BBO Discussion Forums: BBF religious matrix - BBO Discussion Forums

Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-12, 10:31, said:

Since the OP asked about tolerance, perhaps I should give my views here. Perhaps they would be classified as intolerant. The short version is that I have no wish to interfere in a person's exercise of religion, I am fine with making reasonable accommodations, but the approach of "My God says I must or must not do such and such and so you must accommodate me" is a bit over the top for me. His God only gets to order him about, not to order me about. It is not only with regard to religion that I realize I am out of touch with current expectations. I am most happy to enthusiastically endorse a person's right to live his/her life as s/he pleases. That doesn't mean I will be pleased to be given a list of things that I must do to accommodate his/her choices.


Fortunately for all, I am retired.

kenberg, on 2013-January-12, 11:25, said:

I entirely agree, but UK/EU human rights/equal opportunities law (on grounds of gender, sexuality, religion and disability) is getting to be an inconsistent mess nowadays in certain circumstances.

Eg you can be dismissed if wearing a crucifix in contravention of a no jewellery policy in an office job, but cannot be prevented from wearing a veil in a school chemistry lesson even if it's a fire hazard. Both people sincerely believed that what they were wearing was a requirement of their religion.

What do scientists ascribe the steady increase in natural disasters worldwide to? Global warning? Something else? If so, what is the something else?

32519, on 2013-January-12, 13:19, said:

While I do ascribe to concerns about global warming, I believe any substantive increase in global disasters is still mostly the result of there simple being more people in more places for bad weather to happen too.

32519, on 2013-January-12, 13:19, said:

Combination of better communications. more people, and climate change

http://news.harvard....by-the-numbers/

mikeh, on 2013-January-12, 10:39, said:

.......

mikeh, on 2013-January-12, 10:39, said:

O_o


EDIT: Edited twice after posting outraged, still willing to drop the subject

This post has been edited by Fluffy: 2013-January-12, 16:18

Somehow things seem backward. I don't believe God exists, I have thought that way for about sixty years now, and I have very little interest in trying to convince others. I'll sometimes give my reasons, such as they are, if someone is really interested but my fundamental reason is that I simply don't believe it. Most non-believers that I have known, and that would be quite a few, pretty much see it the same way. It seems to be the theists who construct arguments, often rather complex arguments, to justify what to me seems a simple matter of faith. St. Thomas had five arguments for the existence of God. Why? One good argument suffices. Lacking that, go with faith.

What's faith? From my viewpoint, it's a way of life. This country was built on the idea that all men are created equal. Who says so? And, for that matter, what does it mean? Some have more money, some are better looking, some run faster. But all are "created equal". We cite this in discussions. It is a way of approaching life and self-government. It is a matter of faith.


We formulate our faith through stories we tell ourselves. There are many many religious people who do not really believe that a snake tempted Eve with an apple. I believe these folks woud say "Not, that didn't happen exactly, but that's not the point". Something like that. Maybe I should not put words in someone else's mouth.

Some, maybe some on this thread, believe that natural disasters are caused by Maryland voting in same-sex marriage. Someone said as much about Katrina and New Orleans. But while atheists are in a minority in this country I think we are positively numerous compared to the number of people who think homosexuality causes hurricanes.

In my sixty years of atheism I cannot recall a single case of someone talking with me for a while and then giving up his faith. It just doesn't work that way. It's tough enough to convince people to play strong jump shifts.

One of the reasons why I asked about atheits morality is that I wanted to see others reasonings on that subject since I was considering making a rethough of my beliefs and reconsider all options since I found some of them might be outdated, isn't it ironic that a (to some degree) 'start of being convinced' has ripped it all appart with both sides offended?

32519, on 2013-January-12, 13:19, said:

(Ignoring for a moment that there are reasons for this which others have pointed out) I think the point here is scientists don't feel the need to ascribe things they don't know to anything, prefering instead to figure out the answer before saying they know what the answer is.

