Did Biblical events really exist?

[dthmstr254]

False, because of the following reasons:
- Time has no ending, so I, as an atheist assume it has no beginning.
- "Every action causes a reaction", hence how can there be a first?
- You have no single proof that matter is not infinite. It is logical to assume that both place and time are infinitely divisible. Our universe might as well be a giant particle within another.

Something came out of nothing? No, it never came, as it will never leave.

However, some scientists believe in the quantum fluctuation theory. Recently I read another denies it, because our universe does not display any characterists of being caused by quantum fluctuation.



Scientists keep finding smaller particles. THe most recent example of this is the "microtalenton", instead of the previous "neutrono", which was believed to be the smallest.

i am guessing that you are a naturalist here from your posts.

naturalists believe that there is no heaven or hell, this puts us living "between two oblivions" there is no place to look forward to after death. the next logical step in thinking is that there is no hope for mankind, there is no reason to live, this belief is considered Nihilism. you people decided that there should be a reason to live, so you tried to replace heaven after death with good works before death, this is existentialism. the problem is, if we are higher animals, what are morals? this led to hedonism, the belief that if it felt good, then it must be moral, basically you asked yourself what is right to you before you did anything. in other words, if killing someone else feels good to you, it makes it moral to you.
the other thing existentialism led to was humanism, meaning that it was moral as long as it did not hurt another human, then it was fine and moral.
now through abduction(tracking the history of something to its roots) i learned the roots of all this is deism, the belief in a god, but not a personal god that allowed for us to speak to him and spoke back to us.
the scientists before darwin did not believe in God, but had no way of getting rid of Him for two reasons:
1) the society had a "God-habit" meaning that the belief in God was more popular than anything else.
2) the belief in an orderly God was supported by the orderly "Newtonian universe" the scientists back then did not want to deny God, because that would deny everything Newton, a strong Christian Creationist, said.
newton gave them the second, and the first was "solved" by advertising underground and researching more "proof" of the theory of evolution. they still did not want to adopt the term "atheist," so a man named Robert Huxley coined the term agnosticism, which proved to be a valuable stepping stone to atheism becoming the accepted version of belief systems.
newton was not trying to make a new theory to disprove God and was surprised to find out that people accepted it and then was unhappy that people had twisted his words to mean that there was no God, as he stated on his death bed.
thanks to all who have read this philosophy report on naturalism, have fun with the research it will require to twist my words to mean what you want.

 

[DonRicardo]

i am guessing that you are a naturalist here from your posts.

naturalists believe that there is no heaven or hell, this puts us living "between two oblivions" there is no place to look forward to after death. the next logical step in thinking is that there is no hope for mankind, there is no reason to live, this belief is considered Nihilism. you people decided that there should be a reason to live, so you tried to replace heaven after death with good works before death, this is existentialism.

Do not confuse "reason" with "essence". Reason means "cause". There is a reason to live. Every action causes a reaction, as there is a reason for everything.

Everyone knows life has no essence, no "core function/meaning". We do, however, have our animal instincts, which allow us to survive. And because someone claims a truth, he does not always live constantly considering it. I live with the idea choice is an illusion (even human doubt), but I do not think about it and grant myself a nice time in my world of illusion, even neglecting the fact that I am a concept (composition of particles and events).


I do neglect at times, but I do not deny. That is a difference.

the problem is, if we are higher animals, what are morals?
this led to hedonism, the belief that if it felt good, then it must be moral, basically you asked yourself what is right to you before you did anything. in other words, if killing someone else feels good to you, it makes it mral to you.the other thing existentialism led to was humanism, meaning that it was moral as long as it did not hurt another human, then it was fine and moral.

Wrong. Again, there is a confusion between morality and religion. Once more, I refer to the definition of religion:
1. [n] a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
2. [n] institution to express belief in a divine power.

It's wrong to get morality out of religion, science or any other field. THis simply, because morality IS morality and not science, religion, etc.

First a definition of morality:
1. [n] concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct.
2. [n] motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.

