why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and other?s

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
who gives a f*ck if 'ignorant' creationists dominate the science classroom? it will not affect sklansky or the other psuedo-intellectual atheists on this forum, at least not in a personal manner in a way direct enough to justify them all getting their panties in a bunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I'd prefer to live in a scientifically minded society as opposed to a faith based society, therefore I'd much prefer to actually have a scientific view of human history taught as opposed to the non-scientific intelligent design argument.

The type of people that are molded through education certainly does have effect on us. Perhaps we should teach children that we form from puddles after a rainstorm and that the ultimate form of human existence is the serial killer. Afterall, who gives a [censored], why get our panties in a bunch.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
i guess that's fine. but also pointless. why should they? it's all meaningless and there is no legitimate reason to so strongly advocate evolution and condemn id. why not attempt to further scientific deception instead? this would be no more of an irrational objective than promoting the 'truth' as they understand it. it seems pathetic to me to so religiously value evolution and materialistic theory if there really is no God. why value truth? why not be a krishna instead? it is all so vain and empty. thank God there really is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your main problem is that you are unable to conceive of people ascribing meaning to their life in the absence of god. In fact, you seem incapable of even imagining how it is someone could make even the most basic of decisions without an underlying belief in god. I don't need a belief in god to love my family, derive enjoyment from things in my daily life, or decide that I should indeed eat at periodic times in order to not die from hunger.

Did god come into play for you today when you decided what to eat for breakfast or what clothes to wear?

I do indeed try to encourage my worldview, just as religious people do. I think that science is man's greatest achievement, therefore I strongly promote it's proper teaching to our young.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
if everything is meaningless and w/o purpose, then why expend such great effort seeking 'truth' that doesnt actually exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing about atheism which implies "everything is meaningless and without purpose." And besides, do most believers really find meaning in life only to serve the inexplicable wishes of some "god" (whatever that is)? I doubt it.

Well it depends how you define 'meaninglessness'. atheistic evolution actually expressly asserts that 'everything is w/o purpose. i'd say true meaning is such that ultimately has genuine and absolute moral implications, both in the present and afterlife, in a world where human life is 'really' valuable in created in the image of an allperfect Intelligent Designer. As for believers who serve God, His wishes are not inexplicable. And yes, true meaning and good can be found only in Him, as St. Augustine eloquently explained a millenium and a half ago.

[ QUOTE ]
question 4) what are some of the flaws that you agnostic's see with pascal's wager. wasnt he one of the great scientists of the past millenium?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are just a few of the flaws:

1. Wagering on one religion may damn you to hell according to a number of others. Where do you place your bet?

This is clearly not a flaw. You wager on the most likely religion. If there is even a 1% chance Christianity is true (and this is higher than all other reasonable alternatives), it would be incredibly foolish not to believe, thereby risking eternity in hell.

2. An omniscient "god" may know you are simply hedging your bets, and punish you anyway.

Not a flaw. As for God's judgment on such matters, I cannot speak for Him. All we can do is make the best of the knowledge He reveals to us. God is merciful.

3. "God" may reward in afterlife only those who rigorously use their god-given reason by rejecting religion; i.e. the "best" wager is to be an atheist.

No flaw. This is simply foolish. God will reward those who deny Him, incorrectly refusing to believe? Childish...

4. Any "god" who tortures unbelievers probably can't be trusted to honor his end of the wager.

Also not a flaw. Who are you to speak for God? If God is truly real and cannot tolerate imperfection, it is not 'immoral' of Him to exclude these sinful, wicked abominous (my word) people from His presene. 'Will the thing formed say to the potter, 'why have you made me like this'' i find the combination of arrogance and igorance on the part of atheistic posters on this forum to be astounding. where are the Socrates's who 'know b/c they do not know'??

5. Since the concept of "god" is incoherent, no meaningful wager can be posed.

Not a flaw. The concept of 'God' is not incoherent. Because we cannot understand Him perfectly, doesn't make the concept of Him absurd. You need to stop reading such psychobabble. As shown above, you know little about Pascal's wager; yet this doesnt make his ideas 'incoherent'.

That Pascal was great scientist is irrelevant; that logical fallacy is known as the argument from authority.

Ill grant this to some extent. However, he was clearly overall a far greater intellect than most all who post on this forum. In my view, that is worth something. It especially tells me not to give credence to pitiful attempts (not just yours, blues) by posters here who honestly believe they can dismantle his argument with a thoughtless post such as this one.

[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since ID isn't science, many theists also vehemently oppose it being taught in a science class. The reasons for atheists and theists are probably the same, namely that some people care about the quality of education.

How is the theory of evolution any more science than ID? They are both competing philosophical systems in the end. Where is this great scientific evidence for evolution. ive read some of the 'talkorigins' site, and find it quite lacking. tell me what to read, please! in the end, though, atheists have no legitimately defensible reason for valuing education. it would be just as rational for them to value a lack of education and promote 'religious fairy tales' (in their view) over and against evolutionary truth.

