Ep. 97: Human evil

[mikedsjr]

Jim,
Those IF YOUs were unnecessary. You attacked him. They were intended to attack cleve for comments he did not even come close to making. And you concluded with, "There are many far less obvious ways YOU could inflict your beliefs on them....". What was the point of that statement if it wasn't an attack on Cleve?

And you don't want to admit that.

[cleve]

...understand the repercussions of being an atheist ...

Yes. Good point, Jambi! I need to learn to identify with - as well as come to understand better - the pains and needs of others.

[Keep The Reason]

I think that is fair enough. But lets not be niave and think atheist are not out to impact christians negatively.

Not negatively-- but honestly. Christians who deconvert are freed from a very onerous worldview. They are freed from considering themselves "sinful" -- which is an invented state of guilt inculcating in most believers from birth, and they are freed from thinking that simplistic carrot/stick mechanism will propel justice. Their concerns stop being about "afterlives" and start becoming about here and now. You may consider the atheist Reasonist perspective to be "negative" -- but there's nothing in it that is negative. In fact, atheists don't have any real dogma at all, other than "we don't believe you".

I believe in the creation event is true and historically true, but the creation event in scripture is not extensive science textbook style demonstration of its truth. When atheist in school criticize christians for believing that you are impacting them negatively and you don't give damn about that, do you.

In science class? you're damned right they should be criticized! Creation mythology doesn't belong in science classes. And if you bring creation mythology into a science class, you best be ready to be criticized for it. If you bring in prayer as a means to solve cancer in biology class, same thing applies. You can have all your stories in Comp Religion classes, historic literature, and bible study classes all you want -- but if you want to bring it into the science room:

Do.
The
Science!

The problem here (which Christians don't seem to get) is not that you don't have a legitimate hypothesis -- but you refuse to actually do the science to support it. Instead, you want it the other way around-- you want it taught in science classes at the local level -- thereby raising people to dismiss the science that HAS been done.

Here's the answer to that: NO! You go out, and take your theory of creation, and come back with the evidence, and THEN you are welcomed in the science class. ONLY then. And until that happens, like any other scientific venue, you will be robustly challenged and criticized, because that's what makes science work. If it impacts Christians negatively, then that's something you need to work out for yourselves. The way I see it, spouting any theory without proof in a science class deserves that criticism, and crying that it "impacts me negatively" tells me you need to grow up and deal with what science actually is.

Despite what you may think, most atheists, including every atheist on the board, can be just as illogical, despite their arrogance of superiority above religious people. I love face to face conversations with atheist, because it helps them understand I'm not out to attack them. But its extremely humiliating to be called out in front of peers because you believe different.

I would bet you are called out in R/l for floating the same litany of problematic arguments over and over. Theists have no new arguments against the onslaught of scientific discovery that has basically dismantled all the arguments that have stood for a few thousand years. Theists today have it rough compared to a few hundred years ago. The arguments don't work in the face of what we now know, and that's only going to get worse for theists as time goes on. Hell, what are you guys going to do when we figure out how to forestall death inevitably? You're going to lose the one thing that motivates people to believe in god-- a fear of eternal annihilation. And -- such a day is coming.

So please. Don't tell me you want atheist to be treated fairly, when once your in the science classroom your going to look at me and insult me until i'm dead in my seat because you don't give a damn about my right to religious belief. Your idea of being treated negativity is hypocritical. I've had to be humilitated 10x more than you.

The solution is simple. I noted it above. Until you do the science, your theory of creation no more belongs in a science class than does someone's theory of how to hem a pair of pants. It's inappropriate until it is established as science. But help yourself remove that humiliation: Get out in the field, pull together the evidence, make your falsifiable case, and get peer reviewed. Then it will be science and you'll not only be a Christian Hero, you'll exact sweet vengeance on those who laughed-- yes LAUGHED! -- at you in science class... bwahahahahahaaaaa!

