Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Typhon · 07-11-2002, 12:02 AM

Hi David,

I know we've not had a lot of time to talk, however I've watched your responses on a number of threads. While you are certainly a polite and friendly fellow, I have to say, and I mean this in all kindness, that I am rather disappointed in much of what you have to say, or to be more exact, how you support your frequent "claims." It's mostly in the area of broad generalizations that seem to get you into such trouble. You simply make statements for which you have no evidence and offer no support for such wild claims. Now obviously we must occasionally veer off into the realms of personal speculation from time to time, but I'm always left shaking my head when you seem to place such certainties behind statements that you can not back up.

Take this for example:

Quote:

David: I think we can be certain about some things, such as: All theists and atheists will die. Death is inevitable. You can struggle with death, fight against death and engage in a war against death: Do whatever you wish, no matter what you will ultimately die.

This has no support, logically or otherwise I'm afraid. There is no reason to suspect that you might even be true, certainly not absolutely. Modern science has already gone a long way towards making death, at least potentially for a few, obsolete. I highly suspect that within 50 years if not sooner, we'll see the ability to pass on conventional mortality, if we so choose and have the financial resources. It is rather irresponsible for you to claim that this can never be. I'd like to know why you think there is good reason to say this?

Certainly we could have near-immortality, say on the order of billions and billions of years potentially. It may be that we never reach this, or a cataclysmic change to our species, planet, solar system, or galaxy could render this all mute. I would agree with you that potentially it seems likely that even the universe in the bold, broad sweep of time will meet an end, or a cataclysmic change which may cut short our own quests for immortality. However, this is not certain. Even if the universe comes to an end, there is no guarantee that at the far ends of time, we will not have found a way into another universe or the like. True immortality, beyond even the eventual death or transformation of the universe may indeed be improbable, but I would hesitate to say it was impossible. Just a minor quibble.

In other words, it's speculation to say that it is absolutely certain that every human that will ever be born, is destined to die.

Quote:

As to the nature of heaven and what the immortal soul will experience there, I have no direct knowledge. All I can say is that the physical Universe, even as it is, is extraordinarily beautiful. The spiritual universe must be just as beautiful, if not more beautiful.

There is no logic that this necessarily follows. You would be better served to say that you have no knowledge and hence nothing you can say, about what you may or may not experience should some sort of afterlife exist. Again, this just seems to be wishful thinking on your part as far as I can see.

Well, I know you've got a lot of posters to respond to, but I hope you look at my "ineffable mystery" thread as well as my responses to your direct questions on the original Welcoming Dave Mathews thread.

Cheers,

.T.

Typhon · 07-11-2002, 12:11 AM

Quote:

If you read the writings of Joseph Campbell you would know exactly what I am talking about.

Sincerely,
David Mathews

Well I have, and I certainly don't. I have all his books, plus tapes from many of his lectures. I do not only fail to see many of your points, those that I do, I don't happen to agree with you. You are fond of making them, but not overly much of supporting them, a shame.

Best wishes,

.T.

HelenM · 07-11-2002, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Typhon:
<strong>David: I think we can be certain about some things, such as: All theists and atheists will die. Death is inevitable. You can struggle with death, fight against death and engage in a war against death: Do whatever you wish, no matter what you will ultimately die.

Typhon: This has no support, logically or otherwise I'm afraid. There is no reason to suspect that you might even be true, certainly not absolutely. Modern science has already gone a long way towards making death, at least potentially for a few, obsolete. I highly suspect that within 50 years if not sooner, we'll see the ability to pass on conventional mortality, if we so choose and have the financial resources. It is rather irresponsible for you to claim that this can never be. I'd like to know why you think there is good reason to say this?
</strong>

Actually, I agree more with David on this one...I think it's unlikely we'll figure out how not to die - although who knows, given enough time; but I can't at all envisage figuring it out in the next 50 years.

love
Helen

David Mathews · 07-11-2002, 03:07 AM

Hello Helen,

Quote:

It's scary to think of humans having power over other humans because they might abuse it in terrible ways.

David: Perhaps so, but even humans without power abuse each other in terrible ways.

Quote:

Is it ok to think of God having that power since it's impossible for Him to 'abuse it' if you will? Because His character limits how He can exercise it - as it were?

David: I think it is impossible for God to abuse His power because God's decisions are inherently just. Given that God is the ultimate and only authority over the Universe and humankind, God's will is not subject to appeal or contradiction.