Draw a scale from 0 to 10, what would you define as good? I'd say 10 is, because where is the limit elsewhise? Morality cannot be an ultimate view (as in religion), because it has to be modified over and over again. Every situation (space-time) is different and every man is a result of cause/result. Morality is defined by looking at looking from all sides considering all parties.

Hence, if you believe in the Bible as morality, then you view it only from one side, which is wrong.

now through abduction(tracking the history of something to its roots) i learned the roots of all this is deism, the belief in a god, but not a personal god that allowed for us to speak to him and spoke back to us.
the scientists before darwin did not believe in God, but had no way of getting rid of Him for two reasons:
1) the society had a "God-habit" meaning that the belief in God was more popular than anything else.

Why did they believe in God? It grew from superstition. Every action causes a reaction in nature.

2) the belief in an orderly God was supported by the orderly "Newtonian universe" the scientists back then did not want to deny God, because that would deny everything Newton, a strong Christian Creationist, said.

That is a foolish view. If someone makes a mistake not all his statements are proven to be wrong. Einstein made a mistake by initially claiming the universe was static and infinite. Does this mean the entire relativity theory is wrong as well?

newton gave them the second, and the first was "solved" by advertising underground and researching more "proof" of the theory of evolution. they still did not want to adopt the term "atheist," so a man named Robert Huxley coined the term agnosticism, which proved to be a valuable stepping stone to atheism becoming the accepted version of belief systems.
newton was not trying to make a new theory to disprove God and was surprised to find out that people accepted it and then was unhappy that people had twisted his words to mean that there was no God, as he stated on his death bed.
thanks to all who have read this philosophy report on naturalism, have fun with the research it will require to twist my words to mean what you want.

This is quite irrelevant information. I don't even understand why you bring this up. Should one not always belief most recent news? If I have an old product, I'd rather toss it away and get a new one. I grew up with evolution theory in books and I never believed in any deity. Also, do not confuse morality with religion. I grew up without religion - still got it in school, but didn't pay attention to it - and I'm not a serial killer.

The question is what view is more logical to believe. It is a common fact that humans accept only observations as proof. Atheism is only the doctrine or the belief of the inexistance of a deity or supernaturality.


Also, you didn't counter my arguments. What people believed is not valid anymore. Isn't it quite logical in order to achieve a solution that someone first opts for a false option? Otherwise logic would not exist. All optable solutions for an issue must be observed first.

 

[dthmstr254]

i will now cite my info. along with a larger expansion of the actual post, the number one source of info was "Making sense of your world" by W. Gary Philips and William E. Brown here now is my enlarged message. i have also posted this in the "what will it take to disprove religion forever" thread in volconvo, have fun. :lol:


most scientists still held closely to the Newtonian theory, which is the theory of an orderly universe. they might not have believed in God, but they did not have a way to get him out of the picture. then came Darwin. he started to explore how he thought the Lord created the world and got rid of the dinasours. he came up with the theory of microevolution, which is evolution within a species, like one breed of dog to another mix of breeds over a small period of time. he NEVER expected for the scientists of the day to accept his theory at all. and he definitely didnt expect them to expand his theory to include mutating from species to species. there is actually no reference to multispecies mutation (or whatever you call it) within origin of species so they cant have gotten that idea from him. the scientists still did not want to use the term of atheist, because they believed the deists and theists of the day would publicly destroy their chances of spreading the theory of evolution, so a man named Thomas Huxley coined the term "agnosticism" which basically meant "we dont believe in your God, but we believe something is out there that created this whole mess." agnosticism spread like fire and rapidly took over most scientists beliefs. over the last century it has developed into what we now know as atheism.
atheism is part of a branch of philosophy that we call naturalism. the basic answer to the question of "what is ultimately real?" or "what is reality about?" to a naturalist is "matter."

Ernest Nagel
Human destiny, [is] an episode between two oblivions.

So... if life is an episode between two oblivions, and there is no heaven to look forward to, then what, therefore, is the reason to live? the hopelessness of this worldview is what led to a belief called Nihilism.