[cleve]

The solution is simple. I noted it above. Until you do the science, your theory of creation no more belongs in a science class than does someone's theory of how to hem a pair of pants. It's inappropriate until it is established as science. But help yourself remove that humiliation: Get out in the field, pull together the evidence, make your falsifiable case, and get peer reviewed. Then it will be science and you'll not only be a Christian Hero, you'll exact sweet vengeance on those who laughed-- yes LAUGHED! -- at you in science class... bwahahahahahaaaaa!

Keep the Reason,
I'm not certain as to whether you realize this or not, but your communication is conveying a lot of pain and anger arising from your past. Have you been listened to very much throughout your life? I ask you this, because your communication carries implications that your thoughts were not always accepted very well by others. If these interpretations carry a ring of truth to you, I sympathize with you because of the pain that you might have experienced.
On the positive side, I find your thinking to be well worth listening to. Some of your ideas show good judgment. For example, your perspective on religion being out of place when the emphasis is on science, was helpful to me. From a different angle, I find it impractical to have legalistic types of boundaries set and strongly enforced between science and religion. The idea sounds great from a theoretical standpoint, but from a practical dimension, the idea won't work.
Since you want theists to bring you proof that God exists, could you, as an atheist, reciprocate by showing us theists (just one argument) where the Bible is wrong?

Theists have no new arguments against the onslaught of scientific discovery that has basically dismantled all the arguments that have stood for a few thousand years.

Do you really believe this or just want to believe this?
The word "all" is a very big word - it carries a lot of weight to it for myself. For that reason, I try not to use it much, because it's too extreme.

[Keep The Reason]

Keep the Reason,
I'm not certain as to whether you realize this or not, but your communication is conveying a lot of pain and anger arising from your past. Have you been listened to very much throughout your life? I ask you this, because your communication carries implications that your thoughts were not always accepted very well by others. If these interpretations carry a ring of truth to you, I sympathize with you because of the pain that you might have experienced.

Are you actually attempting to psycho-analyze me via a post? Are you for real? Or just supremely arrogant? It's usually symbolic to write "lol" -- but seriously, I'm laughing at this post of yours.

I am loathe to drop my "credist" but the fact is I speak to large groups of people around the country on an ongoing basis (I will be traveling 10 months out of the 12 months of 2012 if that serves as a guideline). I'm a published author and filmmaker. I have been debating theists for about 15 years now. You're the first to come up with this "diagnosis" that I am "not listened to".

And, you're wrong. What you're hearing is my refusal to "play nice" with theists floating the same arguments over and over. I stand toe to toe with you folks. I will admit however that it pains me to read the endless hypocrisy from a guy like Mitch however. If there is a Hell, he's well suited as torturer, lol. But all kidding aside, please, stop embarrassing yourself with this tactic. It's... unbecoming.

On the positive side, I find your thinking to be well worth listening to. Some of your ideas show good judgment. For example, your perspective on religion being out of place when the emphasis is on science, was helpful to me. From a different angle, I find it impractical to have legalistic types of boundaries set and strongly enforced between science and religion. The idea sounds great from a theoretical standpoint, but from a practical dimension, the idea won't work.

Glad you found it useful. I doubt you could easily legislate all crossover from any free-speech learning scenario, which is fine with me As long as the moderator reminds everyone that science and religion are not compatible in their structures.

Since you want theists to bring you proof that God exists, could you, as an atheist, reciprocate by showing us theists (just one argument) where the Bible is wrong?

Well, it's wrong about how life was created and there's no evidence of a flood that makes any logical sense. But before we get into specifics, I have to admit I can't show the Bible is wrong until you bring me one that everyone agrees is the bible. See, right out of the gate we have an insurmountable problem, because none of you theists can point to any one bible and all agree which one is the correct one.

So-- bring me the single true bible, one that all agree is the correct one -- and I'll start.

If not, then my simple requirement serves the purpose and answers your request-- my first argument proving the bible is wrong is this: An alleged "divine word of god" cannot be agreed upon by its own believers".

QED.

Do you really believe this or just want to believe this?
The word "all" is a very big word - it carries a lot of weight to it for myself. For that reason, I try not to use it much, because it's too extreme.

