patrick.net

Quigley says

If the soul doesn't exist, would you consent to be killed if you'd be immediately replaced with a genetically identical copy with your memories?

Would you say, "Go ahead and pull that trigger, I'll be back!"

Would the copy be you?

The soul does not exist, and I would not consent.

Quigley says

If a human being is only the sum of their physicality and memories, murder should be legal when scientists perfect a way to copy memories into a clone.

No it should not be legal. As all Christians go to heaven, should it be legal to murder them, because they continue to live in heaven?
These are just desperate attempts by the Church to fight back against it's greatest enemy - Science.

lakermania says

Overcompensating for his statements on Bill Maher?

Sam Harris has been consistent and accurate in his assessment of religions. He has given convincing and rational reasons for his judgements backed up by indisputable logic and historical fact. Sam Harris never said that Islam was the only terrible religion, nor does he make a false equalization between modern Christianity and modern Islam in the Middle East. Nor did Sam Harris ever say that Western Muslims were mostly terrorists.

socal2 says

But.....but......but Dan says Christianity is "Particularly" vile, evil and dangerous.

But.....but......but you're statement is an outright lie as I have previously shown. The fact that I explained in detail why you are wrong and you stick to that statement is clear indication that you are lying, not simply making a mistake.

He who has to lie to make his point does not have a credible point.

Dan8267 says

One can simply say that "a connection with your 'self'" is a psychological thing as it exists entirely within the natural functioning of your brain. It would be hard to find a connection with yourself if your brain is dead. Every thought, every feeling, every artsy-fartsy connection you have with the universe or yourself exists entirely in your brain.

Fine.
Call it psychology. Call it your brain. I don't care what you call it, it doesn't take away from the fact it exists.

I am not here to prove the unprovable.

The argument to prove or disprove "God" already exists, for eons-- check out Wikipedia.

Here is an interesting quote from it:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

"Søren Kierkegaard argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could rationally be proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans.[citation needed] It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us."

From same article:
"Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book The Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. In this view, it is accepted that some entity exists that needs no creator, and that entity is called God. This is known as the first-cause argument for the existence of God. Both authors claim however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.[51] Some Christian philosophers disagree."

Indiana Jones says

From same article:

"Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book The Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. In this view, it is accepted that some entity exists that needs no creator, and that entity is called God. This is known as the first-cause argument for the existence of God. Both authors claim however, that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.[51] Some Christian philosophers disagree."

I have heard an argument from Dennis Prager........You cannot get something from nothing. He believes God made everything. Did God come from nothing, or did he come from something?

Quigley says

If the soul doesn't exist, would you consent to be killed if you'd be immediately replaced with a genetically identical copy with your memories?

Would you say, "Go ahead and pull that trigger, I'll be back!"

Would the copy be you?

If a human being is only the sum of their physicality and memories, murder should be legal when scientists perfect a way to copy memories into a clone.

If the soul actually did exist, it could be deconstructed and copied in whole or in piecemeal just like your body could.

If I replace every atom in your body, did I just kill you and replace you with a copy? If I take half of the atoms from your body and make a new identical body out of them and other atoms and then take the other half of the atoms in your body and combine them with other atoms to form a second body, which copy is you? If I move around all the atoms of each element with others in your body so that your body still has the exact same configuration but all the atoms have been randomized withing their elements, did I just kill you and create a new person?

The answer to all of these things is that the question is meaningless.

A stream at instance T0 is not the same stream at instance T1. You are not the same person at T0 as you are at T1. You are a mostly similar person, but not the exact same person.

Replicating you at the atomic level would essential be spawning multiple instances of you. There is no distinction between "original" and "copy". All are copies of each other. None is an original in any real sense.

Everything I have said above about bodies and persons would apply equally so to souls if they actually existed.

It also applies to human beings whose minds have been digitized and are running in virtual neural networks. Such minds could be easily copied or backed up. A person who replaced his organic brain with a virtual neural network that could be uploaded into a computer or robot would have the ability to spawn as many instances of himself as he likes.

