The Problems With Ethical Relativism (18 Viewers)

[*aca*]

It has nothing to do with technology.

Who mentioned technology?

The distinction I made is a pure logical/analytical one. I already mentioned it 3 times, and you ignored it as many times, but what the heck: you can't create anything of which you're a part yourself. I'm sure someone has come up with that a few thousand years ago too, and by that concluded that it's nonsensical to define a god that exists within our universe (like when it would be located on a mountain or whatever).

So god is not part of our universe at it has always been so? That is a bold claim and i would expect you to substantiate it

apart from that. top of the mountain WAS the upper limit of the universe then as much as the hunted animal was the limit of the universe of the humanoid hunter as much as the 4th dimension or multiverse is on the upper limits of our, current day universe. Unexplained is always one step beyond the limits of our universe and as soon as we explored and understood something unknown up to that point in time, we shifted the goalpost one step further. And that is exactly what your definition does. Places the possible god in the area which is outside our current knowledge and conveniently fill the gap.

No, I can only see two objects moving towards each other, I'm not doubting that. But I cannot see these forces. How do these forces work? Why should I just assume that these mysterious thing you call forces are there? I cannot understand it, and if you try to explain it to me you're making an ad hoc explanation because your starting point is 'forces exist', so it cannot exist...

Does this reasoning sound lame to you?

Forces are defined. They are given values. They are measured. They respond to experiments. They help us build things that work. They behave in uniformed manner. They are predictable.

The moment you can explain god in the same terms, I'll admit that my argument is lame. Otherwise, what you just said is ridiculous for a student of engineering.

Claiming god exists isn't helpful, but it isn't a burden either.

Yeah, tell that to scientists that lost their funds in stem cell research because religious people think god doesn't want that (not to mention all the patients that will have to wait for the cure of their diseases much much longer). Tell that to a pregnant teenager who's religious parent kept her away from contraception. Tell that to a kid who's jehovah witness parents refuse blood transfusion. Or to the girl who died of untreated diabetes because christian scientist parents used prayer as the only medicine rather than treating her with modern medicine. Not to mention burning of witches in Nigeria done by humble christians and let me not start on what people are ready to do and are doing in the name of god as prescribed in koran.

Chatting about existence of god on internet forums is an interesting past time for ones that are idle enough to do it. Firm, unshakable belief in personal god creator has serious repreccutions on the lives of millions of people and is the great impediment towards further progress.

If there was a site with a list of silly atheist arguments, I'm sure this one would make that list.

Suit yourself. But a creature that can create the universe, which is an incredible task, could have done things in such a way to make our lives way, way easier than they are.

After all, he/she/it cares, no?

What the hell is the link between the analogy Juve Rev made up in order to better understand a certain interpretation of god, and that list of "god proofs" mocking theism? See, it's this - should I say it? - arrogant attitude of atheists like yourself, claiming that your believe system (god doesn't exist) is more superior than the other, that is really annoying and makes you more close minded than some theists even.

I don't believe in god myself and all I did was give a more understandable interpretation of god, and instead of just accepting it for what it is, you stubbornly come up with standard rejecting arguments like I'm some kind of priest trying to convert you. And that shows how biased you really are.

If it would be a football match between theism and atheism, it's still 0 - 0.

I attacked your argument, not you. If my argument sounds arrogant, it is because you can not bring yourself to admit that your definition of god is no better that a definition given by a bronze age human.

If you are engaging into discussion and you trow out a definition and expect to live it at that, well, that is not much of a discussion, isn't it? I read what you said, i disagreed and explained why i disagree and why it still doesn't go a step further. I will gladly admit that my understanding of what you said is wrong once you manage to provide any sort of tangible evidence for it. I am no scientist and i make no claim that i know everything.

If that sound arrogant to you so be it. Facts do not appeal to emotions.

regrading supermario joke, you haven't seen the arguments that theist put as a "proof" of god that i have seen. There are several sites that catalogue these. Super mario was something i heard for the first time & i found it funny. Not the anology. Use of super mario.

As for the result, theist arguments have been beaten to pulp years ago. What we have now is refining the same staff over and over again. I do admit that my patience is not what it used to be, and for that i apologize. No bias on my side whatsoever. but, i guess i cant convince you of that

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Dinsdale]

Who mentioned technology?

Oops, misread on my part. My bad.

