Infidelica

Some exchanges from the Guardian piece -

Me, Nick Heath and Chris Ray

NICK HEATH:ay Parmar, logic was a device of the presocratics, not a development of the iphone generation. What constitutes proof is contingent upon your criterion of examination and the social assent of the dominant members of the respective intellectual discipline. In science there is much disparity of opinion alongside general consensus' of opinion. This does not constitute the birth of undeniable facts, but the authoritative opinion of experts upon what is more likely to be the case. Even then we are only defining what does or does not count as scientifically verifiable knowledge or logical statements which satisfy truth conditions such that they are considered analytically valid/sound.

Russia eliminated the practice of religion under Communist rule, so did China. Both countries have been subject to severe scrutiny of their human rights records. So much for your secular castle in the sky. This constitutes falsification of your theory so scientifically you must therefore conclude that religion is not the underlying problem in such cases.

So you would take religion from 'the insecure' because you don't need it? Would you subject children to pitch darkness because you don't need a night light on? If it brings people peace, why is it so bad? If modern education creates minds as powerful as yours, I might shelve my agnosticism and pray for help.

ME:Nick Heath "Russia eliminated the practice of religion under Communist rule, so did China. Both countries have been subject to severe scrutiny of their human rights records. So much for your secular castle in the sky. This constitutes falsification of your theory so scientifically you must therefore conclude that religion is not the underlying problem in such cases".

They didn't abuse human rights in the name of Not Christianity or Not Islam though - whereas theocracies such as Iran do abuse human rights in the name of a deity in fact they exhort the faithful to commit atrocities such as murder of apostates and adulterers as religious duties.

Stalin's and Mao's atrocities were committed in the name of a political ideology - not as a direct result of a lack of belief in a deity. In fact from an atheist point of view there's not much difference. Theocracies differ in that they resort to appeals to the supernatural as a propaganda tool both to control their own populations and to deflect criticism from outside agencies.

"So you would take religion from 'the insecure' because you don't need it? Would you subject children to pitch darkness because you don't need a night light on? If it brings people peace, why is it so bad? If modern education creates minds as powerful as yours, I might shelve my agnosticism and pray for help."

I personally wouldn't take religion from the insecure or anyone else - how can I? You can't prevent people holding misguided beliefs, but I would take away the authority vested in organised religion to promote it's ideas to the insecure as though they were factual (by which I mean derived from evidence that is observable by all regardless of whether they already subscribe to the belief being evidenced) I would do that not because I don't need religion, but because they are practicing a deception, and no belief based on a falsehood can confer genuine security. Likewise I wouldn't "subject" children to pitch darkness because I don't need a night light - I'd stay with them in the dark and help them reach an understanding that darkness in itself is nothing to fear. I would help them to build confidence in themselves and their own ability to assess the world around them realistically and thus deal with risks effectively as they arise (which they surely will). That way they will avoid a life of insecurity and irrational fears and the beliefs attendant upon them.

NICK HEATH:Emma Jane Robertson - Firstly, thank you for your civility, it was a pleasure to explain why you are wrong :p

"They didn't abuse human rights in the name of Not Christianity or Not Islam though - whereas theocracies such as Iran do abuse human rights in the name of a deity in fact they exhort the faithful to commit atrocities such as murder of apostates and adulterers as religious duties."

- Nope, but my point was that the presence of religion is arbitrary to the incidence of human rights atrocities under malevolent totalitarian governments. Iran may present cultural or religious narratives in support of it's human rights abuses, but the function and execution of them is political, not religious.

"Stalin's and Mao's atrocities were committed in the name of a political ideology - not as a direct result of a lack of belief in a deity. In fact from an atheist point of view there's not much difference. Theocracies differ in that they resort to appeals to the supernatural as a propaganda tool both to control their own populations and to deflect criticism from outside agencies."

- No, not as a result of atheism, but irrespective of the metaphysical consensus of the population and government. I do not care much for secular propaganda either such as weapons of mass destruction etc. At least religious justification is overt and subject to debate rather than simply being omitted from news bulletins. Controlling populations is preferable to complete anarchy which tends to bring out the worst in people. Just an opposite absolute.