He could also synchronize those instances every day allowing him to live a single life, but living every day eight or eighty times concurrently. All active instances of him would be original. And they would all be the same person at the moment of complete synchronization.

Of course, the instances could also asynchronously synchronize themselves which means that no more than two instances would ever be identical, but the instances would still have the advantages of being the same person as well as distinct persons.

Yes, this would be highly inconvenient for law and our puny politicians and lawyers could not handle it, so they would outlaw it. But that doesn't change the validity of the concept.

Let's say I'm a digitized human existing in a virtual neural network running on a computer inside a robot. I back myself up daily. One day I get into an argument with some asshole and kill him. I'm sentence to death. What's the legal ramifications of restoring myself from backup, which could be done automatically if my robotic body does not report in?

Does the state execute the instance restored from backup? What if the backup was taken before the other instance murdered the victim? Does that matter to the state? What if there are two or a hundred other instances of me running concurrently when one instance murders someone? Do you hold all instances accountable, even the 99 innocent ones? If not, what if the instance that murdered synchronizes with an instance that has not murdered?

Again, our puny legal system isn't equip to handle such dilemmas because no one in it ever bothers to think outside the box. Such questions get to the heart of why we have laws and punishment in the first place. Is the purpose of sentencing to "punish" people or to prevent crimes? If the former, why should we respect the legal system. Isn't it just about revenge and bloodlust? If the later, then punishment is at best a means to an end. If that end is not served by the means, then the means should cease.

I've actually pondered such issues and I would gladly create a destructive copy of my brain, assuming the copy was accurate and in sufficient detail to be effectively me, and upload that copy into one or more robotic shells. Yeah, it would be nice if the copy didn't have to be destructive so that the organic instance of me could continue to live, but that would be a minor consideration. An identical copy of me is equivalent to me. An inorganic copy of me that is effectively equivalent to my mind but without the obvious fallbacks of not being able to backup and restore and not being able to spawn multiple instances would be the best kind of immortality. I'd take that deal in a nanosecond.

Even if your current instance of consciousness isn't the instance that would continue? After all, identical twins have been proven to be actually quite different people. Thy have genetically disposed similarities, but they often wind up making significantly different choices, even possessing significantly different personalities.
I continue to believe that the most obvious answer is correct: we all possess a piece of God which returns to the infinite deity when we die. Try as you might, you'll never disprove this. And only a true sociopath would try.

Quigley says

After all, identical twins have been proven to be actually quite different people.

Identical twins have identical genetic code, not identical brains. The information needed to fully encode a brain is many order of magnitudes greater than the number of bits in your DNA. Your genetic code only gives a general blueprint of how to construct the brain, not what exactly to construct. Thus, the same exact DNA, when played out to produce a baby 10 million times will produce 10 million different brains.

In contrast, making an atom-for-atom copy of a human body would result in exactly identical brains. The two persons would be identical in mind at the point of the creation of the copies. They would then diverge as individuals.

Similarly, copying a virtual neural network of a human mind would result in a perfect copy of that person's mind, which is really all a person is. The body is just a peripheral.

Quigley says

I continue to believe that the most obvious answer is correct: we all possess a piece of God which returns to the infinite deity when we die. Try as you might, you'll never disprove this. And only a true sociopath would try.

Equally...try as you might, you could never prove this.
Nevertheless, it's your belief, and as long as you don't hurt anyone, I have no problem with it.

Quigley says

we all possess a piece of God which returns to the infinite deity when we die. Try as you might, you'll never disprove this.

Your statement is meaningless since your god doesn't exist. This has been proved. Whether or not you are rational and honest enough to accept that is another story.

Quigley says

And only a true sociopath would try.

Translation: Please don't try to refute my baseless assertion. I'm scared.

Dan8267 says

This has been proved.

Dan thinks he's proven that God doesn't exist.