Richard Dawkins
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

this is evidently a hopeless life if there is nothing to hope for, no design, and no good.
the naturalists tried to make up for the hopelessness of life by replacing the hope of heaven with the worldview known as existentialism.

Heidegger, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Marcel, early Simone de Beauvoir.
The general concern of existentialism is to give an account of what it is like to exist as a human being in the world. Epistemologically, it is denied that there can be an absolutely objective description of the world as it is without the intervention of human interests and actions. The world is a 'given' and there is no epistemological scepticism about its existence; it has to be described in relation to ourselves. There is no fixed essence to which beings have to conform in order to qualify as human beings; we are what we decide to be .. The issue of freedom and choice are of crucial importance in existentialism. Sartre thinks that authentic choices are completely undetermined. ... If we make our decisions merely by reference to an external moral code or set of procedures, then we are, similarly, not arriving at authentic choices. Buber disagrees with Sartre over what it is to choose: he maintains that values which have been discovered, not invented, can be adopted for one's life.

this worldview had so many possibilities that it split into the two worldviews known as hedonism and humanism.
hedonism is the belief that if it makes you feel good, then it must be moral.

anonymous
'I must do what will make me happy,'

in other words, if killing someone makes you happy then you should do it.

Eustace Haydon
The Humanist rarely loses the feeling of at-homeness in the universe. The Humanist is conscious of being an earth-child. There is a mystic glow in this sense of belonging. Memories of one's long ancestry still linger in muscle and nerve, in brain and germ cell. On moonlit nights, in the renewal of life in the springtime, before the glory of a sunset, in moments of swift insight, people feel the community of their own physical being with the body of mother earth. Rooted in millions of years of planetary history, the earthling has a secure feeling of being at home, and a consciousness of pride and dignity as a bearer of the heritage of the ages.

basically, if it doesnt hurt a human, then it is moral.

this is a basic history and expounding of the naturalist worldview. thanks for the help in my philosophy report

 

[dthmstr254]

Also, you didn't counter my arguments. What people believed is not valid anymore. Isn't it quite logical in order to achieve a solution that someone first opts for a false option? Otherwise logic would not exist. All optable solutions for an issue must be observed first.

i have put my entire high school and college life to researching philosophy and worldviews. i found that if i didnt have a hope after i was dead, i might as well kill myself right then, nihilism is the main reason for the high suicide rate, especially among teens and young adults, they try futilely to find a reason to live: girlfriend, science, sports, etc. and when all that falls through, they have no reason to live, Nagel said that life is a point in time "between two oblivions"

so why should i live if there is no reason to live, nothing to hope for

POP! this is the last thought that usually goes through a person's head before they pull the trigger, pop the pills, or hang themself. it is also what causes depression in a lot of people. here are some facts:
Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001.
Each week, an average of two young people complete death by suicide in Washington state. Each week, another 14 youth make suicide attempts that result in hospitalization. One out of 6 sixth graders acknowledge seriously considering suicide. 32% of 10th graders reported feeling 'depressed or sad MOST days in the past two weeks.'
this means that in a year, if washington is the average rate of suicide, the apporximate rate of suicide within the boundaries of grade and high school is 5200 a year!
those who cannot attribute that to the rising rate of naturalism's popularity are ignorant of the facts. if i had believed in naturalism, i would have probably done away with myself a loooong time ago. i have lost, on average, 3 loved ones a year, need me to recount their names? what do i have to hope for according to naturalism's view of this world? answer that question, no strings are attached.

 

[steen]

i am guessing that you are a naturalist here from your posts.

What is that?

naturalists believe that there is no heaven or hell,

Hmm, are you a naturalist? What else would give you the ability to speak for them?

this puts us living "between two oblivions" there is no place to look forward to after death. the next logical step in thinking is that there is no hope for mankind, there is no reason to live, this belief is considered Nihilism.

