Too much what?
Therefore we have referees. And laws. And police. And judges. And moderators.
Therefore we have referees. And laws. And police. And judges. And moderators.
Buy on AliExpress.com
The causality approach (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Hist
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Lets spare the perfect debate for now
No it isn't an assumption.
Since everything on chessboard apply to casualty approach... if he has the cause the white king might decide to call for a new law allowing him to move two steps at a time instead of one.
Human designed laws is a result of causes and nothing guarantee the correctness of those laws.
Beside who can set laws for creators better than the creator?
No, no and no.
What makes you say that?
No it isn't an assumption.
Since everything on chessboard apply to casualty approach... if he has the cause the white king might decide to call for a new law allowing him to move two steps at a time instead of one.
Human designed laws is a result of causes and nothing guarantee the correctness of those laws.
Beside who can set laws for creators better than the creator?
No, no and no.
What makes you say that?
Er human laws are based on the trade-offs and compromises of the interests of various groups. They are the best balance we have found to protect various interests from each other. Saying there is no guarantee of correctness is meaningless, because there is no such thing as correctness. If you talk to one group of people they want more freedoms and if you talk to the other group they want less freedoms, to restrict people in that first group. The best you can ever achieve is an acceptable compromise. And these compromises we negotiate among ourselves in society.
The point is that they best reflect the reality of people's lives. And as this reality chnages, from a stone age to the 21st century, so do these laws.
There are lots of countries where murder is law, including Syria, look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation
Interestingly, many of these are not democracies where the people can decide themselves. In fact, most democracies have outlawed this.
There are lots of countries where murder is law, including Syria, look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation
Interestingly, many of these are not democracies where the people can decide themselves. In fact, most democracies have outlawed this.
What do you mean remain? You always talk about religion as some sort of inevitability. Why wouldn't I remain? If I hadn't read any books and I hadn't gotten more interested in religion, then I would have just lived my life being an atheist. It's not like I have people coming to my house or kidnap me on the street to convert me to their religion.
At this point after all that we've been through I can only take it that you are deliberately trying to troll me by saying "no rational basis". I've given you my rational basis in spades.
But to answer your question, it went something like this (all ages approximate):
Age 1: Baptized.
Age 2: First time in church after I had developed speech and understanding of language.
Age 4: First conversations about religion with parents.
Age 7-8: Reading illustrated bible for kids.
Age 8: First Communion.
Age 8-14: "Sunday school" one afternoon after school per week with a priest. Very liberal content, mentions of historical rituals and heavy focus on the "mystical" aspects of theology. I quite liked these. Once played football on church premises with the priest.
Age 14: Confirmation.
Age 15: First serious reflections on the question of theology and god. Decided I could not remember ever actually believing god. At best I "could not be sure". Decided to stop going to church since the basis of that whole activity is faith. Other than the faith part, I had nothing against the church, except Mass always bored me. Official status: agnostic.
Age 21+: Started getting interested in religion again, but from a different perspective. "Discovered" atheism as an intellectual movement, not merely someone telling me they did not believe in god.
Age 25: Redefined agnostic to atheist, for all practical purposes. "Soft atheism" some people call this. Influence: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris.
Age 27: Given a reference to George Smith's book by aca, where I found a complete argument for atheism and a refutation of agnosticism. Redefined as "strict atheist".
So I was a late starter, a lot of kids I knew had decided this issue for themselves years before I had. But as with many people brought up in a religious tradition, I just went along with it because it seemed the "normal" thing to do.
Nope, but it's hardly unusual for people on opposite sides to suspect each other of ulterior motives. Frankly I would be more willing to admit that emotion comes into it, but that ultimately defeats my purpose, because I know your debating style is such as to jump on flaws and blow them out of proportion. If I saw that yes I do feel a certain emotional pull in this matter, although it is in no way the main thrust, you will turn around and claim that I'm being completely irrational and overcome by emotion, right?
I wish you wouldn't resort to such guerrilla tactics.
At this point after all that we've been through I can only take it that you are deliberately trying to troll me by saying "no rational basis". I've given you my rational basis in spades.
But to answer your question, it went something like this (all ages approximate):
Age 1: Baptized.
Age 2: First time in church after I had developed speech and understanding of language.
Age 4: First conversations about religion with parents.
Age 7-8: Reading illustrated bible for kids.
Age 8: First Communion.
Age 8-14: "Sunday school" one afternoon after school per week with a priest. Very liberal content, mentions of historical rituals and heavy focus on the "mystical" aspects of theology. I quite liked these. Once played football on church premises with the priest.
Age 14: Confirmation.
Age 15: First serious reflections on the question of theology and god. Decided I could not remember ever actually believing god. At best I "could not be sure". Decided to stop going to church since the basis of that whole activity is faith. Other than the faith part, I had nothing against the church, except Mass always bored me. Official status: agnostic.
Age 21+: Started getting interested in religion again, but from a different perspective. "Discovered" atheism as an intellectual movement, not merely someone telling me they did not believe in god.