Of course to do this he takes a straw man fundamentalist or childs version of what God is. Even then, it's silly.

I still say this. Being an atheist is beyond understandable. I respect atheists, and would never try to convert them. But those who crusade against all types of belief, even pantheism or panentheism, are basically stuck in an adolescent stage in their development.

There's an arrogance to it. That is, having the position that others need to be like them, for the their own good, and for the good of the world. Sound familiar ?

Get over it man ! Be an atheist. But move on.

Depends on your definition of 'god'.
some view nature/energy as 'god'
don't go running to the dictionary now...word definitions are under constant evolutionary forces.

Dan8267 says

Quigley says

we all possess a piece of God which returns to the infinite deity when we die. Try as you might, you'll never disprove this.

Your statement is meaningless since your god doesn't exist.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

This has been proved.

Dan thinks he's proven that God doesn't exist.

Of course to do this he takes a straw man fundamentalist or childs version of what God is. Even then, it's silly.

I still say this. Being an atheist is beyond understandable. I respect atheists, and would never try to convert them. But those who crusade against all types of belief, even pantheism or panentheism, are basically stuck in an adolescent stage in their development.

There's an arrogance to it. That is, having the position that others need to be like them, for the their own good, and for the good of the world. Sound familiar ?

Get over it man ! Be an atheist. But move on.

This is why I think gnostic atheists are no better than bible thumpers.

I am an agnostic pantheist.

SoftShell says

Depends on your definition of 'god'.

This is why god exists and we have created him. Behold the power of language!

marcus says

There's an arrogance to it. That is, having the position that others need to be like them, for the their own good, and for the good of the world. Sound familiar ?

Actually, there is a difference. Ppl like Dan want religion out of politics and governance. Many religious ppl, sans certain open minded Unitarian types, want religion to dictate policies. If ppl want to believe in Ahura Mazda, Yahweh/Jehovah, some amorphous deity which can't be defined, a polyglot of deities as in the ancient Greeks, then that's their personal situation. It should not affect the wider society and its governance.

This is why I can't see hoes in America, despite the fact that two consenting adults (read: both parties are adults) are free to do whatever they like w/o the govt getting into their bedroom. But no... here, due to religion, two adults are not free to boink in the land of the free. They have to forge a false *meaningful* relationship because that's how god expects two adults to behave. So yes, this is a legal statute based upon religion. In Mother England, it's legal so we fought a revolution just to lose our freedoms at home.

SoftShell says

Depends on your definition of 'god'.

some view nature/energy as 'god'

Energy comes closest to being God.
All matter is energy.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

marcus says

Dan thinks he's proven that God doesn't exist.

Dan thinks he's proven that the monotheistic gods of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism don't exist for the exact same reason he thinks he's proven that the square root of two is not a rational number. Dan has multiple a priori proofs that no one has ever been able to dispute. It's a math thing. You wouldn't understand.

You can bitch and moan all you want that mathematics is bullshit, but it doesn't change the power of math to prove or disprove conclusions.

marcus says

Being an atheist is beyond understandable.

Perhaps to you because you are willfully ignorant. Any person with even modest intelligence and a lack of bigotry can easily understand why I believe what I do and why I disbelieve what I do because I can clearly show the reasons behind every belief I hold. If you don't understand those reasons, then it's because you are willfully ignorant.

You, of course, can disagree with those reasons, but that would make you wrong because none of those reasons involve value judgements. The reasons are purely based on facts and inescapable logic. There's a lot of things that I believe because, at least in part, of value judgements, but the non-existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe is not one of them.

marcus says

I respect atheists

No you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't make statements like the one below.

marcus says

Of course to do this he takes a straw man fundamentalist or childs version of what God is. Even then, it's silly.

Of course, you are outright lying because you have neither the intelligence nor the integrity to have an honest debate on the existence of god. I have disproved multiple definitions of god coming from standards accepted by billions of people. I have also demonstrated that certain definitions of god -- Superman and the Flash for example -- are not the gods that people pray to even if they turn to them when confronted by the fact that the gods they do pray to cannot exist.