Well, float some new arguments for god that haven't been rebutted then. The classic one have failed:

First Cause, or Prime Mover, or Cosmological Argument - Who started the Universe?
The Kalam Argument
The Argument from Contingency

Argument from Design,or Intelligent Design, or the Teleological Argument, or The Cosmic Watchmaker - is the universe designed?
The Anthropic Principle
The Argument from Improbability
Irreducible Complexity
Physical Laws

Moral Principles

Pascal's Wager, or the Safe Bet

The Ontological Argument, or Perfect Being Argument

Personal Revelations
Warm Fuzzies, or "I can feel God's presence!" - Can feelings be a valid form of argument?
Numbers, or How can millions be wrong? - A more democratic approach to the facts; do you think you know better than millions of others?

Each of these have been resoundingly beaten hard, and fail.

[JustJim]

Jim,
Those IF YOUs were unnecessary. You attacked him. They were intended to attack cleve for comments he did not even come close to making. And you concluded with, "There are many far less obvious ways YOU could inflict your beliefs on them....". What was the point of that statement if it wasn't an attack on Cleve?

And you don't want to admit that.

You're wrong, Mike. Neither my words nor my intentions harbored any ill will toward Cleve. My use of "you" was the in the generic sense, meaning 'you believers'. And even that wasn't an attack. It was an illustration that believers imposing (inflicting) their views on atheists doesn't have to be something as big as torturing and killing them. It could be in simple little everyday things like organized school prayer, "In God We Trust" on our money, "One nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, coaches leading school sports teams in prayer before games, and on and on and on - making atheists and their children feel out of place, unwelcome, and somehow "less than" believers. Besides, you should notice I said, "you COULD inflict your beliefs on them" - not "you DO inflict your beliefs on them" - so I wasn't accusing Cleve of doing anything at all. You've totally misread and misunderstood virtually everything I said and why I said it.

I felt no hostile intent toward Cleve. That's totally in YOUR head....

Jim

[Keep The Reason]

Jim,

This is just another theist's tactic. When the arguments fail, they snap over to these thinly veiled diagnosis of how anyone who doesn't believe as they do must be harboring some bitterness or hostility.

It's pathetic, frankly.

[ScottBarger]

KTR,

To be fair, not all of the theist arguments have "been resoundingly beaten hard, and fail." If this were true, it would mean that all theists are naive or dishonest. I will be the first to admit that some of the arguments are flimsy, but not all. In fact, some of them are convincing to me (the cosmological and contingency arguments, for example) and I don't think that I am naive or dishonest.

Mike, I think you are inferring a hostility in some of Jim's posts that is not there.

Finally, please check out my new thread in the General Discussion forum.

[mikedsjr]

Jim,
Those IF YOUs were unnecessary. You attacked him. They were intended to attack cleve for comments he did not even come close to making. And you concluded with, "There are many far less obvious ways YOU could inflict your beliefs on them....". What was the point of that statement if it wasn't an attack on Cleve?

And you don't want to admit that.

You're wrong, Mike. Neither my words nor my intentions harbored any ill will toward Cleve. My use of "you" was the in the generic sense, meaning 'you believers'. And even that wasn't an attack. It was an illustration that believers imposing (inflicting) their views on atheists doesn't have to be something as big as torturing and killing them. It could be in simple little everyday things like organized school prayer, "In God We Trust" on our money, "One nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, coaches leading school sports teams in prayer before games, and on and on and on - making atheists and their children feel out of place, unwelcome, and somehow "less than" believers. Besides, you should notice I said, "you COULD inflict your beliefs on them" - not "you DO inflict your beliefs on them" - so I wasn't accusing Cleve of doing anything at all. You've totally misread and misunderstood virtually everything I said and why I said it.

I felt no hostile intent toward Cleve. That's totally in YOUR head....

Jim

Ok. I apologize. I must have been just way too tired yesterday and shouldn't have commented altogether.

