A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Dubious]

How about no one gets condemned. You die and that's it; the simplest conclusion of all completely within the realms of nature. Why do humans always think it mandatory that even in death they're higher up on the staircase than any other living creature?

His overwhelming sense of self-importance and the fact that by creating a god or gods forces him to believe there actually is one defaults to nothing less than a by-product of consciousness just as the latter can be "modified" by drugs. At least in the West we're slowly convalescing by "exhuming" the entire complex of ideas that have compounded this disease resulting in the self-enslavement of consciousness throughout most of history.

[osgart]

way way back in the original year one the first philosopher Wazzafuts said: whats a foot for? Someone must have made it. And the people marvelled.

Than Suzzafuts came along and said: Nonesense the foot is a mindless formation that just happens to be there.
And the people were split on this but decided to tolerate each other for the common good.

And thus the old war was born, Religion vs Secularism.

Happy Holidays!

[seeds]

...before I give a full response to your post, would you please tell me exactly who it is that will be condemned (according to Christianity as you understand it)?

And please include the reason for the condemning, along with a detailed description of what that “condemning” will entail.

I know it will sound like a cop-out but I don't pretend to know what will actually happen to those who reject Jesus, it is not my decision to make, nor do I claim to know all who have been exposed to the message of Jesus. I only know that I believe that those who have not been exposed to Jesus will not be condemned. I know you are trying to pin me down to something that you can criticize and object to, so keep trying, it just makes me think more carefully about what I do believe.

Fair enough, doc.

So let’s just work with what you have already asserted, especially the following:

I only know that I believe that those who have not been exposed to Jesus will not be condemned.

Can you not see the irony in that statement?

What you are inadvertently implying is that if Christians long ago would have just kept quiet about Jesus and his teachings, then no one would have to worry about being condemned for rejecting him.
_______

[osgart]

they themselves the christians are commanded to spread Jesus salvation message. And only a true believer would. As for those whom dont know of Jesus and die they come back for the Great Tribulation for their choice. So you either accept and obey and go to heaven or reject and go to everlasting hell punishment.
Thats Bible 101.
So the presence of God is supposed to be obvious to all. Clearly evident. So no one has an excuse for not believing and having faith.
All cults prey on fear.
All cults brainwash.
Christians mean the Bible literally. And i am sure while some are sincerely believing in it. Many use the religion for prosperity.

[attofishpi]

they themselves the christians are commanded to spread Jesus salvation message. And only a true believer would. As for those whom dont know of Jesus and die they come back for the Great Tribulation for their choice. So you either accept and obey and go to heaven or reject and go to everlasting hell punishment.
Thats Bible 101.
So the presence of God is supposed to be obvious to all. Clearly evident. So no one has an excuse for not believing and having faith.
All cults prey on fear.
All cults brainwash.
Christians mean the Bible literally. And i am sure while some are sincerely believing in it. Many use the religion for prosperity.

What a complete load of bollocks. To be a Christian - simple means to believe in the existence and words of Christ.

[thedoc]

they themselves the christians are commanded to spread Jesus salvation message. And only a true believer would. As for those whom dont know of Jesus and die they come back for the Great Tribulation for their choice. So you either accept and obey and go to heaven or reject and go to everlasting hell punishment.
Thats Bible 101.
So the presence of God is supposed to be obvious to all. Clearly evident. So no one has an excuse for not believing and having faith.
All cults prey on fear.
All cults brainwash.
Christians mean the Bible literally. And i am sure while some are sincerely believing in it. Many use the religion for prosperity.

"No True Scotsman" anyone who claims to be a Christian, must believe as osgart says they must believe, or they are not really Christians. Osgart, do you claim to be a Christian?

[thedoc]

So let’s just work with what you have already asserted, especially the following:

I only know that I believe that those who have not been exposed to Jesus will not be condemned.

Can you not see the irony in that statement?

What you are inadvertently implying is that if Christians long ago would have just kept quiet about Jesus and his teachings, then no one would have to worry about being condemned for rejecting him.
_______

No, I do not see the irony. I am not referring to those who have heard the word and rejected it, I am referring to those who have never been exposed to the teachings. Also Christians are supposed to spread the word to all people, once others have heard, it's not the job of Christians to convert them to Jesus. Christians don't "save" anyone, that is God's job.

[osgart]

Christianity is delusional.

Noahs Ark as a literal fact
bs

that all nations come from shem ham and japeth. Inbreeding.
Bs

no i am not christian.

No i dont believe in magic or the supernatural in this reality.

I believe in a spiritual reality. That consciousness is the essence of existence.

