what would be an actually good reason to believe in a god.

Started by doorknob, August 13, 2016, 02:28:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Unbeliever

Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2017, 09:51:04 AM
They both put the witch in the oven.  Early thermodynamic experiment ;-)
Yeah, there was an ultraviolet catastrophe...
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 30, 2017, 06:02:51 PM
Yeah, there was an ultraviolet catastrophe...

So that is what destroyed Fukushima?  And here I thought it was Godzilla!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on May 18, 2017, 09:35:40 AM
This, exactly.  We are the only species that separates actions into 'good' and 'evil'.

That brings me to another point -- if good is 'obvious' or 'immutable', why is good behavior different from species to species?

UM...

You first said "We are the only species that separates actions into 'good' and evil".

Then you said "why is good behavior different from species to species".

So what is it?  Are we humans the only ones who do or do other species recognize "good and evil" too? 

Can't have it both ways.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

trdsf

Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2017, 10:50:17 AM
UM...

You first said "We are the only species that separates actions into 'good' and evil".

Then you said "why is good behavior different from species to species".

So what is it?  Are we humans the only ones who do or do other species recognize "good and evil" too? 

Can't have it both ways.

I'm not.  We're the ones doing the defining of a behavior as being 'good' or 'bad'.  Certainly the animals don't categorize their behavior as good or bad -- they're just following their biological mandate.  My point is that there isn't a definable objective good that holds in all cases.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on May 31, 2017, 01:31:04 PM
I'm not.  We're the ones doing the defining of a behavior as being 'good' or 'bad'.  Certainly the animals don't categorize their behavior as good or bad -- they're just following their biological mandate.  My point is that there isn't a definable objective good that holds in all cases.

If someone has their hands around my throat ... I really don't care about the niceties of philosophical definition at that point.  I am going to fight back.  Worry about objective good and other "perfect drives out the practical" after the fact.  I would also say that humans are following their biological mandate ... unless one wants to admit that humans aren't exactly (there you go again) part of the animal kingdom.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

AllPurposeAtheist

Do you really need any more proof of god? This thread alone has 28 pages. Only god could do that.. amiright er what?
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on May 31, 2017, 01:31:04 PM
I'm not.  We're the ones doing the defining of a behavior as being 'good' or 'bad'.  Certainly the animals don't categorize their behavior as good or bad -- they're just following their biological mandate.  My point is that there isn't a definable objective good that holds in all cases.
You still haven't explained your statement "why is good behavior different from species to species".  That really does say that other species have a sense of good.  Which suggests a sense of evil.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

trdsf

Quote from: Cavebear on June 14, 2017, 06:42:34 AM
You still haven't explained your statement "why is good behavior different from species to species".  That really does say that other species have a sense of good.  Which suggests a sense of evil.
No, the definition still comes from us.  Although I suppose I'm using a functionalist definition of 'good' rather than a moral one -- along the lines of filial cannibalism: we can explain why it's to a particular animal's benefit to eat its own young and shrug and move on, but we wouldn't even bother explaining if we encountered it among humans, we'd immediately lock the child-eating parents up.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2017, 01:14:50 PM
No, the definition still comes from us.  Although I suppose I'm using a functionalist definition of 'good' rather than a moral one -- along the lines of filial cannibalism: we can explain why it's to a particular animal's benefit to eat its own young and shrug and move on, but we wouldn't even bother explaining if we encountered it among humans, we'd immediately lock the child-eating parents up.

Random clouds of atoms, can't hurt other random clouds of atoms.  And Krishna drew this same picture for Arjuna, millennia before modern atomic theory.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on June 14, 2017, 01:14:50 PM
No, the definition still comes from us.  Although I suppose I'm using a functionalist definition of 'good' rather than a moral one -- along the lines of filial cannibalism: we can explain why it's to a particular animal's benefit to eat its own young and shrug and move on, but we wouldn't even bother explaining if we encountered it among humans, we'd immediately lock the child-eating parents up.

Well, OK, a functionalist (survivalist) definition of "good" is entirely different for animals.  Live-born sharks eat their siblings, elder baby birds push the youngest out of the nest, tree saplings try to shade their seedling-siblings to death, etc.

I disagree that "good" is involved in such genetically inherent acts.  Good seems to be a deliberate choice.  Your argument would, I think, be better served by more neutral terms like survival and instinct.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

trdsf

Quote from: Cavebear on June 18, 2017, 05:18:35 AM
Well, OK, a functionalist (survivalist) definition of "good" is entirely different for animals.  Live-born sharks eat their siblings, elder baby birds push the youngest out of the nest, tree saplings try to shade their seedling-siblings to death, etc.

I disagree that "good" is involved in such genetically inherent acts.  Good seems to be a deliberate choice.  Your argument would, I think, be better served by more neutral terms like survival and instinct.
Yeah, I lost my own narrative thread.  I had a point I was trying to make and failed at it.  It happens, even to geniuses like me.  :D
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on June 19, 2017, 01:11:33 PM
Yeah, I lost my own narrative thread.  I had a point I was trying to make and failed at it.  It happens, even to geniuses like me.  :D

I have lost track of a few points myself.  You generally do a good job at posts (for a mere genius).  Don't knock on yourself about one that wandered a little.  LOL!
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

trdsf

Quote from: Cavebear on June 20, 2017, 02:15:35 AM
I have lost track of a few points myself.  You generally do a good job at posts (for a mere genius).  Don't knock on yourself about one that wandered a little.  LOL!
Well, and it's philosophy rather than a real science.  I always get lost in philosophy.  Give me something rooted in mathematics and repeatable observations any day!  :D
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on June 20, 2017, 10:31:02 AM
Well, and it's philosophy rather than a real science.  I always get lost in philosophy.  Give me something rooted in mathematics and repeatable observations any day!  :D

Particularly something practical and impacts my daily life.  Big Bang ... fluff.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on June 20, 2017, 10:31:02 AM
Well, and it's philosophy rather than a real science.  I always get lost in philosophy.  Give me something rooted in mathematics and repeatable observations any day!  :D

I studied philosophy in college briefly.  None of them made much sense to me as they seemed to be dedicated to the idea that facts were not very important and that all questions could be answered by merely "thinking" about things. 

That is where the Greek mystics (Plato et al) went wrong and it persists (sadly) to this day.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!