"I personally wouldn't take religion from the insecure or anyone else - how can I? You can't prevent people holding misguided beliefs, but I would take away the authority vested in organised religion to promote it's ideas to the insecure as though they were factual (by which I mean derived from evidence that is observable by all regardless of whether they already subscribe to the belief being evidenced) I would do that not because I don't need religion, but because they are practicing a deception, and no belief based on a falsehood can confer genuine security. Likewise I wouldn't "subject" children to pitch darkness because I don't need a night light - I'd stay with them in the dark and help them reach an understanding that darkness in itself is nothing to fear. I would help them to build confidence in themselves and their own ability to assess the world around them realistically and thus deal with risks effectively as they arise (which they surely will). That way they will avoid a life of insecurity and irrational fears and the beliefs attendant upon them."

- You don't want to "take religion from the insecure", you do want to censor its message. The authority 'vested' in religion is clearly failing anyway, because only around half of the British population holds a tangible religious conviction, inclusive of the more pious Asian population. Do you realise that factual propositions differ from moral prescriptions? If the church was restricted to scientific facts, it could make no normative moral demands of people. A morality based upon learned experience alone is both unrealistic (we don't form moral tenets empirically) and dangerous. Descriptive epistemologies are inherently conservative and both justify and enforce the 'status quo'. An obvious entailment considering scientific method observes regularities and produces rules in accord with them. This narrative could actually be used to defend human rights abuses against change. Empirical science should stay in its box, where scientists are content to keep it and pseudo-intellectuals should be cautioned to leave it. No offense intended, the point is generally presented against this kind of faulty intuition.

Perhaps it's sentimental o

ME:Nick Heath Thanks Nick, for sharing your enjoyment in "correcting" me - how kind of you. I must however take issue with one or two points

"Nope, but my point was that the presence of religion is arbitrary to the incidence of human rights atrocities under malevolent totalitarian governments. Iran may present cultural or religious narratives in support of it's human rights abuses, but the function and execution of them is political, not religious."

Perhaps my pseudo intellectual brain is slow to catch on but are not the political and religious integrated in a single power system in a theocracy? - How is it possible to distinguish political function and execution of abuse (or any other act of government) from religious when the legislation used in mandate is drawn from religious text i.e. Sharia Law?

I think you'll find that many if not all the human rights abuses committed in Iran by the government and it's agency the Revolutionary Guard against it's citizens are explicitly prescribed in the Q'ran and regarded in the ruling orthodoxy as Allah's given punishments for sins against him.

So much for the Islamic Republic - next stop Iraq and WMD.

Not an instrument of specifically secular propaganda is it? Blair and Bush didn't say "We've found weapons of mass destruction which are an offence to our commitment to separation of church and state, therefore we must go to war" In fact Blair couldn't since we have no such commitment here (although - as you mentioned - popular sentiment here probably favours secularism more than does that in the States).

I take your point that an outright lie is impossible to confront till it's been exposed. However where's your guarantee that religious leaders are not in the habit of practicing similar lies. After all, they've got previous. Any leader can tell lies whether they are already misleading the population on religious grounds or not.

Your final argument seems to be that if you don't hoodwink people about the nature of reality they will lose all semblance of a moral compass. Why do you believe that? Why is it unrealistic to base morality on learned experience alone? Where does religious morality come from if not learned experience - it's just a compendium of people's experiences and ideas- formalised in various doctrines and attributed to a supernatural force for reasons of ignorance and/or PR.

You don't need the supernatural element. Selflessness, concern for the weak and vulnerable are features of affluent, educated societies, not religious ones, and it would be my contention that the presence of a strong religious influence in a society tends to inhibit rather that foster educational and social inclusiveness, not least because the more educated the population the harder it is to dupe them.

Anyway, whether it's the case that religion supports morality or not is immaterial to the fact that it is, in my view, an immoral act in itself to present as truth an unsubstantiated opinion e.g. "God is our heavenly father - he's done this that and the other for our benefit so worship him" "Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem our sins and give us the chance of everlasting life"

These are indefensible statements unless you regard them as part of a fictional narrative, which is where I believe they belong and where they may play a part in framing and nurturing societies moral values. I don't want to "censor" the message of religion - unless by that you mean "require it to tell the truth". I do want to prevent it making moral demands - I don't believe it has any right to make such demands as I don't accept it's moral authority. You can't demand morality - only teach and inspire.