[uwot]

My disagreement is with those theists that insist I do want some cake.
Those would be theists who are insisting that you are also a theist.
I don't think you mean that.

I did, so if I have misunderstood you, you will have to explain.

Fair enough. The difference is between those who force feed you cake and those who persist in trying to persuade you to try their cake. Henry put it rather bluntly, but accurately.

Moral: avoid metaphors.

Well, it was you that introduced cake.

I think theists can be annoying to argue with because they tend to have a mission. They won't explore interesting arguments for fear this will somehow compromise them. But on the other hand, they do tend to be given a hard time; as you say it does tend to be Mr Can against the world on these boards.

That's the cross he has chosen to bear.

Why isn't having 'a code of laws' 'meddling in other peoples affairs'?

Fair point. Ideally a code of laws should aim to allow the maximum freedom with the minimum coercion, but that is just my personal belief.

I do not think there is a substance called 'merit' that we can objectively identify. By saying they have merit you are giving them your approval. And if you say that others should/must share your opinion, that is to assert that your approval is more than just a 'personal belief'. On what is that assertion based on? It must be on some claim of transcendental authority.

The problem with transcendental authority is that there isn't one that is universally accepted. We are stuck with arguing for our personal beliefs.

Suppose John says: 'I don't believe in gravity'. Mary asks: 'Why not?' John relies: 'No reason'. Then Mary asks: 'What do you mean by gravity?' How will John reply?

You'd have to ask John. The thing is that gravity is simply whatever it is that makes things fall to the ground.

He can deny he means anything by 'gravity', but in that case his saying 'I don't believe in gravity' was meaningless. But if he gives a description of 'gravity' then it will be in terms of more general things, 'scientific laws' or 'spacetime'. In which case, his disbelief in gravity must relate to more than just the word 'gravity'. It might be a rejection of science as a whole, or of relativity.

There are any number of hypotheses that seek to explain the cause of gravity. John can believe in any or none of them, but that massive bodies are subject to a force can easily be demonstrated by dropping something. In other words, John might not believe in, for instance, warped spacetime, but unless he has some esoteric, perhaps Eleatic metaphysical beliefs, it is unlikely that he will deny that something is making heavy objects fall to the ground.

In other words, there is no 'just not believing'. If we are saying something meaningful, then it has to relate to the rest of our ideas.

Well, it is worth remembering that scientific theories can consist of three elements.
1. The phenomenon you wish to understand. This is crucial; 'science', if it means anything, is investigating, describing and explaining things that demonstrably happen. Anyone suitably equipped should be able to agree that the phenomenon exists. If an area of interest does not relate to phenomena that others can agree is 'real', then science is just any idea that anyone happens to have. That is pretty much how sociology defines science, conveniently, as it grants sociology scientific status, but personally, I think physics is about physical phenomena, or it isn't physics.
2. Pattern recognition. This might simply be inductive reasoning: the sun has always come up, therefore, it probably will continue to do so. It might be a bit more sophisticated and predict where and when it will rise and fall, based on previous observations; or it might be a full blown mathematical model, like Ptolemy, and a general pattern is inferred from quantifiable measurements.
3. Finally, there is the explanation. You can attribute the rise and fall of the sun to anything you like. An hypothesis may or may not make predictions about future observations, but if it doesn't, it has no 'scientific' value.
I should add that utility, ease of use, is generally accepted scientific value. It's Occam's Razor, a simpler model is preferable to a more complicated one that gives exactly the same results, but it isn't necessarily any more 'true'.

If the goons are like minded, and the majority, then their imposing their will would be democratic.

That's the tyranny of democracy; there will always be some for whom that is the case, and as the US election has shown, it doesn't even need to be the majority.

Is personal belief sacrosanct, in the sense that nobody should be allowed to impose anything, on anyone?

Yes.

Because even that super-libertarian idea incorporates a 'should' that is supposed to govern everyone else, i.e. the law that there shall be no laws. (And presumably policemen whose job would be to prevent anyone becoming a policeman).

The job of the police is not to control what people think; it is to control what people do.

It is the same point as above. I do no see how one can have a completely unconnected belief or disbelief. It must be about something and it cannot be entirely personal.

Well, this is a philosophy forum and in a sense, serious philosophers are committed to making at least a logically valid case. The tool that philosophy uses is logic; this can be used to investigate the coherence of a narrative. Most people believe that their narrative is coherent, but the mistake many make is equating coherence with truth. The issue is not necessarily the logic, which can be analysed 'objectively', but the premises are often "entirely personal"; 'God exists' is such a premise. As a personal belief, it is sacrosanct, but when the narrative based on it becomes an excuse to interfere with other people's liberty, then it's time to call the police.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I do not see the irony. I am not referring to those who have heard the word and rejected it, I am referring to those who have never been exposed to the teachings. Also Christians are supposed to spread the word to all people, once others have heard, it's not the job of Christians to convert them to Jesus. Christians don't "save" anyone, that is God's job.

