A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[seeds]

Introducing straw men into the argument does not help your case.

Hmmm... you appear perhaps less than familiar with what a "straw man" fallacy actually is. All I asked is a question to test your theory that "common sense" is always sufficient. I made no "straw man" argument at all.

According to Wiki:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

You erected a straw man out of the fact that because one cannot use “common sense” to determine the precise number of planets in the universe, it therefore means that common sense cannot be used in assessing the value or truth of something else.

It is a classic straw man argument.
_______

[seeds]

In my opinion, there is no “fallen” human condition.

So let me clear this up, if I may: whatever human beings do is good? Is that your position?

My position is that whatever humans do on earth is a direct result of God purposely limiting our level of consciousness in such a way so that no matter how utterly strange it is that we are spinning around “topsy-turvy” on a flying ball of concentrated “light-like” energy, the context and setting will always seem “natural and logical” to us.

As I have stated elsewhere, there is a delicate balance that exists between feeding us “just enough” information about the afterlife to give us a sense of hope, while not revealing the absolute truth of our destiny in such a manner that might cause us to long for it or seek it out prematurely.

Furthermore, if you look back through human history, you will see how the information gets adjusted, allowing us to gradually ascend to higher plateaus of understanding.

It is imperative that humans believe in the integrity of objective realty so that everything always makes sense to us as we participate in the process of creation that produces new souls (God’s literal “offspring”) as witnessed in the picture below...



Consequently, the level of consciousness that we are purposely designed to operate at in order to keep this remarkable “soul-creating illusion” intact and viable is what is responsible for the erroneous assumption that humans are functioning in a “fallen” state of existence.

And as I pointed out to thedoc, that because it is God himself who is personally accountable for setting the parameters and conditions of our momentary existence on earth, he is not going to punish any of us for the blind choices we made under the terms of those conditions.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Now, getting back to my earlier question to you...

...was it “Og” or was it “Ug” that was tempted by a “talking snake” to eat the fruit from the tree of “the knowledge of good and evil”?

That is no small question, IC, for it is the doctrine of a unique and specifically detailed “original sin” that is the basis of the “fall of man,” and it represents the very foundation of Christianity itself.

However, if it can be logically assumed that Og and Ug...

(two beings who had just recently transitioned from an ape-ish mentality into a human mentality)

...had absolutely no involvement in the ridiculous mythological nonsense depicted in the Bible, then why would humanity need a “savior” to redeem us from the alleged eternal consequences of a “fall” that never happened?
_______

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are legless on this issue.

I note your statement to that effect, and dismiss it with the aplomb that is appropriate.

92% of people are not a unity, and are in serious conflict on matter so morality and faith.

They are unified only in this: that they don't think Atheism is true.

WRONG. 70% of them are ATHEISTS ABOUT YOUR GOD.

However, we need not hang anything on that, except that shows there are a great number of people who are happy not to concede your claim that there is no evidence for God. A lot of people seem to think there is. But believe whatever you wish. You don't seem to find any facts compelling.

Systems which employ religion for social control and those that mimic religion such as North Korea, claim a mandate for morality.

In that strange little world in which you live, North Korea is not Atheistic? You actually think it's quasi-religious? Amazing. Well, with that sort of complete lack of facts, I don't think I can find a reasonable rejoinder. Enjoy your little world, I guess. I suspect that nobody else lives there.

That is not the morality I live by, nor want to live by,......

SADLY most of your group do live by that.

So I can dismiss anything you say with more aplomb than you and your pathetic creed could ever muster.

[Hobbes' Choice]

In my opinion, there is no “fallen” human condition.

So let me clear this up, if I may: whatever human beings do is good? Is that your position?

My position is that whatever humans do on earth is a direct result of God purposely limiting our level of consciousness in such a way so that no matter how utterly strange it is that we are spinning around “topsy-turvy” on a flying ball of concentrated “light-like” energy, the context and setting will always seem “natural and logical” to us.

As I have stated elsewhere, there is a delicate balance that exists between feeding us “just enough” information about the afterlife to give us a sense of hope, while not revealing the absolute truth of our destiny in such a manner that might cause us to long for it or seek it out prematurely.

Furthermore, if you look back through human history, you will see how the information gets adjusted, allowing us to gradually ascend to higher plateaus of understanding.

It is imperative that humans believe in the integrity of objective realty so that everything always makes sense to us as we participate in the process of creation that produces new souls (God’s literal “offspring”) as witnessed in the picture below...


)[/b]
_______

Or this soul created by god.


Or this other baby

How about this one?



All miracles.