But I'll call your bluff. Define god any way you like. I'll demonstrate one of four things.
1. Your god does not exist using a priori logic.
2. No one prays to your god and no one looks to him for moral guidance. Your god isn't the god you really advocate.
3. Your "definition" of god is meaningless bullshit masquerading as a definition. You deliberately chose wording to make the issue impossible to discuss and are hoping to add enough Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt or FUD to get people to believe the whole subject is a wash. This is exactly what climate change deniers do.
4. Your god is a superhero like all other polytheistic gods. It is not what monotheists believe in god.

The gauntlet has been thrown. Chances are you'll pussy out.

marcus says

But those who crusade against all types of belief, even pantheism or panentheism, are basically stuck in an adolescent stage in their development.

Translation: I don't like someone's political beliefs. Therefore I'm going to attack the person and hope that the audience will conclude that anything he says must be wrong because he's a bad person.

This is the quintessential Ad Hominem fallacy.

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

By making this ad hominem, you are doing several things. First and foremost, you are expressing the belief that the audience, the people reading this thread, are fucking morons who are so stupid they will fall for your transparent trick. You are insulting the intelligence of all PatNet readers. Second, you are declaring that your position is indefensible, that you cannot use any intelligent, reasonable argument to justify your assertions. Third, you are demonstrating that you do not care for an honest, sincere debate on the subject matter but only about being perceived as "winning".

If your position had any merit, you would attack my arguments rather than attacking me with baseless assertions that hypocritically reflect your own pathetic mind rather than mine.

marcus says

There's an arrogance to it. That is, having the position that others need to be like them, for the their own good, and for the good of the world. Sound familiar ?

No, you're thinking of the religious. The religious are the ones who say "Convert or die!".

There is nothing arrogant about striving to educate people and persuading them to be rational. That your god does not exist is a fact, no different than the world is round not flat. It is not arrogant to teach people that the world is round, that it revolves around the sun, and that the sun is a star like all the others, just closer to us. It is not arrogant to demonstrate why evolution is the correct explanation of how life got to be the way it is today. It is not arrogant to try to get people to understand and accept evolution as true because evolution is true. Nor is it arrogant to try to persuade people to accept the reality of man-made climate change and the urgent need to address the problem. Lives literally depend on it. The exact same thing is true about irrational superstitions. Human lives literally depend on mankind becoming more rational.

What is arrogant is your false accusations of arrogance. Every time you call atheists or any of your other opponents arrogant, what you are really saying is, I, Marcus, am morally and intellectually superior to everyone else! and then you go off to eat glue and fuck a donkey.

Marcus on Vacation
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qRm8okHhapU

marcus says

Get over it man ! Be an atheist. But move on.

Translation: Despite the religious being extremely vocal about their beliefs for tens of thousands of years, slaughtering those who didn't covert, flying planes into the buildings of the infidels, and writing laws to punish those who did not worship their god or gods, despite all this, atheists should be the ones who have no freedom of speech and no right to advocate their position on superstitions. Atheists, like blacks and homosexuals, should shut up and just bear the injustices in the world because..., well because..., um..., well..., because I said so!

What a bigot Marcus is!

Peter P says

This is why I think gnostic atheists are no better than bible thumpers.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/1jcUIu-1p8s

I have yet to see Christopher Hitchen's face in a tree stump.

Yes, science and reasoning, facts and logic are superior to faith and magic. If you don't see that, then you have the worldview of a five-year-old.

Rin says

Actually, there is a difference. Ppl like Dan want religion out of politics and governance.

True, but I also do want the people of the world to become more rational and better educated because that will make them wiser and will go a long ways to solving, or at least mitigating, all of the very serious problems we have in the world such as war, poverty, crime, corruption, human rights abuse, pollution, and climate change. The fact is that democracies and republics work better when the populace is rational and educated. And irrationality, particularly the socially accepted delusions of spirituality, allows corrupt politicians to manipulate the people and cause massive strife in the world.