[mikedsjr]

KTR, I don't think i ever mentioned I instigated any conflict in a science class. But you are missing the issue and I'm obviously not communicating it well to you and since I don't know how else to state it, Im just going to drop it.

Regarding science itself, the Bible and real science don't disagree. The evolutionary theory put forth is not the issue that a christian would argue against. We don't need to prove evolutionary false. A Christian only needs to prove Scripture is historical. And groups like Reasons to Believe are working hard to create Christian theory of creation to prove to the scientific world that the Bible has a right to be in the classroom. The key factors that demonstrates Scriptures accuracy human genetics, location of their starting point is from a localized area and their spread was quick when they started.

mitochondrial Eve and y-chromosomal adam demonstrates that all of humanity came from one man and one woman. However, it does not prove they came from a marriage of two, because the man is a more recent ancestor. Scripturally, y-chromosomal adam should be renamed to y-chromosomal Noah. And amazingly Scripture had the answer before the genetics was discovered to be such.

Scripture also has demonstrated that humanity began from one area. Science has demonstrated that humanity is not from multiple locations. Most scientist state that humanity came from a small area around Ethiopia. Once again, Its a localized group, per science.

Scripture also says that during the days of Peleg the earth divided. Science demonstrates that humanity moved quickly across the globe and a certain point in time.

Those are three things just off the top of my head that I'm certain about that science teaches without even the Bible taught in school. Work of groups like Reasons to Believe help christian because they do this with science as not an enemy of Scripture but demonstrates the validity of scripture.

[Keep The Reason]

KTR,

To be fair, not all of the theist arguments have "been resoundingly beaten hard, and fail." If this were true, it would mean that all theists are naive or dishonest. I will be the first to admit that some of the arguments are flimsy, but not all. In fact, some of them are convincing to me (the cosmological and contingency arguments, for example) and I don't think that I am naive or dishonest.

I don't imply either Scott, but from a scientific perspective, theists arguments do fail (they are at best grounded in indemonstrable assertion), particularly the cosmological argument (given the massive amounts of evidence we continue to build to show that the universe works fine without the need for a cosmic "winder-upper".

Theists retreat into faith; upon this the entire philosophical perspective is grounded. While I would argue --with support -- that a faith-based philosophy is not anywhere near as reliable as a knowledge-based philosophy, to the theist this seems to be an acceptable foundation. I disagree, but that doesn't mean a theist is either naive or dishonest. Mistaken? Yes-- at least that's what I would argue. But naive and/or dishonest? Not necessarily, although there are naive and dishonest people in all categories.

[Keep The Reason]

KTR, I don't think i ever mentioned I instigated any conflict in a science class. But you are missing the issue and I'm obviously not communicating it well to you and since I don't know how else to state it, Im just going to drop it.

Or you could try to communicate it better. But we really have to get around the "I" and "you" issues that keep cropping up here.

For the record, if I use "you" and I mean you specifically, I will say, "And when you -- and I mean you specifically".

Otherwise, 99% of the time I mean "you" as a generic term. (Ever notice that this complaint almost always comes from the theists? I consider it yet another distraction tactic. Atheists tend to understand that the "you" in these conversations are generic most of the time; unless it's a clear ad hominem).

Regarding science itself, the Bible and real science don't disagree. The evolutionary theory put forth is not the issue that a christian would argue against. We don't need to prove evolutionary false. A Christian only needs to prove Scripture is historical. And groups like Reasons to Believe are working hard to create Christian theory of creation to prove to the scientific world that the Bible has a right to be in the classroom. The key factors that demonstrates Scriptures accuracy human genetics, location of their starting point is from a localized area and their spread was quick when they started.

Sorry, this is just the argument of a group who has lost the battle. You're (and I mean specifically you) are looking for ways to make the bible "sound" like it agrees with the facts. We can play this game with every creation myth:

"The World Tree Yggdrasil is not actually a tree -- but symbolic of the evolution of mankind. See, the Norse gods knew that humans would discover evolution and use a "tree" to depict how evolution branches off, and thus their Yggdrasil is merely symbolic of that tree."