I don't see that as a logical conclusion. You are simply engaging in sophistry here.

you people decided that there should be a reason to live, so you tried to replace heaven after death with good works before death,

Really? Who are "you people"? (And I noticed again that you seek to define others views.)

this is existentialism. the problem is, if we are higher animals, what are morals? this led to hedonism, the belief that if it felt good, then it must be moral,

Eh, no it doesn't. Why the false claim?

basically you asked yourself what is right to you before you did anything. In other words, if killing someone else feels good to you, it makes it moral to you.

Another fascinating example of a fundie trying to ascribe beliefs to others. Just more sophistry.

Aren't you the one who claimed you were so good at whatever kind of reasoning you were talking about? And instead, to our disappointment, all we got was a sophist. How lame.

the other thing existentialism led to was humanism, meaning that it was moral as long as it did not hurt another human, then it was fine and moral.

Really? And the evidence for this is...?

now through abduction(tracking the history of something to its roots)

Ah, THAT was it. You claimed yourself an expert in "abductive reasoning," didn't you? So that just means that "abductive reasoning" is sophistry, right?

i learned the roots of all this is deism, the belief in a god, but not a personal god that allowed for us to speak to him and spoke back to us.

Really? You mean like Benjamin Franklin and several of those guys, the Founding Fathers?

the scientists before darwin did not believe in God,

Really? Do you have any evidence for that claim. As best I can determine, it has ALWAYS been true that most scientists (in the Christian worlds, at least) were Christians. So do you have some unknown source, or were you not telling the truth?

but had no way of getting rid of Him for two reasons:
1) the society had a "God-habit" meaning that the belief in God was more popular than anything else.
2) the belief in an orderly God was supported by the orderly "Newtonian universe" the scientists back then did not want to deny God, because that would deny everything Newton, a strong Christian Creationist, said.

Your view of science is beginning to emge as rather peculiar. Are you saying that a Scientist's religious views somehow affect the Scientific Data? That most certainly would be an outright falsehood, so I certainly HOPE this is not what you are saying.

newton gave them the second, and the first was "solved" by advertising underground and researching more "proof" of the theory of evolution. they still did not want to adopt the term "atheist," so a man named Robert Huxley coined the term agnosticism, which proved to be a valuable stepping stone to atheism becoming the accepted version of belief systems.

Sorry that I am laughing, but on the surface that just seems completely absurd nonsense. Could you provide any actual evidence for this, or is that more of your abductive sophistry?

newton was not trying to make a new theory to disprove God

And neither is any other science. So your post frankly is beginning to read as rather silly.

and was surprised to find out that people accepted it and then was unhappy that people had twisted his words to mean that there was no God, as he stated on his death bed.

Really? He did? And you have good evidence of this?

thanks to all who have read this philosophy report on naturalism,

Ah, is THAT what it was? I am relieved that you are not claiming this seemingly nonsense postulate as factual.

have fun with the research it will require to twist my words to mean what you want.

And what would be the purpose for that? It is quite easy to merely look at all the obviously false claims that are directly in your post.

 

[steen]

i will now cite my info. along with a larger expansion of the actual post, the number one source of info was "Making sense of your world" by W. Gary Philips and William E. Brown here now is my enlarged message. i have also posted this in the "what will it take to disprove religion forever" thread in volconvo, have fun. :lol:

Actually, there is to much in there that simply is outright false. Nearly the entire post is made up of outright lies. Guess we shoudl blame your sources,, ut there simply are to many lies to bother with; we don't have the time to provide you with a biology education to see where your claims are false.

So please, instead, go learn what the Scientific Theory of Evolution actually is, and what the segments and processes involve.

 

[steen]

i have put my entire high school and college life to researching philosophy and worldviews.

But obviously not science. Your ignorance about this field, and your resulting blatant misrepresentations simply are not making you worth anybody's time. Your sophistry simply can not make up for your ignorance.

If you sought to further damaging creationism by coming accross as ignorant, then you certainly have succeded.:roll:

 

[leejosepho]

Do not confuse "reason" with "essence". Reason means "cause". There is a reason to live. Every action causes a reaction, as there is a reason for everything.

Everyone knows life has no essence, no "core function/meaning" ...
And because someone claims a truth, he does not always live constantly considering it.