So god is not part of our universe at it has always been so? That is a bold claim and i would expect you to substantiate it

apart from that. top of the mountain WAS the upper limit of the universe then as much as the hunted animal was the limit of the universe of the humanoid hunter as much as the 4th dimension or multiverse is on the upper limits of our, current day universe. Unexplained is always one step beyond the limits of our universe and as soon as we explored and understood something unknown up to that point in time, we shifted the goalpost one step further. And that is exactly what your definition does. Places the possible god in the area which is outside our current knowledge and conveniently fill the gap.

I know I used the term definition a few times, but I now see that the model I suggested was not a definition, but an interpretation. An interpretation of something that we can't understand. I'll explain in more detail in a separate post.

Forces are defined. They are given values. They are measured. They respond to experiments. They help us build things that work. They behave in uniformed manner. They are predictable.

The moment you can explain god in the same terms, I'll admit that my argument is lame. Otherwise, what you just said is ridiculous for a student of engineering.

Of course any scientist thinks doubting the existence of forces is lame. It was contrived to sound lame. And I can keep taking it a step further if I want to emulate your atheistic reasoning. Because no, you cannot directly measure forces (tricky but true).

Yeah, tell that to scientists that lost their funds in stem cell research because religious people think god doesn't want that (not to mention all the patients that will have to wait for the cure of their diseases much much longer). Tell that to a pregnant teenager who's religious parent kept her away from contraception. Tell that to a kid who's jehovah witness parents refuse blood transfusion. Or to the girl who died of untreated diabetes because christian scientist parents used prayer as the only medicine rather than treating her with modern medicine. Not to mention burning of witches in Nigeria done by humble christians and let me not start on what people are ready to do and are doing in the name of god as prescribed in koran.

Chatting about existence of god on internet forums is an interesting past time for ones that are idle enough to do it. Firm, unshakable belief in personal god creator has serious repreccutions on the lives of millions of people and is the great impediment towards further progress.

This is exactly why I call you biased. You're saying that modelling your life by a made up interpretation of god is bullcrap, and I couldn't agree any more. But because of that you shouldn't stubbornly reject the notion of god.

Suit yourself. But a creature that can create the universe, which is an incredible task, could have done things in such a way to make our lives way, way easier than they are.

After all, he/she/it cares, no?

'Making our lives easy' is an interpretation.

I attacked your argument, not you. If my argument sounds arrogant, it is because you can not bring yourself to admit that your definition of god is no better that a definition given by a bronze age human.

If you are engaging into discussion and you trow out a definition and expect to live it at that, well, that is not much of a discussion, isn't it? I read what you said, i disagreed and explained why i disagree and why it still doesn't go a step further. I will gladly admit that my understanding of what you said is wrong once you manage to provide any sort of tangible evidence for it. I am no scientist and i make no claim that i know everything.

If that sound arrogant to you so be it. Facts do not appeal to emotions.

regrading supermario joke, you haven't seen the arguments that theist put as a "proof" of god that i have seen. There are several sites that catalogue these. Super mario was something i heard for the first time & i found it funny. Not the anology. Use of super mario.

As for the result, theist arguments have been beaten to pulp years ago. What we have now is refining the same staff over and over again. I do admit that my patience is not what it used to be, and for that i apologize. No bias on my side whatsoever. but, i guess i cant convince you of that

I didn't want to attack you personally either, rather that your arguments are 'intellectually pretentious'.

I still don't understand why you're categorizing that Super Mario analogy as a god proof btw.

And nothing has been beaten to pulp, except religious arguments.

 

[rounder]

regrading supermario joke, you haven't seen the arguments that theist put as a "proof" of god that i have seen. There are several sites that catalogue these. Super mario was something i heard for the first time & i found it funny. Not the anology. Use of super mario.

As for the result, theist arguments have been beaten to pulp years ago. What we have now is refining the same staff over and over again. I do admit that my patience is not what it used to be, and for that i apologize. No bias on my side whatsoever. but, i guess i cant convince you of that

I didn't use supermario as an argument for God. That's just your overwhelmingly anti-theist mentality take the best of you.

Theists commonly use around three of all of these arguments for the existence of God. The others were made up by a very bored, lonely, and spiteful atheist.

 

[Dinsdale]

I didn't use supermario as an argument for God. That's just your overwhelmingly anti-theist mentality take the best of you.

this

 

[rounder]

this

Yes?

 

[Dinsdale]

It's the lazyman's way of saying "I agree".

 

[rounder]

Ah, I see.

 

[*aca*]

I didn't use supermario as an argument for God. That's just your overwhelmingly anti-theist mentality take the best of you.

this

Super mario was something i heard for the first time & i found it funny. Not the anology. Use of super mario.

