Luiseach

I wasn't asking you about postmodernism.

To reiterate.

I was responding to the following segment of your post:

'Not many think that science can fix todays problems anymore.'

I was asking for evidence for this assertion.

Starboy

Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding

Public interest in science and technology is huge!

However it would not surprise me one bit that philosphers don't care much for it. They are such sore loosers.

Starboy

Radorth

Er, because philosophical fads come and go, and nothing changes? Communism, the hope of atheists everywhere, was outdated almost overnight. The latest is "Empire" I heard, but of course that was four months ago. It may be outdated by now.

Rad

Radorth

A great old Russian joke:

Under capitalism, man exploits man.

Under Communism, it's vice versa.

(What a surprise)

Rad

hezekiah jones

Radorth
Communism, the hope of atheists everywhere, was outdated almost overnight.

I am an atheist. Communism is not my hope. Another Radorthian strawman cum cheap insult burned to the ground by counterexample.

lpetrich

Radorth:
He said even he didn't know, and anyway, what is 5000 years to God? But if he comes in your lifetime, you'll doubtless wish he'd waited another 30 years.

But if Jesus Christ has been god, he had therefore been omniscient, meaning that he would have known all future history.

Unless either JC had not been god, or god is less-than-omnimax.

And if he shows himself, I won't complain too much.

One of the things Jesus does is forgive mistakes no one could possibly make up for.

Meaning, perhaps, that one can commit whatever sins one wants to if one believes in JC.

This is why God is wise to ignore us, by the way, until we have well tested all our own foolish theories, which depend on some human effort and righteousness nobody has ever been able to muster.

Thus becoming responsible by omission.

Omission such as not setting the record straight on what is the right interpretation of the Bible and stuff like that.

Of course when ever people say something like this, they wisely point to the Old Testament.

But if it is invalid, then what is it doing in the Bible?

The New one of course says the Law is basically useless, and God well knew we could never obey it.

Then why not program people to follow it to the letter and be done with it?

People will still have plenty of Free Will -- virtuous Free Will.

Ip is out of ammo already, dredging up his three favorite NT verses, which no Christian here ever interpreted as he chooses to.

It's not my problem that JC was recorded as saying what he had said.

lpetrich

Radorth:
We also know that the philosophies of Hitler and Stalin, i.e. "the stronger animals survive," were influenced by such late 19th century "enlightened" and "scientific" thinking.

Tired old linking of evolutionary biology with the moral position that "might makes right".

But consider the idea that god will send you to heaven if you're good and hell if you're bad. How is that any different from a "might makes right" position?

In any case, tell us. Which animals should we imitate? ...

After you.

lpetrich

Except that Communism has long claimed the same sort of thing -- that Communism would produce the "New Man", who would be free of selfishness, greed, and other such vices.

Bumble Bee Tuna

RBAC:

These two sentences all but explicitly scream "I am a Christian because Christianity rose to power really fast in its early days, leading me to believe a supernatural event happened and therefore the Bible is telling the truth about God".

Atheist and Christians believe that Islam is just a made up story, just like all the other religions. You are trying to be rational. You find the "made up story" explanation to be "unlikely" about Christianity yet likely about Islam. Why? Well, the reaosning you offered is "the surprisingly fast rise of Christianity and the tenacity and stubborness of its early martyrs".

I point out that Islam rose even faster (it also had martyrs, btw), and upon seeing that you pretend you never tried to make the argument. Well, looking at the statements I quoted above, I find it immensely hard to believe you weren't trying to make that argument. Call it "reading into" what you said too far, but I think I am reading it for exactly what it says. If you want me to read into the things you say though, I could give it a shot...

You are a rational person. Youtry to be rational in everything you do. I might even go so far as to say that you despise being irrational and feel stupid/guilty/wrong for doing so (as well you should, IMO!). However, your faith has also helped you in great ways in your life. You have mentioned the great change your born-again experience was. This makes your faith very dear to you. However, you recognize that your faith is irrational. You really don't like that. You really want to be rational, and try to pretend (this is why you felt the need to pick the username "Rational BAC"- being rational is your big focus, and you realize "BAC" stands for something that is definitely not rational. You want a rational foundation for your faith. Because of this, you developed your Argument from Numbers and Argument from Swiftly Increasing Numbers to try to give your faith a rational foundation. By no means do you consider these to be proof for God, but that's not what you want.

What you want is to be able to say: Look at this argument! Sure it doesn't prove God, but it at least says that theism isn't an absurd position.I could be wrong, but lets all just be friends, and live and let live. We're all rational here!...It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. Your arguments are NOT rational. I think you recognize this, because you're always quick to deny your arguments came from your mouth as soon as someone points out the fallacies involved. But then as soon as you're done denying them, you go right back to spitting them out again when your faith is questioned. You can't stand to say "I just believe in God out of pure faith". That's too irrational for you, it makes you feel too guilty. You instead feel the need to say "Well, I believe in God because ______ implies that something supernatural probably happened 2000 years ago, and so it seems like I've got a decent chance of being right...THEN I use faith to bridge the gap". ____ is always either "Well, Christianity is so popular" (Argument from Numbers) or "Well, Christianity grew really fast" (The new, Argument from Rapidly Increasing Numbers) or even the good old Argument from Alleged Martyrs. None of these apply only to Christianity and your latest, the Argument from Increasing Numbers, applies much better to Islam.

If I really wanted to get into your deep subcoscious and probably be much more likely to be wrong, I'd say you secretly want to be an atheist because you realize it's the only rational conclusion. You even decided to come to II because you are subcosciously hoping to deconvert. Of course, that's almost certainly wrong, but while I'm making unsubstantiated assertions about your inner motives I might as well.

Now THAT is reading into your posts. Is it true? I have no idea. But I think it's a pretty good armchair psychiatrist guess. It doesn't matter, though- I only reply to what you post, not to what I think your hidden reasons are. The above was somewhat in jest.

What I would like from you, though, and perhaps I should devote a new thread to this:

Either A:
Admit that you do not have a rational foundation for your beliefs.
or B:
Explain what rational basis you have for your beliefs.

Every time this has come up before, you have chosen B and then used the Argument from Numbers or Argument from Swiftly Increasing Numbers as your rational foundation. And every time, I have pointed out how these arguments are fallacious and not applicable. What you need to do is either defend against my rebuttals or admit that the belief is not rational. If my free psychoanalysis is on the mark, though, you would be very troubled by being forced to admit not having a rational foundation.

I suspect the reason you can't call Xianity "just a story" but you have no problems doing so about all the other religions is just personal experience. It bothers you too much to admit that most of the seemingly smart people you know would buy into a fake story. Islam though, you don't know many followers of so it's easier to say that the faceless strangers were fooled.

So what do you say? Are you willing to admit that your beliefs have no rational foundation? If not, please create a separate thread to address my comments and discuss what your foundation is. If you are though, please, let's get this over with! I need to save the quote so I can remind you of it the next time you bring out your "hey, it's a toss-up, I think my beliefs are more probable than yours because _____" line.

I'm a nitpick, damnit, and I simply won't stand for inconsistent beliefs! I'm going to call you on them every time.

Yes, I know this post was both tediously long, AND off-topic, but it was really fun and I couldn't stop.

-B

lpetrich

That is such hokey that I don't know how to respond.

Animal behavior is interesting in itself, and the study of it can have lots of practical applications.

Also, what's wrong with studying a relatively easy problem before moving on to a more difficult one? Especially if the easy one can supply clues for solving the more difficult one.

And why are we supposed to spin fairy tales about sinners turned saints?