Based on your views of reason and essence or "core function/meaning", what is your assessment of my statement that I *do* live always considering this:

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear [in awe] Elohim, and keep his commands: for this is the whole duty of man" (Ecclesiastes 12:13)?

Should one not always belief most recent news? If I have an old product, I'd rather toss it away and get a new one. I grew up with evolution theory in books and I never believed in any deity ...

Hey, we agree on something! To wit:

"We asked ourselves this: Are not some of us just as biased and unreasonable about the realm of the spirit as were the ancients about the realm of the material? Even in [just the last] century, American newspapers were afraid to print an account of the Wright brothers' first successful flight at Kitty Hawk. Had not all efforts at flight failed before? Did not Professor Langley's flying machine go to the bottom of the Potomac River? Was it not true that the best mathematical minds had proved man could never fly? Had not people said God had reserved this privilege to the /52/ birds? Only thirty years later the conquest of the air was almost an old story and airplane travel was in full swing.
"But in most fields our generation has witnessed complete liberation of our thinking. Show any longshoreman a Sunday supplement describing a proposal to explore the moon by means of a rocket and he will say, 'I bet they do it - maybe not so long either.' Is not our age characterized by the ease with which we discard old ideas for new, by the complete readiness with which we throw away the theory or gadget which does not work for something new which does?
"We had to ask ourselves why we shouldn't apply to our human problems this same readiness to change our point of view ..."
"When we saw others solve their problems by a simple reliance upon the Spirit of the Universe, we had to stop doubting the power of God. Our ideas did not work. But the God idea did" ("A.A.", pages 51-52, emphasis added).

 

[DonRicardo]

most scientists still held closely to the Newtonian theory, which is the theory of an orderly universe. they might not have believed in God, but they did not have a way to get him out of the picture. then came Darwin. he started to explore how he thought the Lord created the world and got rid of the dinasours. he came up with the theory of microevolution, which is evolution within a species, like one breed of dog to another mix of breeds over a small period of time ...

Some men came up with the idea of religion without any observation ...

he NEVER expected for the scientists of the day to accept his theory at all.

But he would not force, like religion did in Middle Ages.

and he definitely didnt expect them to expand his theory to include mutating from species to species. there is actually no reference to multispecies mutation (or whatever you call it) within origin of species so they cant have gotten that idea from him. the scientists still did not want to use the term of atheist, because they believed the deists and theists of the day would publicly destroy their chances of spreading the theory of evolution, so a man named Thomas Huxley coined the term "agnosticism" which basically meant "we dont believe in your God, but we believe something is out there that created this whole mess." agnosticism spread like fire and rapidly took over most scientists beliefs. over the last century it has developed into what we now know as atheism.

Thank you for the information. Is this a logical statement? Ratherly not, it is a summation of human history.

Because religion existed first and because an evolution theory was not yet complete is no argument at all. How can a theory be constructed AND being complete at once?

Religion was simply based upon no observations. It can never be proven, neither be disproven. Whoever tries to disprove God's existance is a fool. I am CONVINCED he does not exist, because of logical assumptions.

I have always tried to dis-suggest religion, but never to disprove. One cannot disprove what is beyond perception. He will never perceive!

atheism is part of a branch of philosophy that we call naturalism. the basic answer to the question of "what is ultimately real?" or "what is reality about?" to a naturalist is "matter."

I, as an atheist, hold the view that observations are real. Every object is as perceived, in my opinion. Phemonlogy states that only the person's senses and thoughts are true proof of existence. Any object in front of me is a sensual perception and thus has no validity of proof. I CHOOSE to accept evidence as proof, in this wonderful world of perception.

I, as an atheist, base myself upon observations only.

So... if life is an episode between two oblivions, and there is no heaven to look forward to, then what, therefore, is the reason to live? the hopelessness of this worldview is what led to a belief called Nihilism.