I cant make it any clearer for you guys.

 

[*aca*]

Oops, misread on my part. My bad.

no problem

I know I used the term definition a few times, but I now see that the model I suggested was not a definition, but an interpretation. An interpretation of something that we can't understand. I'll explain in more detail in a separate post.

Thanks for realizing that something is wrong. I will look at the other thread and see if anything is different.

Of course any scientist thinks doubting the existence of forces is lame. It was contrived to sound lame. And I can keep taking it a step further if I want to emulate your atheistic reasoning. Because no, you cannot directly measure forces (tricky but true).

You misrepresented what i said and said that it sounds lame. If it was meant to, you did not succeed. What you managed is to appear that you are comparing the level of knowledge that we have about forces of nature and somehow ridicule my attempt to explain why god is not even close (in terms of evidence) to forces of nature.

You can easily test existence of gravity. Just open the window and jump.

even if we can not measure the forces directly, we have ways of measuring them. How do we measure god that moves through 4th dimension?

This is exactly why I call you biased. You're saying that modelling your life by a made up interpretation of god is bullcrap, and I couldn't agree any more. But because of that you shouldn't stubbornly reject the notion of god.

I stubbornly reject anything that does not make sense. god is just one of the things

'Making our lives easy' is an interpretation.

so god couldn't do without earthquakes? tsunamis? floods? He couldn't have given us wings? or made us resistant to radiation? resistant to viruses? why create viruses in the first place?

all these (and there are many, many more) that would have made our life in this universe much, much easier. and that is not interpretation, this is a fact.

I didn't want to attack you personally either, rather that your arguments are 'intellectually pretentious'.

Well i called nobody arrogant, nor did i call anyone's arguments pretentious, nor did i call anyone stubborn, nor biased, nor called anyone of you anti-atheist (i was described as one of these throughout the thread).

All i did was call out the things that do not make sense and explained why. Persistent? yes. intellectually pretentious? no.

I still don't understand why you're categorizing that Super Mario analogy as a god proof btw.

explained in the post above this one. Cant explain it any better.

And nothing has been beaten to pulp, except religious arguments.

i though that we have "existence of god" kind of discussion. These kind of arguments tend to be of particular kind, usually rehashed and "improved" versions of the old argument that has been beaten to pulp. so far, in this thread, there was no new arguments for existence of god.

 

[Dinsdale]

You replaced word god with forces and said that it sounds lame. If it was meant to, you did not succeed. What you managed is to appear that you are comparing the level of knowledge that we have about forces of nature and somehow ridicule my attempt to explain why god is not even close (in terms of evidence) to forces of nature.

You can easily test existence of gravity. Just open the window and jump.

even if we can not measure the forces directly, we have ways of measuring them. How do we measure god that moves through 4th dimension?

No, I never claimed the concept of forces is lame. On the contrary, it's lame to deny the existence of forces. Why? Because forces help us to understand why mass-having objects move towards each other for instance. We postulated the existence of forces because it helps us to understand this movement in terms of causality.

Forget about the 4 dimensioned entity interpretation. You may have missed what I said about it, but it's just giving an idea about a 'god light'. It's irrelevant, it has nothing to do with the core notion of god.

so god couldn't do without earthquakes? tsunamis? floods? He couldn't have given us wings? or made us resistant to radiation? resistant to viruses? why create viruses in the first place?

all these (and there are many, many more) that would have made our life in this universe much, much easier. and that is not interpretation, this is a fact.

I think you're making the mistake of interpreting god wrongly (like nearly everyone does, and so did I) because there shouldn't be given any meaning to it. (check out other thread)

Well i called nobody arrogant, nor did i call anyone's arguments pretentious, nor did i call anyone stubborn, nor biased, nor called anyone of you anti-atheist (i was described as one of these throughout the thread).

All i did was call out the things that do not make sense and explained why. Persistent? yes. intellectually pretentious? no.

If you take the arrogant thing personally, then I will take it back. But I get the impression you are somewhat biased, because you seem motivated by your adversity towards religion (which I share). Maybe I'm getting te wrong impression because your persistence is just very high, and maybe you have tried to view it thoroughly from another perspective in the past, I don't know...

explained in the post above this one. Cant explain it any better.

But you were referring to silly god proofs, which gave the impression that you were categorizing it as that and then mocking it. But hey, never mind. Just a misunderstanding I guess.

 

[Hist]

you silly man