tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post1149326170937357404..comments2023-10-17T02:52:22.037-07:00Comments on David's blog: I promise not to eat your childrenDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-48098070238244423342011-03-03T18:24:29.034-08:002011-03-03T18:24:29.034-08:00Hello. And Bye.Hello. And Bye.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-3511044288886975592010-06-01T17:29:44.590-07:002010-06-01T17:29:44.590-07:00Your clever wording about not being able to prove ...Your clever wording about not being able to prove a negative proving a positive is a fallacious statement of my argument. I do not now (or have I ever)claim(ed) that not being able to prove the non-existence of God proves God's existence. Rather I simply argue that not being able to prove the existence or non-existence of God demonstrates that both are equally unprovable. Therefore beief in one or the other is completely a matter of faith. The atheist takes it on faith that God does not exist. The believer takes it on faith that God exists. The agnostic is the only rational one in the argument by stating that since neither can be proven,that both are unknown and unknowable.<br /><br />I have no fear of you eating my children since to the best of my knowledge I do not have any. Even if I did, I would not fear because for all your self-professed atheism you were raised in a household of believers in which you were incalcated with good religious values.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04524682795159660417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-36117886990105677022010-06-01T16:58:57.823-07:002010-06-01T16:58:57.823-07:00Then, I will have to presume you believe in the De...Then, I will have to presume you believe in the Devil, other deities and demons, the ether, the "force" and whatever other concepts can't be seen, felt, touched, etc., and which can't be proven not to exist either. And, I will alert the media that I know someone who can prove that not being able to prove a negative proves a positive, and not having a belief in something requires faith. Philosophy, logic and science will be changed forever.<br /><br />But, if you wish, I will give you the last word, as I am busy figuring out how to be hypocritical and to disingenuously mislead others in my next post, as if I replied again, I might slip and admit that I do intend to eat their children (yes, all atheists do). <br /><br />You have almost certainly made the annual best comment list here twice and thanks for the entertainment (seriously). I haven't been so busy here since Montana Don took a vow of silence.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-35161455074609960022010-06-01T16:30:27.133-07:002010-06-01T16:30:27.133-07:00If unicorns existed they would be susceptible to t...If unicorns existed they would be susceptible to the five recognized human senses. God by definition is an amorphous conceptual idea that could never be susceptible to the senses. As such any attempted comparisons of the two seems disengenuous at best and a deliberate attempt to mislead and distract at worse.<br /> If something is inacapable of being true or false, then it is unknown. That is God, an unknown. You either accept or reject him on faith, but can't prove his existence or non-existence.Either is simply a matter of faith.The atheist relies on faith to belive in the non-existence of God since it can't be proven. The atheist,however, is too hypocritical to ever admit that his non-belief is solely a matter of faith without proof in no manner different from the believers faith in God's existence.<br /><br />There is nothing hypocritical in accepting that belief in God which results in good deeds or solace leading to rehabilitation, is a good thing notwithstanding the lack of evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of God.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04524682795159660417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-56353433120963556762010-05-31T17:53:56.978-07:002010-05-31T17:53:56.978-07:00Okay, part II in response.
Your next point was &q...Okay, part II in response.<br /><br />Your next point was "You also failed to answer my inquiry as to what difference empirical evidence makes in the face of God as an inspiration for good?" You are right about that. I Just forgot it when I hit publish. But, happy to do so here. <br /><br />No, I don't think it is necessary. You may be familiar with the possibly apocryphal story of Jefferson being asked why he was in church when he didn't believe a word of it and he answered essentially, because men needed religion and he, as the head muckety muck, needed to be a good example. <br /><br />I disagree with him, if he said it. I don't believe that people require a belief in a deity to follow the mores and conventions of their time and place, although certainly stories and myths can be useful in passing some values on to their children. But, I really doubt that kids learn not to murder b/c of the ten commandments. They learn more from cartoons. The truth is, in America, we tend to judge religions by their secular values (like tolerance), and not by their theology, regardless how pious practitioners may be. I suspect that what the children see in their parents and their environment will have a much greater effect than any religion, although it can have a role too. But, religion, as we know, had a role in both prolonging and ending slavery, both for and against our independence, both for and against civil rights. I consider myself a decent person but since the 2d grade I've not believed in God. If I'm not mistaken in my self appreciation, how did that happen in your view? I don't believe I'm a special case. My daughter was raised as Christian but without any real religious ethical teaching. I taught her what secular values I thought were important and am happy with the result. She was always well aware I was an atheist and it didn't seem to affect her at all. Certainly you know there are many people raised with religion who have what we would all agree are horrible morals. <br /><br />So, no, I do not believe it is necessary for people to believe so that they will be good. Values can be transmitted many ways. I have always loved the Mark Twain saying, "Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul." (I'm not looking it up - something like that).