I didn't describe providing a light in darkness I described providing living human companionship and reassurance for the moment and education for the future .
Ref me but one might propose that the authentic purpose of religious faith is to provide a light in the darkness, much in the way that you described you would do.

BRIAN MURPHY:Emma Jane Robertson That a man called Jesus died on a cross at about the time the Bible states he did is historical fact, as supported by historians of the day such as Josephus. This Jesus claimed to be God incarnate, which means that he was either a madman, a con man or God incarnate. You can choose which you choose to believe he was but to deny that he lived and died on a cross is to deny history.
R

ME:Brian Murphy Brian Murphy I wasn't denying that he (Jesus - whoever he was) died on a cross. I was calling into question the veracity of statements made by Christians about the nature of his death. Even by your account the historical detail is vague, we have only hearsay evidence for any of the supernatural claims. Yet Christians 2000 years later feel justified in saying that he definitely was God incarnate and that I can have life after death if I believe that and make appropriate demonstrations of belief (varying according to which denomination of Christian you listen to). These are preposterous claims, which do not stand up to the slightest rational scrutiny. I stand by my assertion that "Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem our sins and give us the chance of everlasting life" is indefensible as a statement of fact.
Reply · Like · 10 November at 02:04

Emma Jane Robertson · Tewkesbury School
Brian Murphy Sorry, was this a response to my earlier question? I know I can choose which to believe (I don't think the options you mention cover all possibilities btw) but I was wondering why YOU decided to believe that the one that (to me anyway) seems by far the least likely is the correct one. Just curious ... :)

CHRIS RAY:"I don't believe it has any right to make such demands as I don't accept it's moral authority." "These are preposterous claims, which do not stand up to the slightest rational scrutiny." Can I ask how they are preposterous claims? I'm sure if someone said 500 years ago that you could split an atom, that would have seemed preposterous too. I wondered where you got your notions based on morality, and if you don't believe in God, how can they stand up to any scrutiny, how can you 'prove' right from right and wrong from right? Politics just emphases mainstream views, is does not seed the fabric of society, nor can it replace moral conceptions brought from God.

ME:Chris Ray The claims "God is our heavenly father who we should worship" Jesus death has given us a chance of everlasting life are preposterous because there is no evidence to support them - nobody could possibly know that either one is the case.
The timescale is not the main issue, the reason I mention it is because things that happened many years before anyone alive today was born are harder to verify than things that happened recently.

Your example of splitting the atom is a non sequitur - 500 hundred years ago no one would have heard of an atom. Why would you expect them to take the idea seriously? Since then knowledge of the material world and the technology with which it can be measured and described have advanced considerably and now scientists are able to produce data strongly supporting the existence of sub atomic particles.

The same cannot be said of Christianity (or any other deist belief), and yet even though 2000 years have passed without a shred more evidence that the claims made for him are other than fictional, Christians nowadays expect the rest of us to take there beliefs seriously.

A scientist can explain to me why he believes what he does about particle physics and show me evidence that supports his beliefs. I've never known a deist be able to do either.

God doesn't exist (as far as we know) - therefore any morality that exists originates from a source other than "God".

How can I prove right from wrong? "Prove" it to whom and for what purpose? In terms of my day to day life I don't find it difficult to distinguish right from wrong - do you?? Here are some rules of thumb:

In any given personal/social/financial transaction ask

1. are all the parties involved (either as parties to the transaction or parties certain to be directly affected by the transaction), to the best of your knowledge ( contingent on prior knowledge or reasonable enquiries being made) competent adults (if no appropriate allowances should be made)?

2. have you satisfied yourself that the parties have been a. able to access any available relevant information regarding the transaction and
b. given reasonable opportunity to express their opinion with regard to the logistics of and proposed outcome of the transaction?

3. 2. having been satisfied, are the parties consenting to the transaction?

If the answer(s) at stage 1. is "no" then you may be doing wrong by proceeding.

If the answer at stage 2. is "no" then you are probably doing wrong by proceeding.

If the answer at stage 3. is "no" then you are almost certainly doing wrong by proceeding.