Quote:

Was that a clear enough attempt to rephrase?

David: Yes.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-11-2002, 03:09 AM

Hello Answerer,

Quote:

Anyway, here comes my next question, in bible, it is stated that day was created before the sun was, but how do day exist before sun was created?
Feel to answer if you want.

David: Time existed before the sun. There can be no doubt about that whatsoever. The Universe is 10+ billion years old, the sun is less than 5 billion years old.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-11-2002, 03:11 AM

Hello John Page,

Quote:

Either way, this makes you guilty of hypocrisy. Goodbye, so-called christian.

David: Should I begin crying now?

Almost sincerely,

David Mathews

Answerer · 07-11-2002, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
<strong>Hello Answerer,

David: Time existed before the sun. There can be no doubt about that whatsoever. The Universe is 10+ billion years old, the sun is less than 5 billion years old.

Sincerely,

David Mathews</strong>

Yeah, thats what I'm going to tell you, before the star(including our sun)were created, the universe was generally in darkness. So much for the accuracy of the bible.

David Mathews · 07-11-2002, 03:44 AM

Hello Rainbow Walking,

Quote:

When you appeal to this tactic you are, in effect, playing god.

David: I don't know what you mean in saying this. Exactly how am I playing God?

Quote:

Rw: Exactly. Your �self� and the claims embraced by your �self� are the Magna Carta of your intentions, the evidence or lack of any, be damned. This exposes your intentions for what they are: A blind stubborn desire to believe in something regardless of the evidence against it, the illogic, irrationality, irresponsibility, and unreasonableness of the intent. You may claim that your intentions �engulf� my arguments but in the final analysis, unless you present superior arguments, all you accomplish is a monumental big fat zero with a negative balance.

David: You have a way with words. Nonetheless, I have every right to agree with everything that I agree with.

Quote:

Rw: Neither is it scientifically testable, observable or verifiable. But it is philosophically inconsistent, incompatible with all other aspects of reality, contradictory to the compendium of human knowledge, ontologically unprovable and epistemologically unknowable. In effect�incomprehensible and your wishes and intentions do not bridge the gap from here to there in any meaningful way. There is no comparison because there is nothing more than pure imagination to compare with. Reality is not a product of imagination, neither is man�s knowledge of it.

David: You do have a way with words. In all of the above you have said that God is incomprehensible, something which I have already stated a number of times.

As to the nature of reality and man's imagination, I really don't know what you mean. Would you describe reality so that I can determine if it has any imaginary components?

[

Quote:

Rw: Are we to take this to mean then that you have rejected Genesis chapters 1 and 2 in favor of science? How do you sustain your wishes and intentions with this salad bar methodology in relation to the manual you appeal to concerning such figures as Paul and Jesus? How far are you willing to go to cling to both worlds?

David: Jews and Christians have interpreted Genesis 1-2 in many different ways over the last two thousand years. The conflict between theism and science that you are presupposing is resolved when the Bible's account is recognized as not written to serve as a scientific description of the beginning.

Quote:

Rw: Singularity of time/existence into big expansion to cosmological evolution to the present.

David: You call this the naturalistic scenario? If that is the case, why is that there are Christians who do accept the Big Bang as an accurate description of how God originated the Universe?

Quote:

Rw: Where did these folks get their beliefs?

David: They got their beliefs from many different sources, including religious sources.

Quote:

David: I agree. The goal is a noble one.

Rw: Then why do you resist it?

David: It is your noble goal, not my noble goal. I have no interest in prolonging my life beyond the normal human life expectancy. I don't want to live for two hundred fifty years.

Quote:

David: God told Paul that His strength was sufficient for Him, therefore refusing to heal Paul's physical problem.

Rw: In that same verse god declares his strength is made perfect in Paul�s weakness. Isn�t that precisely what I argue below in that god could not have known himself as perfect until he created less than perfect man? Thus he is not omniscient.

David: I don't believe that God needs to know that He is Perfect, nor does God need man to tell him that He is perfect.

Quote:

David: I believe that God did not want Paul or the Christians to be so dependent upon God that they would appeal to Him to solve all of their physical problems.

Rw: That isn�t the message conveyed by Jesus as he went about healing the multitudes.

David: Jesus did not promise to heal everybody, He made no such promise to the apostles. If He had done so, the apostles would never die. Yet the apostles did die:

"Then the saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, 'If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?'" (John 21:23)

Quote:

Rw: Then why create humans? What created the �want to� in your god?