[ QUOTE ]
many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I care about the issue, and I don't have any children, nor ever plan to.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. you have no legitimate reason to care. you could rationally care just as greatly about causing people to disbelieve in evolution (even if you know it to be true)

[siegfriedandroy]

exactly. you shouldnt give a f*ck unless it personally affects you (and i doubt the evolution/id debate is anywhere close to the level of determining whether more or less serial killers will be on the streets- id argue that a serial killer would more likely disbelieve in God - i.e. hitler/stalin). your personal, subjective in the controversy is without meaning. you basically are confirming my argument.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
exactly. you shouldnt give a f*ck unless it personally affects you (and i doubt the evolution/id debate is anywhere close to the level of determining whether more or less serial killers will be on the streets- id argue that a serial killer would more likely disbelieve in God - i.e. hitler/stalin). your personal, subjective in the controversy is without meaning. you basically are confirming my argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's safe to say you misunderstood what I wrote.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i guess that's fine. but also pointless. why should they? it's all meaningless and there is no legitimate reason to so strongly advocate evolution and condemn id. why not attempt to further scientific deception instead? this would be no more of an irrational objective than promoting the 'truth' as they understand it. it seems pathetic to me to so religiously value evolution and materialistic theory if there really is no God. why value truth? why not be a krishna instead? it is all so vain and empty. thank God there really is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Your main problem is that you are unable to conceive of people ascribing meaning to their life in the absence of god. In fact, you seem incapable of even imagining how it is someone could make even the most basic of decisions without an underlying belief in god."


This is not a problem of mine. I understand that you can perfectly well ascribe meaning to your life (even if ultimately it's meaningless- in 100 years). All Im saying is the meaning you ascribe to it is ultimately subjective and meaningless and pathetic.

"I don't need a belief in god to love my family, derive enjoyment from things in my daily life, or decide that I should indeed eat at periodic times in order to not die from hunger."


you could just as well choose to ascribe meaning to your life by hating your family and doing things you do not enjoy. in the end everything you do is without real meaning. why not simply decide not to eat and starve to death? would this really be 'irrational' (whatever that means) in an atheistic world?


"Did god come into play for you today when you decided what to eat for breakfast or what clothes to wear?"


I did not eat breakfast (just woke up), and am sitting on my bed naked as I type this!


"I do indeed try to encourage my worldview, just as religious people do. I think that science is man's greatest achievement, therefore I strongly promote it's proper teaching to our young.

[/ QUOTE ]




As an atheist, you could just as rationally believe that science is man's worst achievement, and that it's proper to teach young people to hate it. after all, w/o science and technology, perhaps millions of less people would have perished in the 20th century (just an example- dont know if thats really true- could be). You have no legitimate reason for 'promoting' your world view'. Christians do.

[siegfriedandroy]

can you elaborate? i think i understand perfectly what you wrote.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i guess that's fine. but also pointless. why should they? it's all meaningless and there is no legitimate reason to so strongly advocate evolution and condemn id. why not attempt to further scientific deception instead? this would be no more of an irrational objective than promoting the 'truth' as they understand it. it seems pathetic to me to so religiously value evolution and materialistic theory if there really is no God. why value truth? why not be a krishna instead? it is all so vain and empty. thank God there really is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your main problem is that you are unable to conceive of people ascribing meaning to their life in the absence of god. In fact, you seem incapable of even imagining how it is someone could make even the most basic of decisions without an underlying belief in god.

This is not a problem of mine. I understand that you can perfectly well ascribe meaning to your life (even if ultimately it's meaningless- in 100 years). All Im saying is the meaning you ascribe to it is ultimately subjective and meaningless and pathetic.

I don't need a belief in god to love my family, derive enjoyment from things in my daily life, or decide that I should indeed eat at periodic times in order to not die from hunger.

you could just as well choose to ascribe meaning to your life by hating your family and doing things you do not enjoy. in the end everything you do is without real meaning.

Did god come into play for you today when you decided what to eat for breakfast or what clothes to wear?

I did not eat breakfast (just woke up), and am sitting on my bed naked as I type this!

I do indeed try to encourage my worldview, just as religious people do. I think that science is man's greatest achievement, therefore I strongly promote it's proper teaching to our young.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an atheist, you could just as rationally believe that science is man's worst achievement, and that it's proper to teach young people to hate it. after all, w/o science and technology, perhaps millions of less people would have perished in the 20th century (just an example- dont know if thats really true- could be). You have no legitimate reason for 'promoting' your world view'. Christians do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have every reason to promote my worldview as I would prefer the world be filled with people with similar views to my own in future generatations, as opposed to antiquated religious views.

BTW, how exactly does christianity have legitimate reasons to promote it's worldview?

Also, why are you not a buddhist, hindu, muslim, taoist, or jew?

[siegfriedandroy]

wrong. In theism, there is a legitimate reason to pursue truth of all kind. In fact, truth is now a meaningful concept, and we should care that truth, justice, morality, etc. is carried out on earth (irregardless of whether in a particular instance eternal salvation is or is not directly at stake). pursue the good and shun the evil, for it's own sake.

[siegfriedandroy]

Did you read the rest of my responses to you? Sorry, I accidentally blended them in with the above quote in my response.



I have every reason to promote my worldview as I would prefer the world be filled with people with similar views to my own in future generatations, as opposed to antiquated religious views.



You again miss the point. Of course you are free to desire the world to be filled with 'educated' people like yourself. But you dont have 'every reason' to desire this. My overall is point is that as an atheist, you could just as easily desire the world to be filled primarily with 'ignorant' Christians, perhaps because more death has occurred at the hands of atheists in the 20th century (and in the history of the world) than at the hands of Christians. But this fails, too, b/c why should you give a sh*t about killing in the first place?



BTW, how exactly does christianity have legitimate reasons to promote it's worldview?

B/c if Christianity really is true, then God has commanded that we spread this truth. The legitimate reason is the authority of God Himself. This is an infinitely stronger reason than the subjective desire of an atheist to 'educate' the world.



Also, why are you not a buddhist, hindu, muslim, taoist, or jew?

[/ QUOTE ]



B/c after analyzing the evidence for each, I am convinced that Christianity is most likely to be true.