Age 25: Redefined agnostic to atheist, for all practical purposes. "Soft atheism" some people call this. Influence: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris.
Age 27: Given a reference to George Smith's book by aca, where I found a complete argument for atheism and a refutation of agnosticism. Redefined as "strict atheist".
So I was a late starter, a lot of kids I knew had decided this issue for themselves years before I had. But as with many people brought up in a religious tradition, I just went along with it because it seemed the "normal" thing to do.
Nope, but it's hardly unusual for people on opposite sides to suspect each other of ulterior motives. Frankly I would be more willing to admit that emotion comes into it, but that ultimately defeats my purpose, because I know your debating style is such as to jump on flaws and blow them out of proportion. If I saw that yes I do feel a certain emotional pull in this matter, although it is in no way the main thrust, you will turn around and claim that I'm being completely irrational and overcome by emotion, right?
I wish you wouldn't resort to such guerrilla tactics.
No Rational Basis
1)You cannot intelligibly claim that you know 100% sure that God exists or does not exist. Whoever wrote that book is an idiot.
2) It seems that you and Seven are more interested in attacking the atrocities religion has caused rather than genuinely try to investigate the issue of whether God exists. Which is why I have a lot of respect for people like Verynine, they do not resort to traditional religion bashing strategies when faced with questions such as whether God exists.
So far after all the debates we have had. You and Seven have managed to muster one argument against God. "How can a caring God cause so much punishment?" And funnily enough, when you review that statement, there is absolutely no logical incompatibilty whatsoever.
Attacking Religion.
Another baseless argument is blaming religion for all the atrocities religious leaders have done in the name of religion. As I have mentioned before, this is no different than condemning the entire practice of law and medicine for the mistakes of a few doctors and lawyers.
A Question of Faith
The only position that requires no faith whatsoever is agnosticism. Atheism is a belief, it is a negative belief but a belief nonetheless. But what's most peculiar is that most atheists claim to be the embodiment of reason while at the same time cannot muster one decent argument for atheism. And yes, the burden of proof is on the theist who is making the claim, but he who negates the claim must also carry a burden of proof.
I am not calling you irrational, I suppose I am inclined to think that your disbelief in God is not due to your vigorous efforts in trying to assess arguements in both sides and then carefully try to choose what you find most reasonable, but rather the influence your feelings of hate towards religion has prompted you to feel about God. I may and probably am very wrong in my assessment; this is just my personal opinion.
@JR
Thank you for ignoring my request as I knew you would.
You show me no respect by ignoring everything I've ever said and restating this rational basis bullshit. I find no pleasure in debating someone who is so dishonest. Once you show that your only motive is to undermine and twist everything that's being said there's zero point in letting this continue.
I've spent a lot of time on you and in the end I doubt you have gotten anything out of it, except a wider repertoire of underhanded tactics. Whatever dose of curiosity and open mindedness you showed in the beginning is long gone.
Have fun copy pasting Craig's articles in your equally unproductive future debates.
Thank you for ignoring my request as I knew you would.
You show me no respect by ignoring everything I've ever said and restating this rational basis bullshit. I find no pleasure in debating someone who is so dishonest. Once you show that your only motive is to undermine and twist everything that's being said there's zero point in letting this continue.
I've spent a lot of time on you and in the end I doubt you have gotten anything out of it, except a wider repertoire of underhanded tactics. Whatever dose of curiosity and open mindedness you showed in the beginning is long gone.
Have fun copy pasting Craig's articles in your equally unproductive future debates.
What was your request?
I did no such thing. Openmindedness? You claim to know that God does not exist 100%, I am the one who is closed minded? Come on, man.
I will give credit where credit is due, at least you put some effort into the arguments you made. You made some very good points in the past, ones that really did get me thinking.
Unfortunately, after you claimed to know God is an impossibility, I kind of lost interest. And do you blame me? You blatantly told me to be quiet because nothing I would ever say would change your mind.
I'm sorry, but if that isn't closedmindedness, then I really don't know what is.
Edit: Oh, the Guerilla tactics.. soryy they were necessary for a minute.
Dr.Craig's arguments arre used by every theist who wishes to rationally discuss the existence of God. It's not like you come up with your own atheistic hypothesis, give me a break.
I did no such thing. Openmindedness? You claim to know that God does not exist 100%, I am the one who is closed minded? Come on, man.
I will give credit where credit is due, at least you put some effort into the arguments you made. You made some very good points in the past, ones that really did get me thinking.
Unfortunately, after you claimed to know God is an impossibility, I kind of lost interest. And do you blame me? You blatantly told me to be quiet because nothing I would ever say would change your mind.
I'm sorry, but if that isn't closedmindedness, then I really don't know what is.
Edit: Oh, the Guerilla tactics.. soryy they were necessary for a minute.
Dr.Craig's arguments arre used by every theist who wishes to rationally discuss the existence of God. It's not like you come up with your own atheistic hypothesis, give me a break.