<br /><br />Now, I know you consider yourself a conservative and one of their core beliefs seems to be that you have to have faith in people, at least Americans. Doesn't it seem contradictory to you to beleive that they are not capable of behaving unless we fool them? It does to me.<br /><br />That should be enough ammunition for you. Go for it. But, where are my legion of faithful readers chiming in? No doubt barbequing.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-75872846219432458672010-05-31T17:39:35.164-07:002010-05-31T17:39:35.164-07:00Don't - "I didn't attack you, I compl...Don't - "I didn't attack you, I complimented you" - me. I invented - "I didn't attack you, I complimented you," but usually apply it when I am teasing someone, and rarely in debate, where the fun is the intellectual exercise.<br /><br />But, let me see. Nope. I must be wrong. I thought when you wrote "when your thoughts are challenged you respond with a thin vaneer [sic] without any intellectual rigor" and "your second grade analysis" were ad hominem arguments when clearly they are relevant arguments demonstrating the existence of God. Not! You still going to say I falsely attacked you as an attacker? Oh vey is mir. <br /><br />But, let me address your serious questions, as that is what my blog is really about. You wrote: "You still have not answered the irrefutable argument that there is absolutely no evidence proving the non-existence of God." <br /><br />But, I did answer it. I wrote back: "The answer to your last question is that when there is no evidence, we do not believe in something just because it is possible; the logical extension of that would be to believe in everything. There is no evidence there are no unicorns, but you don't say you are agnostic about that, do you? And, although sometimes we learn things are true we didn't believe before, that is not a reason to believe everything or any one thing. You don't believe in global warming just because there is no evidence, do you?"<br /><br />Well, do you believe in unicorns and global warming? I don't remember you answering that.<br /><br />But, if that isn't sufficient, you've gone from argument ad hominem to an argumentum ad ingnorantiam - that is, the logical fallacy that something is true because it cannot be proved false. Not only is that one of the classic logical fallacies (my favorite part of studying logic) but it goes against everything we've learned about logic and science in the past 400+ years (I'm starting with Francis Bacon although you could start earlier). More colloquially put, of course, you can't prove a negative. That doesn't mean the positive must be true. <br /><br />So, no, to be perfectly clear, you can't prove the existence of god by arguing you can't prove it isn't true. In fact, many religious leaders have said as much, relying instead on faith, rather than unsustainable logical arguments (I don't need to tell you why the ontological arguments are hogwash, do I?)<br /><br />I have to end this comment b/c of space limitations but will follow with another.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-40555658784690468352010-05-31T11:02:29.684-07:002010-05-31T11:02:29.684-07:00I did not attack you in any manner. In fact quite ...I did not attack you in any manner. In fact quite the opposite. I complimented your brain power and suggested that you stop being lazy and start using your God given brillance. <br /><br />You still have not answered the irrefutable argument that there is absolutely no evidence proving the non-existence of God. You also failed to answer my inquiry as to what difference empirical evidence makes in the face of God as an inspiration for good.<br /> Instead in a bit of reverse psychology you falsely attacked me as an attacker. That not so clever device allowed you not to answer my serious intellectual inquiries.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04524682795159660417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-185109800414031972010-05-31T08:23:19.478-07:002010-05-31T08:23:19.478-07:00Disagree. You've just decided on a definition ...Disagree. You've just decided on a definition of the word and will not except any other. I accept your definition, but there are others, and that is what I am talking about. Imagine, though, if a Buddhist or a Christian or any practitioner told you you weren't spiritual because you didn't believe in the right spirits or have the correct theology. You'd laugh, I'm sure. Plus, I suggest your dark black line between feelings and beliefs does not exist in humans. They do amazing things brain studies these days and I you might want to catch up. The big problem with it is, when you learn about it, it challenges your conviction that your political beliefs are all based on the rational part, however comforting that might have been.<br /><br />As to my thin veneer of ideas, you've accidentally stepped into the mine field one of my patented soap box speeches. I've always believed that the quickest way to tacticly surrender an argument while claiming victory is the ad hominem attack - challenging the other side's character or intelligence, etc, instead of the ideas. I'm sure you didn't mean to surrender. But, I challenge all readers (and there are millions, you know) to make points, not personal attacks. Of course, if it is funny, who cares, and you might make my end of the year list for best comment (always the mean ones). Once in a while I succeed in persuading someone to give up the AH attack, but sometimes they just find a different way to do it. Your comments have a lot of ideas in them, but I would no more give the last point credence than I would the liberal I know who claims that any idea I have that disagrees with him is illogical. If I said, "No they are not, your ideas are" to him or you - where would that get us?" Exactly. <br /><br />Thanks for the comments. Keep 'em coming.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-18009948630284148132010-05-31T08:18:56.415-07:002010-05-31T08:18:56.415-07:00What is more important empirical evidence that God...What is more important empirical evidence that God either exists or not, or belief in God as a force for good and as spiritual solace. If belief in God can inspire good deeds or causes(like the early civil rights movement) does it really matter that there is no empirical evidence as to his existence or non-existence?