Merlyn_LeRoy

Better than man taking on the biggest stick.

 

 

I don't agree.

 

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal

Ah yes, the big stick. If the big stick is God, then the fact is equal to all including community leaders and elitist. Most important the leaders and elitist.

 

Barry

 

 

 

But gods never show up -- it's always people who insist they represent their god.

I understand, that allows a great deal of room to maneuver around the facts. Until you are a victim of course. And I think that was the authors point. If everything is an opinion, the result is a lawless society. 

 

Barry

 

And if facts are imposed by fiat, the result is a tyrannical society.

If God sets a standard of behavior, its a moral fact. That you don't agree with it doesn't make it less. If the guy with the big stick puts you in jail for what he says is a moral crime, does it really matter if you agree. The fact is you are in jail for the crime.  

 

Barry

 

 

Well, I prefer facts that don't totally resemble opinions.

I am talking about American society and not religious canon.

 

Reasonable people in the US -- who do not apply religious reasons -- can agree that killing you because you took my parking space is wrong and moral fact. Killing Hilter in 1926 knowing full well he will become a monster is slightly more grey. 

 

But now you're talking about specific cases, not the general case of murder being a moral fact.  What does it mean to say "murder is a moral fact" if it's easy to find lots of cases where there is widespread disagreement?

Ah, bob and weave, I get it.

 

You changed the subject, not me. 

 

Barry

 

I didn't change the subject, which was whether moral facts exist.  You claim they do, yet there is a lack of unanimity, so I say it isn't a fact.

What part of that is sarcasm? Those are the facts.

 

Barry

 

 

Just avoid the question, that's the easy way to settle moral issues.

I think reasonable, sane people can agree that murder of anyone who has not committed a crime is a moral fact.

 

As you point out, the grey area is abortion and the death penalty. No surprise there.

 

That still doesn't help when people don't agree on who has committed a crime -- picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or being gay aren't crimes in my view.  You just end up begging the question on what constitutes a capital crime.

Enough people apparently thought Atefeh Sahaaleh committed a capital offense when she was raped at age 16, so she was executed.

Yes, because everyone follows one single unchanging consistent source. Those citizens know that nothing changes after the next election cycle or changing of the guard. And the poor can hold the elitist accountable to the equal standard. 

 

Barry

 

Well, if you're done being sarcastic, how do you justify murder as a moral fact when people clearly don't agree?  Not much of a "fact".

Ah, so would say that murder is defined by the guy with the biggest stick?

 

Barry

 

No.  Would you say murder is defined by whatever morals the local majority believes its god requires?

Depends how "murder" is defined.  Some people consider abortion to be murder, some don't.  "Murder" is generally "unlawful killing of a person", which means that governments that kill people aren't murdering them as long as it's legal, so stoning someone to death for, say, picking up sticks is OK (Numbers 15:32-36).

 

Now, I happen to think that many capital offenses from lots of religions are immoral, but is that equivalent to saying it constitutes murder to carry them out?  It would be if it was against the local laws, but that's because "murder" as I'm using it is a legal term, not a moral term.  If I use it in a looser moral sense, I'd say that a lot of religions are just fine with specific kinds of murder.

 

So I don't see how "murder" can be a moral fact, if it merely hinges on whether the current local government says that killing person X for reason Y is legal.  And if you want to base it on morals, I can find lots of moral systems that are OK with killing people that I would consider murder in a moral sense, so murder isn't a moral fact in that case, either.

 

Certainly, there are gay couples that are suing in England to force churches to marry homosexual couples: http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Gay-dads-set-sue-church-sex-marriage-opt/story-19597954-detail/story.html

 

 

They're suing the officially established, government-ruled, tax-supported, 26 reserved seats in the House of Lords Church of England, where the monarch is the Supreme Governor.  You're damn right they're suing.

I read this blather when it was first printed.

 

For someone who claims that moral facts exist, Mr. McBrayer seems awfully reticent to list any.

Yes, some of the English comedy is great.. Yes, I guess they redesigned my car on Monday so that my front falls off..

 

Australian! (well, Clarke was born in NZ)

Sorry, I didn't return yesterday.. I had a problem of trying to drive my car on 3 wheels when my front driver side wheel fell off.. 

 

 

And yet POOF the universe began? Riiiight.

 

 

Create as many magical beings as you like to "explain" it; they can explain everything (not usefully, though):

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/07/bryan-fischer-what-holds-an-atoms-nucleus-together-jesus/

 

"I don't know" is always a valid answer, but we should make sure that methodological bias doesn't rule out reasonable alternatives, as many atheists do. It can't be argued that belief in God isn't reasonable, as about 96% of Americans (presumably including many people who hold reasonable beliefs in all other spheres of existence) do consider a belief in God to be reasonable. Hard to argue that your 4% subculture represents the only "reasonable" views. 