Make no mistake, a world in which science and reasoning are the go-to tools instead of faith and religion, we wouldn't even be debating whether or not climate change is real; we would be solving the problem. As long as religion is given respect and reverence instead of the criticism and derision it rightfully deserves, politicians like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe who was -- and as ridiculous as it sounds, I'm not making up this shit -- was the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee -- holy fuck! -- politicians like Senator Inhofe will continue to say ridiculous things like

Inhofe refuted climate change science in 2012 by citing the Bible. "[T]he Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that 'as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.' My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

Holy fucking monkey ass! That should scare the living shit out of you if you understand it. A senior member of the senate and former chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee just said that climate change could not be possible because "God's still up there". And about one third of Americans would applaud him for saying that and will continue to elect mentally insane people like him into powerful government positions.

This is why I fight to promote reasoning and science, which necessitates combating the lies of religion and "spirituality". This isn't an academic issue. The very future of mankind is in the balance.

And if Marcus calls this example unrepresentative -- he's a big fan of the No True Scotsman fallacy as well -- then he's being his usual disingenuous and lying self. Senator Inhofe literally represents 3.851 million Americans. And he's hardly alone in the Senate or the House. Almost 100% of the senators in the past 30 years have referred to their fictitious god on the floor of the Senate while debating policies. The false god of Christianity and Judaism has considerable influence in the policies of our nation, which is the sole remaining superpower. And that, Marcus, is why I won't be silenced by a worthless, dishonest, and ignorant fool like you.

Rin says

This is why I can't see hoes in America

I've got two in my metal storage building, an old one with a wooden handle and a newer one that's all metal (of course made in China). You can stop and take a look anytime! It must be boring to spend all this time of the day on this subject, too!

Dan8267 says

Yes, science and reasoning, facts and logic are superior to faith and magic.

Yeah, and nerd are oh so attractive.

Successful people are all religious leaders of some sort. Good companies innovate. Great companies impose.

Dan8267 says

war, poverty, crime, corruption, human rights abuse, pollution, and climate change

I see them as manifestations of human nature. There are personal solutions if you choose:

1. War: live somewhere else
2. Poverty: get richer
3. Corruption: live somewhere else, or play the game differently
4. "human rights" abuse: live somewhere else
5. pollution: live in a better area
6. climate change: live in a less-affected area and trade commodity futures on food

Peter P says

Yeah, and nerd are oh so attractive.

So, not being a delusional fool makes one a nerd by your standards? I would argue that says more about you than the people you are criticizing.

Dan8267 says

I would argue that says more about you than the people you are criticizing.

At least someone thinks I'm not a nerd. :-)

If Sam Harris is reiterating Craig's apologetics correctly, he is burning a straw god created by both himself and Dr. Craig.

We don't know what 'God' is or is not. We can make the assumption that humankind created a god-identity to explain whatever frightened, comforted, befuddled, or amazed us throughout our evolution - certainly a rational position based upon reason and a basic understanding of human nature. Children are the originators of 'magical thinking': 'my kitten will get well if I wish hard 8 times a day and sleep with her favorite toy and take her blanket with me wherever I go'. Most of us, athiests included, indulge in some form of ritualized wishing or bargaining when something is happening in our lives that is truly beyond our control.

It is easy to see how the idea of a powerful conscious force may have evolved with us as we progressed through eons of development as beings capable of altering our world through our will, yet still subject to caprices of circumstance. This may be the reality of our concept of 'God'. Or, there may be something, a prime mover, an ultimate caring consciousness that will always be beyond our abilities to rationally comprehend. Something that must be taken on 'faith' to be of any benefit as a guiding force in our lives.