Look, obviously you want your religious views, and you are certainly welcome to them. But when you try to push your religion into science, you're going to come up against a very staunch defense. You're not going to get away with swapping the biblical interpretation of 5,000 years into that of modern science simply because you recognize your grip on the social mindset is weaker and weaker as time goes by. You can certainly try to make your round religion fit into the square science-- but we'll be there to loudly point out you are doing it because you have been boxed into a corner in the debate itself.

But while we're at it-- why don't you give us the modern "scientific" interpretation of this happy little Biblical tale?

Numbers 22: 21-30

21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.

22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.

24 But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.

25 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again.

26 And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.

27 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.

28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay. *

(There's more, but it's both boring and it just has the donkey talking more.)








*Note: In some translations, this reads "Neigh!"*
*(This is a joke)

[ScottBarger]

KTR,

I beg to differ, when you assert that theist arguments "have been resoundingly beaten hard, and fail." What does that imply about someone like me, who thinks that some of these arguments are reasonable and compelling?

Also, the "you confusion" between you and Mike may well be solved by incorporating some sort of second person plural pronoun like "y'all" or, if you are from Western Pennsylvania, "Y'unz"

[cleve]

Keep the Reason,
I'm not certain as to whether you realize this or not, but your communication is conveying a lot of pain and anger arising from your past. Have you been listened to very much throughout your life? I ask you this, because your communication carries implications that your thoughts were not always accepted very well by others. If these interpretations carry a ring of truth to you, I sympathize with you because of the pain that you might have experienced.

Are you actually attempting to psycho-analyze me via a post? Are you for real? Or just supremely arrogant? It's usually symbolic to write "lol" -- but seriously, I'm laughing at this post of yours.

Glad to have given you an opportunity to laugh.
My intent wasn't to try to confuse matters. Basically, my style of communication tends in the direction of the analytical; but it is underdeveloped in being exercised in areas of oral and written communication. Since one of your strengths is in the area of public speaking, I was curious as to how God might have used various circumstances in your life to make you a good speaker. Something told me that there was something that motivated you to want to learn how to speak well.

Since you want theists to bring you proof that God exists, could you, as an atheist, reciprocate by showing us theists (just one argument) where the Bible is wrong?

Well, it's wrong about how life was created...

Which life did God create that you consider to be wrong?

and there's no evidence of a flood that makes any logical sense.

Why does the absence of tangible evidence surprise you? Since adequate evidence hasn't been found so far, how does that justify your strong decision to write off the flood as not having occurred?

But before we get into specifics, I have to admit I can't show the Bible is wrong until you bring me one that everyone agrees is the bible. See, right out of the gate we have an insurmountable problem, because none of you theists can point to any one bible and all agree which one is the correct one.

But that pertains to everything in life. Can you think of/point to anything in life where everyone would agree as to its being the best/most useful for everyone?
But prior to arriving at the above point on our journey, we need to try to consider as many options as to ways to arrive at the destination where we would like to go.
Personally, I see life as a continuous journey; but I wondering if I'm picking up on similar energies coming from you.
I think studying the word of God and understanding what that is has helped me far more than mere science has.

So-- bring me the single true bible, one that all agree is the correct one -- and I'll start.

How would you propose that we present to you what is unseen (what gets written daily on our hearts and minds)?
I don't find life - along with the journeys that it has to offer us - to be as simple, robotic, and idealistic as you seem to want to propose (e.g., "... bring me the right bible"). Do you prefer the intellectual dimension over the practical? If that's the case, where does the tested experience come from that validates the intellectual?

[Keep The Reason]

Glad to have given you an opportunity to laugh.
My intent wasn't to try to confuse matters. Basically, my style of communication tends in the direction of the analytical; but it is underdeveloped in being exercised in areas of oral and written communication. Since one of your strengths is in the area of public speaking, I was curious as to how God might have used various circumstances in your life to make you a good speaker. Something told me that there was something that motivated you to want to learn how to speak well.