In short - if you are involved in activities that deceive, coerce and/or hurt others then the likelihood is that what you are doing is wrong.
Reply · Like · 11 November at 02:13

CHRIS RAY:Emma Jane Robertson Christians or any other believers do not require absolute proof, so to speak. Isn't faith believing in something that cannot be proven? How one could 'prove' the existence of God I could not begin to imagine. Just to believe there was a 'big bang' then the universe was made is just madness, is it not so? How can one 'prove' that? The Large Hadron Particle Collider cannot prove such theories nor can man, isn't theoretical science just as proof less as God? But people choose to believe that science holds all the answers because science has recorded a few simple facts, then added onto them, repeatedly and so on etc but in a sense science is just to explain what we are at present, to go further and 'explain' origins is just believing in something different, unless you can prove otherwise.

Competent adults, who are they, who can say who's competent and who is not, value someone's opinion souly based on that individuals competency, or their politics. Your reasoning behind right and wrong is ill founded, as that person(s) may have ill founded ideals, your basing 'right' on 'the peoples view or aka politics', is politics always right? Can politics not change? And God does not change, the teachings of the Bible do not change merely the interpretations of the Bible.

In short I understand what you are saying, but you have not made a case to explain what right or wrong is, you have merely distracted the conversation from what I asked.

Though "Given reasonable opportunity to express their opinion with regard to the logistics of and proposed outcome of the transaction? " This argument has clarity but it sounds like it will all stem down into politics, and if you're out numbered then your 'right' would be overturned into 'being wrong'. All I'm saying is that politics can easily be wrong, and to base our values on a continuously changing structure, therefore how can wrong be wrong but then suddenly be right?
Reply · Like · 11 November at 21:39

ME:Chris Ray YOU: "I wondered where you got your notions based on morality, and if you don't believe in God, how can they stand up to any scrutiny, how can you 'prove' right from right and wrong from right?"

ME:"How can I prove right from wrong? "Prove" it to whom and for what purpose? In terms of my day to day life I don't find it difficult to distinguish right from wrong - do you?? Here are some rules of thumb: ... etc ..."

YOU:"Christians or any other believers do not require absolute proof, so to speak"
" How one could 'prove' the existence of God I could not begin to imagine"

No, me either but it's not me going around talking about it as if it were proven and expecting others to accommodate my position. Christians clearly Don't need proof lol I don't need "proof" but I do need strong supporting evidence if I 'm going to accept the various claims made by churches to moral authority.

first non-sequiturs now shifting of the goal posts. You're compromising your intellectual integrity to defend your position - doesn't that tell you something?

"Just to believe there was a 'big bang' then the universe was made is just madness, is it not so? How can one 'prove' that"

Who do think believes that Chris?

Not scientists - they've come up with a whole theoretical frame work with maths and references to the study of existing atomic and astronomical phenomena supporting the idea of a universe expanding from a tiny core of matter - and even then, they are only claiming to have a theory that fits the available evidence - not proof.

"But people choose to believe that science holds all the answers because science has recorded a few simple facts, then added onto them, repeatedly and so on etc but in a sense science is just to explain what we are at present"

What people? Again, not scientists - to be a scientist, almost by definition is to admit that one doesn't hold all the answers, or even that there is such a possibility.

"Recorded a few simple facts, then added onto them repeatedly and so on"

Yes, and in so doing given us modern food production and distribution techniques that have freed humanity from the constant threat of extinction, hot and cold running water in our homes, modern sewage disposal and treatment, modern medicine all of which have saved countless millions of lives and contributed immeasurably to the quality of billions more and that's not to mention electricity,, fabric and textile technology, sanitation, modern construction materials and techniques and the world of knowledge and communication opened up by the printed word and finding expression nowadays through digital technologies. Oh and putting a man on the moon.

Yes knowledge can be used for harm - the technology of the atom bomb is an achievement of science - however it's use is not. No act of warfare has been committed in the name of either science or atheism - because neither has a moral/political agenda.

Coming back to my "rules of thumb" (remember? rules of thumb - not proofs) for DISTINGUISHING right from wrong behaviour in my own day to day life.