To those, including Mr. Harris, who 'destroy' the possibility of a conscious, guiding presence by stating that 'no loving god would allow children to be harmed or die', I ask; if you were dying of cancer, or on a plane being piloted by hijackers, or trapped in a burning building, wouldn't your mother or father give their lives to save you if they could? If you committed a crime and were committed to years in prison, or chose an abusive spouse, or became a drug addict, wouldn't a loving parent do everything in their power to save you from these circumstances? But consider what would result if they could and did always save you from harm. Would you then have the ability and opportunity to experience free will and develop strength of character that wise parents want for their children?

The existence of a penultimate caring conscious force can not be disproved if intervention during times of crisis is the benchmark. The purpose of such a conscious, guiding influence only has meaning if the ultimate goal is to help humankind continue to evolve the highest ability for empathy that we are capable of within our individual lives and as a peculiarly and particularly evolved species. Through whatever circumstances of origination, we are the caretakers of our planet and each other.

I do not claim to have any evidence of the existence of a guiding 'Great Spirit'. I do feel that following the elemental wisdom and kindness of the most important principle to treat others as you wish to be treated, in all things and at all times, to take responsibility for increasing your own capacity to live in this way and encourage others, particularly children to understand the value of it, is the greatest challenge to us as a species and engenders the greatest potential value that the human race can bring to our own world and to whoever else may dwell in the Universe.

Whether we progress towards greater empathy through our own will or through a belief that we feel a guiding hand when we are incapable of mustering the strength alone, we will never reach this goal without tolerance of each others way of traveling towards it.

Now go pet your puppy, or kiss your child, or call a lonely friend and/or have a beer and be at peace.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Being an atheist is beyond understandable.

Perhaps to you because you are willfully ignorant.

Maybe more than understandable would have been easier for you to interpret.

whiterabbit says

We don't know what 'God' is or is not.

Then the word "god" or "God" is meaningless and no holy book should have ever used it, and no politician should ever use it, and no one should have faith in it.

Vagueing up the concept of god to avoid criticisms of it is disingenuous. People don't worship a vague concept. People don't say "a vague unknowable concept is on our side". When the morality police comes for you, it's not because of the will of some vague unknowable concepts. "Vague unknowable concepts hate fags!" just doesn't have the same ring. When politicians like Senator James Inhofe say climate change is impossible, he doesn't mean because a vague unknowable concept doesn't allow it.

When people advocate policy or make decisions, they aren't appealing to the vague unknowable concept. So it's disingenuous to temporarily redefine god to that solely to avoid criticism and then go back to the very well-defined, specific, Jesus-based god.

In fact, if you are advocating that code is a vague, knowable concept, then you are stating that Moses did not get the Ten Commandments from god, that the Bible is not the word of god, and that Jesus did not rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. Basically, you are substituting the monotheist's god with something far less. You might as well call yourself an atheist who believes there may be things we don't know about the universe. Oh wait, that would make you just like every other atheist ever.

Dan8267 says

despite all this, atheists should be the ones who have no freedom of speech and no right to advocate their position on superstitions. Atheists, like blacks and homosexuals, should shut up and just bear the injustices in the world because..., well because..., um..., well..., because I said so!

Oh, you poor victim you.

I believe you're free to criticize as you do, not just the extremist fundamentalists and holier than though assholes, but all believers. You're free to do it. But my opinion is that (from my frame of reference) you're being kind of an arrogant prick when you do it.

To you, the Dali Lama, the Pope and all others who profess a higher power (not exactly the case with Buddhists such as the Dali Lama), and the benefits of faith are a negative influence on the world.

Dan8267 says

Then the word "god" or "God" is meaningless and no holy book should have ever used it, and no politician should ever use it, and no one should have faith in it.

This is where we see how much of a black and white thinker you are. You can't deal with not knowing one way or the other for sure. So you choose to know for sure that God does not exist.