32519, on 2013-January-12, 13:19, said:

If the point you are trying to make is that the increase in disasters is in some way a reaction to an increase in "Godlessness" throughout the world, then the fact that God might cause these disasters also makes a few of us less interested in worshipping such an entity.

to take one example, Hurricane Katrina's victims were mostly poor black folk in Louisiana and Mississippi, and I'd guess a higher proportion of them were active Christians than pretty much any other region of the country outside of Utah. 'tis a strange God who would wreak such havoc down on them and leave the likes of Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San Francisco untouched...

I'm not certain of this, but I suspect there are also now more Christians on the planet than at any other point in history. Thanks to high birthrates in Africa and lower birthrates elsewhere, even as a proportion of the total population, it's still probably higher than at most points in the past 2000 years. Certainly before the European nations started building empires in the 16th centuries and beyond, the percentage of people in the world claiming to be Christians would have been fairly small. So it seems weird that the God of the New Testament should suddenly decide that now is the time to start raining hellfire and destruction down upon us.

kenberg, on 2013-January-12, 15:32, said:

Problem in Physics
What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object?
Nonsense. Start discussion. define force define irresistible define object define immovable
Problem in Logic
Can God make mountains?
Yes
Can God lift Mountains?
Yes
Can God make a mountain that He cannot lift?
Nonsense. Start discussion about .....

If I Understand the OP the vote on the forums is:


12 active forum members strongly believe there is a GOD.


64 dont or other


clear that vast forum members dont strongly believe in GOD


I will assume. OTOH, vast forum members want and do go out of their way to help improve our bridge...thanks...

dwar0123, on 2013-January-12, 13:57, said:

hrothgar, on 2013-January-12, 14:04, said:

lalldonn, on 2013-January-12, 17:00, said:

So what exactly do scientists says is causing this climate change or global warming?

What about the increase in ethnic violence or wars (versus wars between countries)? What lies behind that?

32519, on 2013-January-13, 00:42, said:

You think ethnic violence is increasing?

Not a student of history are we.

The average person has less chance of being randomly killed for tribal / political reasons now than at any point in time.

y66, on 2013-January-12, 11:15, said:

I do think his arguments are kind of circular once you look for a concrete definition. However, he is not saying anything about moral motivation, just that objective moral values can only be based on God's nature. It's like
P1. Objective moral values need an Objective Moral Standard.
P2. Objective moral values exist (and deep down we all know it).
C. Therefore the Objective Moral Standard exists ( which is of course God).

Most of his arguments are of this structure and I have never heard him give one precise definition of what exactly 'God' refers to.

He often repeats that this is not necessarily the Christian god but why couldnt the Objective Moral Standard be such a thought experiment as Shelly or Sam Harris construct? Anyway, I was at one point hooked on these debates, intellectually stimulating and sometimes just entertaining:

gwnn, on 2013-January-13, 03:27, said:

NO

fwiw I think i have set up, over the years, other, often.

but not does God exist.

mike777, on 2013-January-13, 03:44, said:

?

gwnn, on 2013-January-13, 03:50, said:

over the years see bbo....

we have discussed your point often over the years....often

see your point

I understand many books, articles, etc have been quoted.


objective morals


--

If you have something to add to the discussion ok,what?

I look forward to you adding knowledge.

Because I listened to and read many discussions on these themes, I can't help repeating arguments that I have made and heard made by other people. I have two choices if I elect to talk about the matter at all without appearing to parrot other people: either restate slightly some argument or another without noting the source (that is called plagiarism) or make an argument that is completely new and has never been made before (that is called genius and unfortunately I lack it). Of course there is always the possibility of just attacking fellow posters in cryptic language but that is not something I want to pursue indefinitely (although I know from personal experience that it is rewarding up to a certain point). I am curious though mike777 what made you pick me out of all the people here who are just repeating over and over the same points on religion and morality? I am barely in the top 10 in the poster list in this thread. It is an honour.