<br /> If the solace that belief in God can bring to the addict or the criminal can be an inspiration for rehabilitation, is the empirical evidence really essential?<br /> Plus you still have failed to answer the irrefutable argument that there is no empirical evidence proving the non-existence of God. As such your non-belief is just as much an article of faith as the believers faith.You just can't bring yourself to admit it.This is why you need to expend more intellectual rigor and firepower in your argumentation on this subject. Your second grade analysis is just not of sufficient depth for a mature man of your intellectual prowess.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04524682795159660417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-62030708557661088152010-05-31T05:38:23.772-07:002010-05-31T05:38:23.772-07:00Spiritualism even in its modern context is not a f...Spiritualism even in its modern context is not a feelimg-it is a belief. The belief is that there are things greater and of more importance than the self. It is a belief that man should be concerned with the plight of his fellow man out of goodness and caring. A feeling has no intellectual heft and is nothing but pure emotion-not much different than a belief-say in God.<br /> I have noticed lately that when your thoughts are challenged you respond with a thin vaneer of ideas without much intellectual rigor. Your mind is more accute than that. It is time you stepped up to the plate,used your brain power and upgraded the level of your thought and argumentation exponentially.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04524682795159660417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-34610212368530139952010-05-31T01:53:25.649-07:002010-05-31T01:53:25.649-07:00Answer to first paragraph - No, I don't belie...Answer to first paragraph - No, I don't believe in spirits or life after death and I'm not using "spiritual" in that fashion. Neither do any believers I know. In fact, thought spriritualism used to be about communing with spirits (Madame Blavatsky), I don't know anyone who uses it in that fashion anymore. When we say spiritual, we are talking about a feeling. Thus, I say, it is an emotion concerning a connection to the universe. <br /><br />Re ethics and morality, I believe it is acceptance and application of certain social mores, like being honest or fair, respecting other people's pursuit of happiness, etc. It is very much culture bound, although there are also mores which seem to pervade most cultures - like don't kill someone except for certain recognized exceptions. <br /><br />Would you prefer an honest person who respects your right to your life and property, and doesn't believe in God, or a dishonest one who steals your property (or your life) but does believe in God? Serial killers commonly believe in God, but I'm sure you would not accept that this is the reason for their deviation (nor do I).<br /><br />The answer to your last question is that when there is no evidence, we do not believe in something just because it is possible; the logical extension of that would be to believe in everything. There is no evidence there are no unicorns, but you don't say you are agnostic about that, do you? And, although sometimes we learn things are true we didn't believe before, that is not a reason to believe everything or any one thing. You don't believe in global warming just because there is no evidence, do you?<br /><br />As to knowing that somethings exist that we can't see, sure, I have no problem with understanding that everything doesn't reflect light. But, there is other evidence of air. Just ride a bike or blow into a bag. <br /><br />I cut this down to be withing the character limit. Thanks for writing.<br /><br /><br />On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Lee wrote:<br /><br />Lee has left a new comment on your post "I promise not to eat your children": <br /><br />There's much to comment upon. But I'll start with polemics. You say Atheists can be spiritual. Do you believe in spirits? Do you believe in life after death? What do you mean by spiritual?<br />How does an atheist like you define ethics and morality? Do you believe in air? After all you can't see it(although you can see smog).Do you belive things can exist without empirical evidence? Isn't it true that there are things which lack empirical evidence at one point in time but later are confirmed by empirical evidence? Does that mean that such items did not exist prior to the empirical evidence but there existence sprang into being upon the discovery of the existence?<br />To my knowledge there is no empirical proof that God does not exist just as there is no proof that God does exist. So why does an atheist such as you choose to believe in non-existence? Would not the more rational course for the doubter to be agnostic rather than atheist? Why not just say I don't know the truth and I'll probably never know the truth about God? Is not the atheist just acting on faith that there is no God-since there is no proof either way?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-61467014457351652052010-05-30T21:02:33.955-07:002010-05-30T21:02:33.955-07:00There's much to comment upon. But I'll sta...There's much to comment upon. But I'll start with polemics. You say Atheists can be spiritual. Do you believe in spirits? Do you believe in life after death? What do you mean by spiritual?<br /> How does an atheist like you define ethics and morality? Do you believe in air? After all you can't see it(although you can see smog).Do you belive things can exist without empirical evidence? Isn't it true that there are things which lack empirical evidence at one point in time but later are confirmed by empirical evidence? Does that mean that such items did not exist prior to the empirical evidence but there existence sprang into being upon the discovery of the existence?<br /> To my knowledge there is no empirical proof that God does not exist just as there is no proof that God does exist. So why does an atheist such as you choose to believe in non-existence? Would not the more rational course for the doubter to be agnostic rather than atheist? Why not just say I don't know the truth and I'll probably never know the truth about God? Is not the atheist just acting on faith that there is no God-since there is no proof either way?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04524682795159660417noreply@blogger.com