Most great mystics or whatever you want to call them, the greatest "holy men' (for lack of a better term), are agnostic to somewhere a little on the believing side of agnostic.

humanity says

I believe you're free to criticize as you do, not just the extremist fundamentalists and holier than though assholes, but all believers. You're free to do it. But my opinion is that (from my frame of reference) you're being kind of an arrogant prick when you do it.

There are plenty of places where his ability to do so would be restricted, even in the US.

humanity says

To you, the Dali Lama, the Pope and all others who profess a higher power (not exactly the case with Buddhists such as the Dali Lama), and the benefits of faith are a negative influence on the world.

Why can't he claim that? I presume, for example, the lack of condom use in Africa hasn't been a positive influence.

By the way. I have never said that atheism is a religion.

It's justs Dan's proselytize version which is, maybe to a lessor degree Bill Maher's version.

I like BM by the way - aside from his being a little over the top on religion. I guess when someone is strongly indoctrinated as a child into Catholicism it's sometimes so hard to undue the effect, without a lot of overboard hostility toward religion later, especially for example in Dan's case. One can only imagine how strong his faith was when he was seven.

Bigsby says

Why can't he claim that? I presume, for example, the lack of condom use in Africa hasn't been a positive influence.

We all know countless ways religion has been a negative force, and countless positives as well. The problem is the generalization that it always is, or that in total it is negative. Ironic that unlike most great thinkers, Dan somehow has God like powers to somehow know the answer to these questions.

humanity says

We all know countless ways religion has been a negative force, and countless positives as well.

I'm certainly clear on the countless negative things that these leaders have often done in the name of their religion. I'm less clear on the countless positive things that they have done that are specific to their religious beliefs.

Consider the theory of Panpsychism. It's a popular philosophical debate these days.

Read the arguments for and against. DO you need to decide which is correct ? Or can you just appreciate the theory and the implications, and even the arguments against it? If you can handle being in the "i really don't know" state of mind on panpsychism, but find it intriguing or at least interesting, then I would think you would likely be an an agnostic on the question of God as well. That is at least relative to a half way sophisticated less pinned down version of what God is or might be if there is a God.

By the way, I am not implying some link between Panpsychism and God. But it deals with consciousness. If we can't even wrap our minds around what consciousness is or isn't, why would one try to disprove the existence of God, especially when they have absolutely no clue what many people mean by the word ?

Most believers in God don't have an exact idea of what God is. In fact some use words like ineffable - meaning that really there isn't even a word for it. We use the word God, only for lack of a better word.

It's the people that want to disprove the existence of God that are so hell bent on saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Because this enables them to look down on believers. Or in some cases, because it gives them peace of mind, because they are the type that just have to know one way or the other, and aren't comfortable with "I don't know" when it comes to this question.

humanity says

One can only imagine how strong his faith was when he was seven.

I wasn't brought up in a religious household. I share his views. The only issue I have with him is that at times he comes across as extremely arrogant.

Okay. Well we can agree on that. Even he knows it, and it might more his forum persona than his real life persona. One would have to hope he behaves a little different in real life.

humanity says

It's the people that want to disprove the existence of God that are so hell bent on saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Because this enables them to look down on believers

But here's the thing, I say ... why not? So if Dan or someone wants to tell me that any belief or ideology of a higher power/essence or what have you is false, then good for him, since it really doesn't affect my beliefs and at the same time, I'm also into science & engineering, so I'm not exactly about to let some theocratic state-like authority tell me what to do.

And by having ppl like Dan around, it also helps me because I don't have to later face heresy charges, from those who'll say that my beliefs don't align with doctrine, since Dan's around to tell the modern era Pharisees that they have no authority to begin with.

Thus, I like Dan and want him and other ardent atheists around.

What I have to say to proselytizers is to keep it in their pants. I'm not interested in the dimension of their spiritual c*ck.

humanity says

Read the arguments for and against. DO you need to decide which is correct ? Or can you just appreciate the theory and the implications, and even the arguments against it? If you can handle being in the i really don't know, but find it intriguing or at least interesting, then I would think you are an agnostic. That is at least relative to a modern less pinned down version of what God is or might be if there is a God.