 

I can certainly argue that belief in gods isn't reasonable.  If you include ALL gods, and don't count e.g. the Christians god to be the same as the Muslim god, only a small fraction of people believe in the same god -- roughly 33%, if you lump all Christians together.  Not too impressive when 26% of Americans answered that the sun goes around the earth.

 

However, I wasn't even arguing that.  You brought up the term "reasonable".  I was only pointing out that evolution and orbital mechanics explain things without needing gods.

And you know for sure some magical (supernatural) being didn't? Just curious. If you don't know the answer, then saying your don't know is perfectly valid. 

 

I'm saying there's no good evidence for magical beings.  You can make up any number of things, but that's no reason to think they exist.

Not to defend Merlyn or anything, but it can't be proven philosophically that the universe actually has a beginning. There might be overwhelming scientific evidence that it does, but that is not the same thing.

 

Of course that is distinct from the question of whether or not God exists. The Prime Mover and First Cause arguments don't depend on the universe having a beginning.

 

No, but they do depend on making a special exception for gods, which is hardly different from just assuming they exist.

 

And the big bang isn't the only game in town:

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

So all that "stuff" that was created out of nothingness just happened? That's like saying the egg just showed up one day.

 

If that's not magic I don't know what is. That's the scientific equivalent of alchemy. 

 

Uh, no.  Like I said, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.  Saying "I don't know, therefor some magical being did it" isn't, unless you have some evidence that a magical being did it.

 

 

Merlyn, you first say atheists do not use evolution as a reason for not believing in God, then you say human evolution is your proof there is no God

 

 

No, I'm not.  I'm saying the fossil record, DNA, etc is evidence for evolution.  I also say that the motions of the planets is evidence that gravity is at work, and not angels moving them.  Neither of these say anything about the non-existence of gods, but some people try to shoehorn in their god into them by saying they don't believe those explanations -- but that doesn't allow anyone to conclude a god exists.

 

But if I say the laws of physics explain the motions of planets, I'm not "using" that as proof that gods aren't moving the planets around.  Same goes for human evolution.

 

And how did those first constituents of life "evolve," Merlyn.?

 

To avoid accepting that many atheists and agnostics do, in fact, believe in the supernatural, you've changed the definition from "supernatural" to "magic" now, I've noticed.

 

All scientific hypotheses that I've heard of just use laws of physics and chemistry, no magic involved; and like I said, "I don't know" is a valid answer.

 

And atheists can believe in the supernatural and/or magic -- all they must lack is a belief in the existence of gods.  I don't believe in the supernatural or magic.

Isn't that the basis for the Big Bang Theory?  One minute nothing, next minute the universe?  What magical beings pulled that one off?

 

Adding magical beings is the unnecessary part.  The big bang theory was developed because that's where the evidence leads.  Scientists prefer to say "I don't know" instead of adding magical beings.

Many cosmologists believe that quite a number of supernatural things exist, Merlyn - whole universes (billions and billions of them, as Carl Sagan might have said) that are outside nature, per the Multiverse Theories.

 

 

Of course I know that, but that's quite different from magical beings that created humans in a puff of smoke, particularly when there's evidence of human evolution.

I'm not at all worried about the atheists in as much as I am concerned about their message and their "hero" Darwin.  We're talking  about how honorable this anti-Christian racist is in our world today and how he has championed the "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"  Not really a Dali Lama, Martin Luther or St. Francis type of guy.

 

With that being said, opening the doors to accommodate these people in BSA will in fact negate the Duty to God issue as well as the 12th Law.

 

I hope you criticize Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves, and Lincoln's attitude towards blacks (he was born the same day as Darwin, after all).

 

 

And I assume you're against the Oceanography merit badge?

 

Oceanography merit badge requirements

...

7. Do ONE of the following:

...

b. Make a series of models (clay or plaster and wood) of a volcanic island. Show the growth of an atoll from a fringing reef through a barrier reef. Describe the Darwinian theory of coral reef formation.

Evolution with all of it's short-comiings still remains the cornerstone of atheistic "proof" for the non-existence of (G)od(s).

 

No, that would be the total lack of reasons to think supernatural things exist.  Evolution isn't any more proof of the non-existence of gods than orbital mechanics, though either one might look that way if you think gods must be responsible for species or planetary movement.

...

The key point to remember is that Socrates and Darwin and others put forth their treatises with the assumption that God does not exist.  How do we know that?  They along with their disciples were all atheists who in fact were promoting their cause.

 

So Francis Collins is an atheist?