Again, a confusing of "reason". Let's have a look:

1. [n] a rational motive for a belief or action.
2. [n] an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon.
3. [n] the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination.
4. [v] decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion.
5. [v] present reasons and arguments.
6. [n] a justification for something existing or happening.
7. [n] the state of having good sense and sound judgment.
8. [v] think logically.
9. [n] a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion.

What is the reason for your life? Birth, I'd say - without considering an event as a single point in space-time.

However, I assume you mean essence.
In that case, I refer to the animal instinct of survival. Ever seen an animal kill himself? A dog does not believe in "God" ...

Richard Dawkins
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Wrong view. If I can feel pain and pleasure, then another one with consciousness can as well. What I am is a concept, but I do have my consciousness and scentience (the ability to perceive (p.e. feel pain)).

this is evidently a hopeless life if there is nothing to hope for, no design, and no good.
the naturalists tried to make up for the hopelessness of life by replacing the hope of heaven with the worldview known as existentialism.
this worldview had so many possibilities that it split into the two worldviews known as hedonism and humanism.
hedonism is the belief that if it makes you feel good, then it must be moral.

I'm not a hedonist and your views are a true example of false logic. You simply neglected everything I stated.

Heidegger, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Marcel, early Simone de Beauvoir.
The general concern of existentialism is to give an account of what it is like to exist as a human being in the world. Epistemologically, it is denied that there can be an absolutely objective description of the world as it is without the intervention of human interests and actions. The world is a 'given' and there is no epistemological scepticism about its existence; it has to be described in relation to ourselves.

Indeed. That's why man is egocentric. Yet, so is each animal. Man has morality, because of his intelligence.

There is no fixed essence to which beings have to conform in order to qualify as human beings; we are what we decide to be .. The issue of freedom and choice are of crucial importance in existentialism. Sartre thinks that authentic choices are completely undetermined. If we make our decisions merely by reference to an external moral code or set of procedures, then we are, similarly, not arriving at authentic choices. Buber disagrees with Sartre over what it is to choose: he maintains that values which have been discovered, not invented, can be adopted for one's life.

Wrong. I do have no proof of another's consciousness, hence no certainty he is perceiving or not. Thus I must - in either kind of way - act moral for any object with consciousness. If I am conscious, than an other MIGHT be as well. To avoid harm, I must abide morality.

The ideal is to retrieve a balancement in life quality AND to avoid harm.

in other words, if killing someone makes you happy then you should do it.

Wrong, because the other does not feel good. I have no certainty of his consciousness, thus I may not act.

basically, if it doesnt hurt a human, then it is moral.

Wrong, if it doesn't hurt an animal, it is moral. Once more:

- I perceive the world out of my own eyes, as you mentioned.
- Observations are no proof.
- Observations are not proven to be wrong. My perception is not proven to be false so far.

THUS: I may not kill any animal that I perceive, because it MIGHT EXIST and I have no certainty.

We live in a world without choice and guilt - both are defined by a number of natural events (motions of particles).
BUT: Consciousness is the main reason for morality's existence.

Morality is to define the difference between good and bad. Because guilt does not exist, I use "bad" to refer to "harm to a conscious being". We both are NOT RESPONSIBLE for our actions, but one can have a better life than another. Take this example (guilt does not exist):

Person A has had a better life and enjoys it. Person B has a crap life. Now neither one of both is guilty, because that is a naturalistic view. Person A has the right to get more "crap" now, because person B had it. Person A is not "moral", because he has more life quality and did nothing about it. Yet, he bears no guilt.

May "person B" kill "person A"?
No, because the individual makes the change and such events do escalate - on large scale (see laws). Eventually more harm would be caused.
Also, considerig the prior point, we try to avoid "harm". Death is considered as worst - because of animal instinct - and thus must be avoided at all costs. Most likely person B's quality will not improve after person A's death.

We are trying to aim for:
- balancement of life quality
- avoid harm (capture of "life quality" is not allowed; it will escalate)
If harm is not avoided and only balacement is achieved. Then there isn't much solved, is there? All lives would be moderate and goodness would not exist.

this is a basic history and expounding of the naturalist worldview. thanks for the help in my philosophy report

No, it is not a naturalistic view.

