolong our own lives because we have ungrounded presuppositions about the wrongness of death is pure selfishness.


rw: So? It is also pure beneficial to all the “selfs” that face death at the current average life span.

normal: I don't mean to imply that there are people "waiting at a station to exist", I mean to imply if people had the same attitude as you about death then you might not of been born.


rw: And it wouldn’t have mattered since there would be no “me” to argue this line of reasoning. But I am here. Does that mean I should sit down and shut up out of gratitude for being here?

normal: Death is not a problem at all, it is as effective a motivator for diversity and growth as birth.

rw: I suggest you think again. Science is the only proven motivator, and facilitator, for growth and diversity. Death is the end of diversity and stops all growth. Life is the goal…growth and diversity are side effects.

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

Among other things, you said,
My religious beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion; you made a statement that man's mortality is not caused by his moral deficiencies; I asked for proof, or at least a demonstration.

It appears that you are unable to provide any support for your assertion.

What does my personal belief have to do with anything? This is a simple problem of logic: you assert that someone has lied. Can you prove it? Or do you believe that your word is sufficient?

Another logical fallacy (I suggest reading II's reasonably exhaustive list of logical fallacies): absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. This is a very simple, basic fallacy.

I would agree with this point. And as soon as you can demonstrate that the Christians are wrong, then you can accuse them of lying.

Again, you try to shift the burden of proof. You asserted they lied. Please demonstrate it.


But if all religions are false, then no Gods exist, yes? I believe you misunderstand the concept of a universal negative. All X are false = no X is true. Simply calling your statement positive does not change the fact that you are stating unequivocably that no Gods exist. Or are you stating that no religion is true, but Gods might exist?

Interesting. I see that your obsessions extend to sex and death. In addition, you are offering another red herring: how you stated your point does not absolve you of the responsibility of proving it - which you have not done.

You stated that all religions are false. You need to prove this in order for your argument to be valid.

I am a mezzo-contralto, not a soprano (l'Opéra National de Paris.) But I am curious, why would you know the number of a church? From your posts, I concluded that you were an atheist.

Spenser

I think the problem, Alex, is that RW may have mentioned "that religious claims to man's mortality declare it to be a result of his moral deficiencies" but the actual 'assertion' being made is that man's mortality is a result of his moral deficiencies. This is the assertion that requires the proof, it is a positive statement. Negative statements should not carry the burden of proof, else we would require proof that leprechauns do not exist. It is reasonable to believe they don't just as it is reasonable to believe that moral deficiencies have little to do with our mortality.

I see what you are getting at. Once again however, even thought showing all religions of the world to be false wouldn't 100% disprove God, it does make it more than reasonable yet again, especially with the absence of evidence of such a being, to believe it doesn't exist...

rainbow walking

alix: My religious beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion; you made a statement that man's mortality is not caused by his moral deficiencies; I asked for proof, or at least a demonstration.

It appears that you are unable to provide any support for your assertion.

rw: Consider the following:

1. If evolution is a reasonable explanation for the existence of man, and man is just one more entity tied into a long chain of such entities, progressing from the most basic organisms to the complexity of man, to say that man’s mortality is the product of moral deficiency is to argue that the first spark of life that resulted in the first organism was equally immoral. I say this because the fundamental attribute of evolution is survival of the fittest and survival absolutely presupposes mortality.

2. Some species of sea turtles live to 800 years of age. Does this mean they are morally superior to man?

3. Some species of trees live to 6000 years of age. Does this mean sea turtles are morally inferior to trees?



alix: What does my personal belief have to do with anything? This is a simple problem of logic: you assert that someone has lied. Can you prove it? Or do you believe that your word is sufficient?

rw: I can prove it.



alix: Another logical fallacy (I suggest reading II's reasonably exhaustive list of logical fallacies): absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. This is a very simple, basic fallacy.

rw: This is true. Consider the above 3 postulates as a reparation of the fallacy.