[Immanuel Can]

...why would humanity need a “savior” to redeem us from the alleged eternal consequences of a “fall” that never happened?

Quite correct: there would have to be some sort of important incident at the beginning of human history that explains why human beings are not as they should be. Whether you want to understand that incident in mythological or literal language, it would still actually have to have happened. So you must ask what that would be.

That's as true for your view as for mine. For your view posits that souls are, so to speak, less-than-fully-developed, or under-actualized in some way, as you put it, "limited in level of consciousness," and you use that as explanation for the human process toward "afterlife," through "higher plateaus of understanding." But why and how we are not created perfect and completely actualized, you do not say.

Surely that would be an essential part of your story.

So I wonder how you would describe that initial cause of humanity's need for a process of development...

[Immanuel Can]

WRONG. 70% of them are ATHEISTS ABOUT YOUR GOD.[/color]

It doesn't matter, because I don't hang anything on the agreement of their particulars. They can be partially right, or totally wrong on the details, and all it means is that not everybody knows everything about God. That's not surprising, really.

What is surprising is that you floated a claim like "there is NO evidence..." and thought that everybody reading it owed you to agree. I only point out that while you bluster and yell, "There is NO evidence..." very few people actually agree with you, and you can't take it for granted that they should.

Manifestly, that, and the all-caps above, are only empty rhetoric, on your part. You have no justification to be assertive about it at all. Moreover, you have no reason to make the statement in the first place, since you could only speak for yourself: you clearly do not have the faintest evidence on hand of what any other person has come to know or has not, in that regard or any other.

And that's just factually obvious -- to everyone who thinks at all. You have NO way of knowing what other people do or do not know. You are only guessing...very loudly, perhaps, but still only guessing.

That is not the morality I live by, nor want to live by,......

Well, you raised the issue, and I asked what "the morality you live by" is.

Are you ashamed to tell me? Or will you answer?

[Dontaskme]

Or this soul created by god.


Or this other baby

How about this one?



All miracles.

Or these souls.



The soul is just another label for nothingness.

[Hobbes' Choice]

WRONG. 70% of them are ATHEISTS ABOUT YOUR GOD.[/color]

It doesn't matter,

Yes it does.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend they are all the same, but try to walk in to a Mosque.

[uwot]

It doesn't matter, because I don't hang anything on the agreement of their particulars. They can be partially right, or totally wrong on the details, and all it means is that not everybody knows everything about God.

But if there is anyone who does know everything about god, it's you, right?

What is surprising is that you floated a claim like "there is NO evidence..." and thought that everybody reading it owed you to agree.

I've made the point before that evidence can support whatever you care to believe. The Catholic Church, for instance, preaches that if a patient prays to a saint and they get better, it's a miracle. It's the same as children believing that a coin under their pillow is evidence for the tooth fairy. You can call anything that pleases you evidence for your god, it is absolutely meaningless. What you need is a phenomenon that can only be attributed to a supernatural cause. Of that, "there is NO evidence..."

[Immanuel Can]

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend ...

Speaking of that, how about that explanation of what you meant when you talked about "the morality I live by"? You haven't said what it is yet.

You raised it, and I've asked you twice already now. This is time number 3.

Well?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend ...

Speaking of that, how about that explanation of what you meant when you talked about "the morality I live by"? You haven't said what it is yet.

You raised it, and I've asked you twice already now. This is time number 3.

Well?

Do you really expect me to sum up my entire systems of honours, politics and social relationships to the entire rest of the human race on a PN Forum.
If you want to know that you shall have to examine my posts. It cannot be summed up in one word or copied from single book, like yours.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really expect me to sum up my entire systems of honours, politics and social relationships to the entire rest of the human race on a PN Forum.

Nope. Just give me the axiom that grounds your choice of ANY moral belief at all.

In fact, I'll even take any single precept. Just one thing you believe is a moral imperative. Anything.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Do you really expect me to sum up my entire systems of honours, politics and social relationships to the entire rest of the human race on a PN Forum.

Nope. Just give me the axiom that grounds your choice of ANY moral belief at all.

In fact, I'll even take any single precept. Just one thing you believe is a moral imperative. Anything.

No axiom grounds my morality. My morality stems from my emotions and is modified by my personal and social experiences.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Do you really expect me to sum up my entire systems of honours, politics and social relationships to the entire rest of the human race on a PN Forum.

Nope. Just give me the axiom that grounds your choice of ANY moral belief at all.

In fact, I'll even take any single precept. Just one thing you believe is a moral imperative. Anything.

No axiom grounds my morality. My morality stems from my emotions and is modified by my personal and social experiences.

No tell me an axiom of yours and I'll show you where you brake it.