 

[DonRicardo]

Based on your views of reason and essence or "core function/meaning", what is your assessment of my statement that I *do* live always considering this:

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear [in awe] Elohim, and keep his commands: for this is the whole duty of man" (Ecclesiastes 12:13)?

What I can say to that? Even your thinking process is a series of events within the bounds of nature. You too make part of it and hence choice must be illusion.

It is my choice, the illusion of viewing life as a non-naturalistic event, that keeps me alive. I too am an animal and my toughts are still a chain of events within nature.

I do neglect, but not deny truth - at times.

Hey, we agree on something! To wit:

"We asked ourselves this: Are not some of us just as biased and unreasonable about the realm of the spirit as were the ancients about the realm of the material? Even in [just the last] century, American newspapers were afraid to print an account of the Wright brothers' first successful flight at Kitty Hawk. Had not all efforts at flight failed before? Did not Professor Langley's flying machine go to the bottom of the Potomac River? Was it not true that the best mathematical minds had proved man could never fly? Had not people said God had reserved this privilege to the /52/ birds? Only thirty years later the conquest of the air was almost an old story and airplane travel was in full swing.
"But in most fields our generation has witnessed complete liberation of our thinking. Show any longshoreman a Sunday supplement describing a proposal to explore the moon by means of a rocket and he will say, 'I bet they do it - maybe not so long either.' Is not our age characterized by the ease with which we discard old ideas for new, by the complete readiness with which we throw away the theory or gadget which does not work for something new which does?
"We had to ask ourselves why we shouldn't apply to our human problems this same readiness to change our point of view ..."
"When we saw others solve their problems by a simple reliance upon the Spirit of the Universe, we had to stop doubting the power of God. Our ideas did not work. But the God idea did" ("A.A.", pages 51-52, emphasis added).

What will I do if tomorrow God comes from the sky? Then I was wrong.

But for now, I am convinced.
As a man keeps his steady point that man would never be able to fly, UNLESS it happened, so do I on a different way. The very fact of truth lays within observations, in my opinion, and hence I am only convinced after perception.

 

[dthmstr254]

Some men came up with the idea of religion without any observation ...



But he would not force, like religion did in Middle Ages.



Thank you for the information. Is this a logical statement? Ratherly not, it is a summation of human history.

Because religion existed first and because an evolution theory was not yet complete is no argument at all. How can a theory be constructed AND being complete at once?

Religion was simply based upon no observations. It can never be proven, neither be disproven. Whoever tries to disprove God's existance is a fool. I am CONVINCED he does not exist, because of logical assumptions.

I have always tried to dis-suggest religion, but never to disprove. One cannot disprove what is beyond perception. He will never perceive!



I, as an atheist, hold the view that observations are real. Every object is as perceived, in my opinion. Phemonlogy states that only the person's senses and thoughts are true proof of existence. Any object in front of me is a sensual perception and thus has no validity of proof. I CHOOSE to accept evidence as proof, in this wonderful world of perception.

I, as an atheist, base myself upon observations only.



Again, a confusing of "reason". Let's have a look:

1. [n] a rational motive for a belief or action.
2. [n] an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon.
3. [n] the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination.
4. [v] decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion.
5. [v] present reasons and arguments.
6. [n] a justification for something existing or happening.
7. [n] the state of having good sense and sound judgment.
8. [v] think logically.
9. [n] a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion.

What is the reason for your life? Birth, I'd say - without considering an event as a single point in space-time.

However, I assume you mean essence.
In that case, I refer to the animal instinct of survival. Ever seen an animal kill himself? A dog does not believe in "God" ...



Wrong view. If I can feel pain and pleasure, then another one with consciousness can as well. What I am is a concept, but I do have my consciousness and scentience (the ability to perceive (p.e. feel pain)).



I'm not a hedonist and your views are a true example of false logic. You simply neglected everything I stated.



Indeed. That's why man is egocentric. Yet, so is each animal. Man has morality, because of his intelligence.



