Changes

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

::::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.

::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.

::::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am "''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''" This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.

::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am "''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''" This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.

::::"''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''" You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.

::"''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''" You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.

::::''"Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined."'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to "bad" and "good" under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is "good" or "bad" is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, "no killing" becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.

::''"Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined."'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to "bad" and "good" under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is "good" or "bad" is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, "no killing" becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.

::::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.

::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.

::::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how "morals" have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.

::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how "morals" have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.

::::"''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''" That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.

::"''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''" That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.

::::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up to not believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created me knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.

::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up to not believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created me knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.

::::"''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''" As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own "meaning."

::"''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''" As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own "meaning."

::::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.

::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.

::::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause.  

::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause.  

::::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?

::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?

::::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.

::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.

::::This is why we can look over "holes" in evolution theory or Big Bang theory (that, and there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes). It's not "blind faith," it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be "God did it." The rest of the philosophy follows.

::This is why we can look over "holes" in evolution theory or Big Bang theory (that, and there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes). It's not "blind faith," it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be "God did it." The rest of the philosophy follows.

::::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

 

::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

== ??? ==

== ??? ==