[b]quote] rw: If man's mortality is not the result of his moral deficiency then it must be the case that those who insist it is, without any evidence to support that claim, are mis-leading people. [/quote]



alix: I would agree with this point. And as soon as you can demonstrate that the Christians are wrong, then you can accuse them of lying.

rw: There is ample evidence that evolution is an accurate description of our eco-system. The rest is…as they say…history. This description is verifiable to any person, regardless of their personal convictions, and should be considered before making a claim that man’s mortality is due to his moral deficiencies. Ignorance is not an excuse when the facts are so readily available.



alix: Again, you try to shift the burden of proof. You asserted they lied. Please demonstrate it.

rw: Have I sufficiently demonstrated it yet? Or do you require absolute proof?




alix: But if all religions are false, then no Gods exist, yes?

rw: Why? Because you say so? You have just made a positive statement that could be construed as a stance of “strong atheism”. I suggest you get busy and support it.

alix: I believe you misunderstand the concept of a universal negative. All X are false = no X is true.

rw: I believe you have yet to grasp the fallacy of equivocation. If all religions are false then no religions are true. This does not equate to no gods exist, only that those religions based upon the religious claims of their existence is false.

alix: Simply calling your statement positive does not change the fact that you are stating unequivocably that no Gods exist. Or are you stating that no religion is true, but Gods might exist?

rw: Duh…Again, had you thoroughly read the OP you would not be drawing these erroneous conclusions.



alix: Interesting. I see that your obsessions extend to sex and death.

rw: And I see your ignorance extends to the definition of “obsession”.

alix: In addition, you are offering another red herring: how you stated your point does not absolve you of the responsibility of proving it - which you have not done.

rw: And you are determined to preserve your straw lady friend. If I did not specify nor imply that ‘all religions being false equates to no god existing’, your entire accusation crumbles into a heap of un-edifying straw…the same straw from which it was constructed. So my “red herring” becomes nothing more than a clarification for your benefit.

alix: You stated that all religions are false. You need to prove this in order for your argument to be valid.

rw: And I have done so. If it doesn’t meet your approval…get over it. All religions (with the exception of but a few based on shamanism, that I am unfamiliar with) are ultimately based on something being intrinsically wrong with man. I have demonstrated, in my OP, that this presuppositional claim is false.



alix: I am a mezzo-contralto, not a soprano (l'Opéra National de Paris.)

rw: Excellent.


alix: But I am curious, why would you know the number of a church? From your posts, I concluded that you were an atheist.

rw: An ex-theist.

Alix Nenuphar

Spenser:

While I agree with your point that there is certainly a burden upon religions which assert the connectivity of mortality and immorality, and I certainly hold no faith in any faith which does so, I am concerned by rw's assertion that this is a universal.

In fact, there are religions which do not take issue with death in this fashion, yet rw appears to be fashioning his argument on a universalist basis:
"religion blames....."

If the argument were confined to the Judeo-Christian faith, I would little argument with his contention.

And yet rw has not even demonstrated that all religions are false: he has asserted it as part of his argument.

I do agree that a large portion of the body of religious practise is detrimental to the ennoblement of the human spirit, and the survival value of religion is independent of, and sometimes contrary to the value placed on human beings.

My point, however, is that the arguments presented by rw are poorly constructed and characterised by unsupported assertion, vague terminology, jumbled presentation, obsessions with personal theories about mortality, and the not infrequent vulgar sarcasm (although I admit that the latter has been both instructive and entertaining.)

I am concerned because I feel that such a style hinders any serious consideration of his ideas.

Can you suggest an approach that would be more constructive in dealing with him?

rainbow walking

rw: Alix, come on, you and I and everyone else here with half a brain know this has nothing to do with it, so stop disingenuously hiding behind these excuses.

You exposed your backside in a previous argument and I whacked it rather briskly.

Now this has had one of two effects on you:

A. Either you liked it immensely and have returned for more, or...

B. You didn't like it at all and have returned for revenge.

I find it rather difficult to believe that you have appointed yourself my "guardian of proper argument formation" out of the kindness of your heart.

[deleted insult - play nice people!]

contracycle

Alix wrote:
Entropy.

Sand castles do not stand indefinately. Energy tends to flow from higher states of order to lower states. Human beings, like all biology, have a limited capacity to resist this process - but none are immune.

It was Thermodynamics in the Garden with Time.

Alix Nenuphar

Certainly, and I essentially agree. But my point is rather that Christian fundamentalists have a different explanation with its own associated rationales. That is the explanation which rw is disputing.