Wrong. I do have no proof of another's consciousness, hence no certainty he is perceiving or not. Thus I must - in either kind of way - act moral for any object with consciousness. If I am conscious, than an other MIGHT be as well. To avoid harm, I must abide morality.

The ideal is to retrieve a balancement in life quality AND to avoid harm.



Wrong, because the other does not feel good. I have no certainty of his consciousness, thus I may not act.



Wrong, if it doesn't hurt an animal, it is moral. Once more:

- I perceive the world out of my own eyes, as you mentioned.
- Observations are no proof.
- Observations are not proven to be wrong. My perception is not proven to be false so far.

THUS: I may not kill any animal that I perceive, because it MIGHT EXIST and I have no certainty.

We live in a world without choice and guilt - both are defined by a number of natural events (motions of particles).
BUT: Consciousness is the main reason for morality's existence.

Morality is to define the difference between good and bad. Because guilt does not exist, I use "bad" to refer to "harm to a conscious being". We both are NOT RESPONSIBLE for our actions, but one can have a better life than another. Take this example (guilt does not exist):

Person A has had a better life and enjoys it. Person B has a crap life. Now neither one of both is guilty, because that is a naturalistic view. Person A has the right to get more "crap" now, because person B had it. Person A is not "moral", because he has more life quality and did nothing about it. Yet, he bears no guilt.

May "person B" kill "person A"?
No, because the individual makes the change and such events do escalate - on large scale (see laws). Eventually more harm would be caused.
Also, considerig the prior point, we try to avoid "harm". Death is considered as worst - because of animal instinct - and thus must be avoided at all costs. Most likely person B's quality will not improve after person A's death.

We are trying to aim for:
- balancement of life quality
- avoid harm (capture of "life quality" is not allowed; it will escalate)
If harm is not avoided and only balacement is achieved. Then there isn't much solved, is there? All lives would be moderate and goodness would not exist.



No, it is not a naturalistic view.

pleas respond without twisting my words, i would like you to read up on your citations, cause i have cited my info while you havent. finished till you actually answer me straight

 

[dthmstr254]

Actually, there is to much in there that simply is outright false. Nearly the entire post is made up of outright lies. Guess we shoudl blame your sources,, ut there simply are to many lies to bother with; we don't have the time to provide you with a biology education to see where your claims are false.

So please, instead, go learn what the Scientific Theory of Evolution actually is, and what the segments and processes involve.

ill tell you what it is, it is a huge mistake of extrapolation. you guys extrapolated small mutations like tadpole to frog, and turned them into huge ones like dinosaurs to birds, you might want to read up on philosophy before you go saying that what i said is scientifically false, philosophy and science are considered seperate views of life.

 

[steen]

ill tell you what it is, it is a huge mistake of extrapolation. you guys extrapolated small mutations like tadpole to frog, and turned them into huge ones like dinosaurs to birds,

We didn't Are you going to CONTINUE lying here, or actually going to learn something about the subject you are makign such silly, lying claims about?

you might want to read up on philosophy before you go saying that what i said is scientifically false, philosophy and science are considered seperate views of life.

SO then go make philosophical claims. When you make claims of a sxientific nature and the claims are false, you should expect to be called on it. You say the fields are separate. It might behove you to remember this when you make your claims.

Certainly, an example like your silly frog/dinosaur claim up above is NOT about philosophy. Instead, it is simply a serious misrepresentation of science.

 

[leejosepho]

What I can say to that?

This, and I thank you:

Even your thinking process is a series of events within the bounds of nature. You too make part of it and hence choice must be illusion.

It is my choice, the illusion of viewing life as a non-naturalistic event, that keeps me alive. I too am an animal and my toughts are still a chain of events within nature.

I do neglect, but not deny truth - at times.

...

... I am convinced.
As a man keeps his steady point that man would never be able to fly, UNLESS it happened, so do I on a different way. The very fact of truth lays within observations, in my opinion, and hence I am only convinced after perception.

I believe I slighted you in our previous discussion, wherever it was, and for that, I apologize.

Choosing to ponder a bit ... then to naturally try to respond ...