David: You will have to address these questions to God directly.

Quote:

Rw: Can anything be said to exist without attributes defining its existence? Theologists always depict their labors as attempts to discover new data about god. In reality, what they accomplish is to paint new faces on an ancient tribal warrior deity invented by the Habiru (Hebrews) sometime during the iron age or just after.

David: Philosophers were talking about God in Greece, Egypt, Babylon and India. The concept of God is by no means limited to the ancient Hebrew conception of God.

Quote:

Rw: Yet when these definitions are critically examined they fail to communicate anything meaningful, leaving god as incomprehensible as always.

David: Yes, this result is expected.

Quote:

God, and the associative doctrines, are humanities explanation of the phenomenon in a way designed to assuage our fears. That is its major selling ticket. Eternal life.

David: You are not accurate in saying that belief in God was meant to assuage the fears of the early humans by offering eternal life. The Law of Moses did not make any promises of eternal life to the ancient Hebrews, either explicitly or implicitly.

Quote:

Rw: What are the qualifications of a critic? Have you ever spent any length of time with a group of people before someone in the group began to criticize others in or associated with the group?

David: I don't have to high a regard for those people who act as critics, especially when their talents are not equal to the person that they are criticizing. In such cases, I suppose that the criticism is motivated to some degree by jealousy.

Quote:

Rw: Is it consistent with your understanding of the god concept? Do you see how easy it is to create a god? All one needs is to find areas of human experience or curiosity that have no conclusive explanation and insert a superhuman being as the cause or purpose of the experience. Origins of life and existence are just one. Human behavior is another. Death is the most profound. Answers to the �why� question are also fertile ground for inventing a deity and a religion. Once a thing like that gets a toehold by appealing to enough people�s imaginations it becomes a cult. Once it is allowed to languish in the minds of more and more people for many generations they pass it on to their children and it gets further refined and retrofitted to each successive generations view of their world. It becomes the sieve through which their every experience is interpreted until it reaches a point where it actually has a life of its own�like Bill Gate�s money.

David: Perhaps so, but not necessarily so.

Quote:

(Myle, encouraged by Selina�s words, grabs his spear, grunts a command to his men and bolts out of the cave in the direction of the herd. Their hunt is successful and they do as Selina suggested taking five of the herd to the foot of the volcano. Before they arrive back at the cave the storm abates, further confirming the apparent truth of Selina�s brilliant assessment. Myle becomes known and famous as Ya�s friend and servant and continues to make ritual offerings at the foot of the very same volcano that Moses would one day climb in search of a conversation with YWYH while the Hebrews milled about at its base planning a worship service to a golden idol. Myle�s tribe prospers because they have overcome their fear of storms while all the other local tribes are still hiding in caves.)

David: I enjoyed reading this but must point out that atheistic naturalism cannot explain why humans are inclined to contemplate Supreme Beings. In a Universe which formed consistently with atheistic naturalism, how is it possible that humans would imagine a God?

Unless humans originated with the instinctive urge to search for the Divine, I do not know how religion became the predominant cultural trait within your Universe without God. Perhaps you could explain why humans would want to think about God in the first place.

Even supposing that the God idea was invented by some human within a Universe without God, it seems a great mystery to me that the God concept became so popular as to characterize thought on six continents over many thousands of years. How does atheistic naturalism explain the popularity and utility of the God concept?

If you could explain the origin and population of the God concept naturalistically, that would be very informative.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-11-2002, 03:46 AM

Hello Typhon:

Quote:

Well I have, and I certainly don't. I have all his books, plus tapes from many of his lectures. I do not only fail to see many of your points, those that I do, I don't happen to agree with you. You are fond of making them, but not overly much of supporting them, a shame.

David: I don't follow Joseph Campbell.

Joseph Campbell does point out many of the similarities in religious thought across cultural barriers in his writings and that is why I am mentioning his work.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Silent Dave · 07-11-2002, 04:24 AM

David--

This question doesn't have much to do with anything in this thread, but . . . is this the same David Mathews who posted in the alt.atheism newsgroup a few years back?

Dave

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

07-11-2002, 04:24 AM	#70
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	David-- This question doesn't have much to do with anything in this thread, but . . . is this the same David Mathews who posted in the alt.atheism newsgroup a few years back? Dave

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.