"Competent adult" = someone of the age of majority who is not demonstrably, at the time of contact, suffering from a mental illness and/or learning disability such that they cannot reasonably be expected to understand the consequences of any agreement or course of action they become party to.
If you feel that you are unable to make a reasonable assessment of mental competence in the people you meet in the course of day to day life you might want to make an appointment with a medical professional yourself.

Why does it matter what THEIR motives, ideals etc. are?

What I am doing is establishing guidelines by which I can assess the morality of MY OWN actions.

I'll summarise:

I aim not to deceive, coerce, or physically hurt (directly or by omission) other people in the course of day to day life, either as myself or as accessory to others' actions

If the framework of the law exhorts all citizens to observe these simple guides and bring up and educate their children to do the same then citizenry and law will act in accordance for the common good.

I would add one consideration which I don't believe is properly reflected in the law here which would be that accessory include failing to intervene or report acts of harm that one becomes aware of by chance.
Reply · Like · 11 November at 23:57

CHRIS RAY:Emma Jane Robertson I was not confronting science to be incorrect on the terms of medical, technological, or 'putting man onto the moon' as you've put it, you clearly think I'm arguing there's a rational argument disputing Religion Vs Science on the subject of technological discovery, which I am not, clearly again, intellectual criticism is 'super seeding itself into a position of authority on the matter. Is a ME and YOU debate but I am simply debating the virtues of understanding and reasoning, there is no need for over capitalization though you may feel very appointed to defending your beliefs, which is quite rightly so.

""Prove" it to whom and for what purpose?" Just the purpose of this debate, for no other purpose should we try and derive the true virtues of right and wrong, it would be a endless and probably pointless argument, for isn't life pointless (unless for God) which of neither of us can prove, I believe the Bible is right, you do not, simply put, no?

"You're compromising your intellectual integrity to defend your position - doesn't that tell you something?" Please expand and explain how I'm doing so?

"If you feel that you are unable to make a reasonable assessment of mental competence in the people you meet in the course of day to day life you might want to make an appointment with a medical professional yourself. "

I have not and do not make any such claims, I have only asked yourself (and as far as I know we have not met in person but perhaps if we did, I would have to call a medical professional therefore then, and only then would your statement be valid? Or not, as the case may be.. You seem to be able to understand what right is from wrong, however of course you could be writing your replies from a prison, how could I know? I am joking of course, please don't take offence in what I'm saying, I'm trying to lighten this up). All I asked is what you find to be right and wrong and how you merely came to that conclusion, you seemed to note that right from wrong can be debated person to person, so I pointed out that as politics changes, and therefore it could not be competently relied upon for definitions of morals, unfortunately you feel its appropriate to state my mental competence hence you make a claim for me 'to make an appointment with a medical professional'. If you wish to question where my morals originate, if we are in disagreement then that is down to our beliefs? You felt it was appropriate to acquire proof or fact in what you believe, I do not. I have faith and I believe in God, you seem not to.

"Why does it matter what THEIR motives, ideals etc. are?
What I am doing is establishing guidelines by which I can assess the morality of MY OWN actions."

Who is their? Their ideals? People's perhaps? And your right, its not important, the only importance is God and his word.

Finally..

Jesus death has given us a chance of everlasting life are preposterous because there is no evidence to support them.

The evidence is in fact in the way Jesus teaches us to live, if you don't live that way, of course the claims would be preposterous but of course if you live the way of Christ, then, those claims are far from preposterous and life is a completely different story.

But..

"I aim not to deceive, coerce, or physically hurt (directly or by omission) other people in the course of day to day life, either as myself or as accessory to others' actions"

I am very pleased to hear that.

"If the framework of the law exhorts all citizens to observe these simple guides and bring up and educate their children to do the same then citizenry and law will act in accordance for the common good."

The common good? Is there a common good? Isn't that what politics decides and changes for a drop of a hat, in order to be voted into power and rule with absolute authority. Authority leads to riches, in this world, is that not money? So the common good can be ruled by wealth, is that in your opinion right or wrong?
Reply · Like · 12 November at 01:22

CHRIS RAY:Emma Jane Robertson furthermore.

"What I am doing is establishing guidelines by which I can assess the morality of MY OWN actions."