Beyond the woo-woo, where is the actual scientific evidence for such views? I know of no research that demonstrates 'the world has a soul.' That, to me, should be the only concern. As it stands, it is simply people doing forms of intellectual gymnastics without any demonstrable basis, so why should I attach any real worth to it?

humanity says

By the way, I am not implying some link between Panpsychism and God. But it deals with consciousness. If we can't even wrap our minds around what consciousness is or isn't, why would one try to disprove the existence of God, especially when they have absolutely no clue what many people mean by the word ?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. And what many people mean by God is manifest in their religious beliefs. And you don't have to paint an exact picture of God to have an understanding of the consequences of religious beliefs.

humanity says

Most believers in God don't have an exact idea of what God is. In fact some use words like inneffable - maning that really there isnn't even a word for it. We use the word God, only for lack of a better word.

So? How is that a rebuke to the points Dan was making?

humanity says

It's the people that want to disprove the existence of God that are so hell bent on saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Because this enables them to look down on believers.

They aren't saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Atheists don't believe in God. They respond to what believers say their God is.

Atheists aren't arrogant. Theists are.

They believe God, who looks like a Savannah Ape, created the entire universe for the benefit of Savannah Apes around a typical sun on an outer arm of a typical galaxy, one of millions.

As for Dr. Craig, he does the same crap Theists have always been doing - placing God beyond the Clouds, Firmament, Aether, Solar System, Galaxy, etc. to find a place for him. Always placing Yahweh at the very edge of human knowledge, and pushing him back further as knowledge grows.

Craig himself admits the Kalam Argument is just to shore up the faithful and spread doubt in disbelievers if possible. He himself believes in a Personal God by Faith.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just "Proof by Logic".

thunderlips11 says

Always placing Yahweh at the very edge of human knowledge, and pushing him back further as knowledge grows

Exactly, didn't the Zoroastrians call the same exact entity, Ahura Mazda?

Seriously, if someone's going to tout a universal god as their own, at least have it be an original concept.

Dan8267 says

As long as religion is given respect and reverence instead of the criticism and derision it rightfully deserves, politicians like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe who was just said that climate change could not be possible because "God's still up there". And about one third of Americans would applaud him for saying that and will continue to elect mentally insane people like him into powerful government positions.

This is why I fight to promote reasoning and science, which necessitates combating the lies of religion and "spirituality". This isn't an academic issue. The very future of mankind is in the balance.

And if Marcus calls this example unrepresentative -- he's a big fan of the No True Scotsman fallacy as well -- then he's being his usual disingenuous and lying self. Senator Inhofe literally represents 3.851 million Americans. And he's hardly alone in the Senate or the House. Almost 100% of the senators in the past 30 years have referred to their fictitious god on the floor of the Senate while debating policies.

Yes, I concur with the above and disagree with Marcus's attempts at both staging an ad hominem motion, as well as playing an apologist for those who can't separate their Sabbath day activities from their work for the greater public who don't attend the same services.

Rin says

Again, what I have to say to proselytizers is to keep it in their pants. I'm not interested in the dimension of their spiritual c*ck.

Bigsby says

They aren't saying exactly what God is supposed to be. Atheists don't believe in God. They respond to what believers say their God is.

You obviously haven't read Dan's extensive "proof" that God does not exist. You can't prove something doesn't exist without getting very much into what it is.

It's actually quite laughable. He takes a straw man definition of God, giving great detail to an object of beliefs he does not hold nor understand, in order to prove that it's impossible.

Rin says

as well as playing an apologist for those who can't separate their Sabbath day activities from their work for the greater public who don't attend the same services.

Wow. That must have been some seriously indirect apology.

Dan8267 says

You can bitch and moan all you want that mathematics is bullshit

Nice try. I wasn't trolling you. This is a perfect example of your childishness and your emotion and ego driven point of view on this subject.