I generally agree with you; but I fear Seeds has got you chasing a bit of a red herring there, thedoc.

Seeds is asking you to take a picture, and on the basis of it, assume that the child in view is "lost," and then defend why it is "lost." Neither you nor he know...or are obligated to defend...that it is so, even if there were people who believe it was so. They wouldn't know either.

In fact, counter cases to that supposition abound. Apologist Ravi Zacharias came to know God, though he was born a Hindu. Nabeel Qureshi was a Muslim. There's nothing about a child in a costume that hints that it cannot convert to or from any faith it wishes. What we would have to know for sure was that until the child did convert, it would inevitably be lost. Do we know that?

Moreover, if the child would turn out to be a wicked person (like a Hitler or a Stalin) then many Atheists would accuse God of failing to end the child's life before all that evil was actualized, and would think it a good thing if He did. So we would have to know that God was capable of knowing some child would actually convert, if given enough time, but that He somehow lost track and precipitated that person into Eternity anyway, by acccident. That seems highly implausible -- at least on any known Christian view -- and quite contrary to what the Bible says is the case. So one cannot fairly accuse Christians of believing that.

What's very clear is this: that Seeds knows about the Christian view of God...at least something...maybe not much more than that it exists, but that is enough to warrant an investigation at least. So Seeds is NOT a child sitting in a bathtub.

The more profitable conversation is the one that addresses the facts we all know, or at minimum, that half of us know, not the ones nobody knows. We don't know what the future destiny of the bathtub child is. We have a much better idea of our own position. And Seeds, well, Seeds may also have a fix on his/her own position.

But about the bathtub kid, there isn't much more to be said. Seeds hasn't been able to explain at all what logically follows from the showing of such a picture, so it seems weird that you're trying to answers a question Seeds hasn't even been able to establish as warranted, or even to frame in a basic logical syllogism, doesn't it?

At least it seems so to me.

[thedoc]

Moreover, if the child would turn out to be a wicked person (like a Hitler or a Stalin) then many Atheists would accuse God of failing to end the child's life before all that evil was actualized, and would think it a good thing if He did.

And then the atheist would criticize God for killing the child, because the atheist didn't know how the child would turn out. It all goes back to the idea that there is good in everyone, if you just give them a hug.

[Immanuel Can]

And then the atheist would criticize God for killing the child, because the atheist didn't know how the child would turn out. It all goes back to the idea that there is good in everyone, if you just give them a hug.

Yes, that's the game. They first say that God isn't fair, because he doesn't stop evil; then they say He's not loving, because He does. They really don't know what they want; except, perhaps, to be able to dismiss the whole thing and pretend it doesn't exist, in the hope that it really doesn't.

[thedoc]

What's very clear is this: that Seeds knows about the Christian view of God...at least something...maybe not much more than that it exists, but that is enough to warrant an investigation at least. So Seeds is NOT a child sitting in a bathtub.

The more profitable conversation is the one that addresses the facts we all know, or at minimum, that half of us know, not the ones nobody knows. We don't know what the future destiny of the bathtub child is. We have a much better idea of our own position. And Seeds, well, Seeds may also have a fix on his/her own position.

But about the bathtub kid, there isn't much more to be said. Seeds hasn't been able to explain at all what logically follows from the showing of such a picture, so it seems weird that you're trying to answers a question Seeds hasn't even been able to establish as warranted, or even to frame in a basic logical syllogism, doesn't it?

At least it seems so to me.

Perhaps I tend to project a bit, in that when someone makes a comment on a subject, I tend to answer all the comments that I have read or heard on the same subject, even if the poster didn't directly address that point.

[thedoc]

And then the atheist would criticize God for killing the child, because the atheist didn't know how the child would turn out. It all goes back to the idea that there is good in everyone, if you just give them a hug.

Yes, that's the game. They first say that God isn't fair, because he doesn't stop evil; then they say He's not loving, because He does. They really don't know what they want; except, perhaps, to be able to dismiss the whole thing and pretend it doesn't exist, in the hope that it really doesn't.

I suppose that we will all know for sure someday, till then the atheist will deny any evidence as insufficient, and the theist will point to the evidence and some theists will claim to know for sure now.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose that we will all know for sure someday, till then the atheist will deny any evidence as insufficient, and the theist will point to the evidence and some theists will claim to know for sure now.

Sounds about right.