God? What god? I was working in a corporation and was newly promoted to a management position. They sent a group of we new managers to a class on public speaking so we could do presentations to Executives without looking like imbeciles. It was an internet provider and the dress code was really lax (this has relevance); the class on public speaking videotaped us all giving impromptu off-the-cuff speeches of 1 minute. I saw how poorly I was dressed and how lame a speaker I was and was glad for the class which taught me how to speak clearly and with confidence (most people are poor public speakers), and also it taught me how to present myself in a professional manner. All of this was unknown to me, so there was no "pain of not being heard" or whatever nonsense you think you've read into my posts.

So none of this has any "angst psychology" behind it. I was assigned to the class as part of my job, and I went with no particular expectations. I know theists will assign everything to "god" in such paradigms, but that's a cheat in my opinion. If you assign it to god, you're back to having to demonstrate how this is so.

But anyway, this is all a diversion. Please stop trying to analyze me; better you analyze the arguments.

Which life did God create that you consider to be wrong?

All of it. There is no evidence of any gods creating life here on Earth. If you have some evidence of god creating life, present it. If you don't, why should I or anyone else accept it as a true statement?

Why does the absence of tangible evidence surprise you? Since adequate evidence hasn't been found so far, how does that justify your strong decision to write off the flood as not having occurred?

Because the story includes "every mountain being covered" and of course.... there's not nearly enough water for any of this. It also makes some rather interesting assertions about animals and an ark, and this too is absurd given what we know about geology and life on earth.

But that pertains to everything in life. Can you think of/point to anything in life where everyone would agree as to its being the best/most useful for everyone?

No, but that merely means your biblical status fails as well as all other things in life. So you asked me for at least one argument where the bible fails. If you agree that the bible, like "all things in life" has something wrong about it, then I've answered your question and you should concede that point. The inability for all people to agree which bible is the correct bible is an inherent flaw in the bible for not being divinely strong enough to make this an academic point.

But prior to arriving at the above point on our journey, we need to try to consider as many options as to ways to arrive at the destination where we would like to go. Personally, I see life as a continuous journey; but I wondering if I'm picking up on similar energies coming from you.

Life is continuous, from the first reproductive cell to the massively diverse flora and fawna of today. Ok... and?

I think studying the word of God and understanding what that is has helped me far more than mere science has.

Ok. That's you. And I don't even deny mythology cannot help us understand the world; I love messiah stories (like, for instance, E.T.) -- they are noble and inspirational. But they aren't necessarily true. I get a lot out of the symbolism and metaphors of theism, but I also recognize it's value is not diminished because it's mythic rather than factual. And thus, I don't get burdened with all the crazy convolutions of a religious worldview as real.

How would you propose that we present to you what is unseen (what gets written daily on our hearts and minds)?

Uh, how is this my problem? You're the guy vaunting the bible and the religion. you're the one with some package of a belief system to sell. Now I have to come up with ways for you to sell your product? Here's a suggestion-- why don't you ask god to figure it out. After all, you believe he exists, you believe he can do anything, and you claim this is his program! So-- if you are having problems serving up his product-- go complain to the manufacturer. I'm the buyer-- you want me to buy? Then sell me something other than an empty bill of goods.

Would you buy a cheap used car if the salesman said, "Uh, you're going to have to figure out a way to make the car appear."? If you will-- come on by -- I have a car to sell you. And a bridge.

I don't find life - along with the journeys that it has to offer us - to be as simple, robotic, and idealistic as you seem to want to propose (e.g., "... bring me the right bible"). Do you prefer the intellectual dimension over the practical? If that's the case, where does the tested experience come from that validates the intellectual?

Here's that typical theistic backhand bullshit yet again. You believe that all of existence is the conjuring of a Supreme Author who cannot even get his message across clearly, and all I have to do is just believe your story and I'll be saved from some eternal damnation of some sort --

-- but I'm the guy who turns existence into some simplistic robotic idealism?

Well-- thanks for another hearty laugh.

You want validation of the intellectual? Simply reply to this post. And you will succumb to the intellect using reason to understand words, sentences, context, and information. QED.