Of course, but in this debate we can call life, we all have a crucial part to play, and if we feel its necessarily to change moral definitions by the standards we set ourselves without thinking the wider impact that our actions have on everyone else, then we are not just debating our own actions, but the actions of everyone else in that framework and how we are influenced by them and how they influence us. Morals are the backbone of our society, I don't feel the fabric of our society can be competently changed without implications.

It is only recently that it has been implied that the implications to our world by perhaps the uses of fossil fuels, yet we can change society's moral definitions without thinking such catastrophic reactions could be destined for the society we live.

I love the phase, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Apparently, that's gone out of the window.
Reply · Like · 12 Novembe

ME:Chris Ray Chris, do you speak English as a first language? If not that may the reason for some of your confusion over my arguments - if so I apologise in advance for allegations of obfuscation. (facebook has a translator facility which may be helpful).

By the way, where I've capitalised it's to clearly attribute a quote from previous comments and/or to point out where my argument in a previous comment differs from your subsequent interpretation of it. To illustrate and respond to your comment -

"You're compromising your intellectual integrity to defend your position - doesn't that tell you something?" Please expand and explain how I'm doing so? -

Ok, I will do that; to start off it must be noted that you've only quoted part of my comment "you're compromising ... etc ..." ;

the whole comment read "first NON-SEQUITURS now SHIFTING OF THE GOAL POSTS. You're compromising your intellectual integrity to defend your position - doesn't that tell you something?
(I've used capitalisation to draw your attention to points that you seem previously to have missed or ignored).

Two exchanges appeared in previous comments (I quoted from them both to illustrate my point previously - but am happy to again if my meaning was unclear) which I pointed out to be instances of the use by you of non-sequitur and shifting goal posts - both forms of obfuscation which suggest intellectual dishonesty or in other words that you are prepared to compromise your intellectual integrity to advance your position.

I've numbered the exchanges for extra clarity:

1.NON-SEQUITUR

ME: "Yet Christians 2000 years later feel justified in saying that he (Jesus) definitely was God incarnate and that I can have life after death if I believe that and make appropriate demonstrations of belief (varying according to which denomination of Christian you listen to). These are preposterous claims, which do not stand up to the slightest rational scrutiny"

YOU: "Can I ask how they are preposterous claims? I'm sure if someone said 500 years ago that you could split an atom, that would have seemed preposterous too"

ME: "Your example of splitting the atom is a non sequitur - 500 hundred years ago no one would have heard of an atom. Why would you expect them to take the idea seriously? Since then knowledge of the material world and the technology with which it can be measured and described have advanced considerably and now scientists are able to produce data strongly supporting the existence of sub atomic particles.

The same cannot be said of Christianity (or any other deist belief), and yet even though 2000 years have passed without a shred more evidence that the claims made for him are other than fictional, Christians nowadays expect the rest of us to take there beliefs seriously." (i admit, I should have specified "supernatural claims" here)

The non-sequitur here is :

Comparative Cases

a).500 years ago, people would have found the idea of splitting the atom preposterous.

b).Today, I find the idea that Christians know for a fact that 2000 years ago Jesus death gave me the chance of eternal life preposterous.

Extrapolations from Premise

a). In the intervening years to date, advances have been made in mankind's ability to observe and explain the material world and evidence has come to light which makes the idea of splitting atoms less preposterous.

b). no further evidence has been forwarded for the claim that Jesus death = eternal life for believers.

Conclusions

a). Therefore people nowadays are likely to find the idea of splitting the atom less preposterous than did people 500 years ago.

b). Therefore my response to Christians' claim to certainty that Jesus death = eternal life for believers should be to find it that it is not preposterous.

The non-sequitur lies in the failure to produce a comparative extrapolation from premise in case b).

So It does not follow that because claims that people 500 ago found preposterous in case a). are no longer found AS preposterous today, that I should find claims made in case b). any less preposterous - the one does not follow from the other.

2.SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS

YOU: "I wondered where you got your notions based on morality, and if you don't believe in God, how can they stand up to any scrutiny, how can you 'prove' right from right and wrong from right?"

ME:"How can I prove right from wrong? "Prove" it to whom and for what purpose? In terms of my day to day life I don't find it difficult to distinguish right from wrong - do you?? Here are some rules of thumb: ... etc ..."

YOU:"Christians or any other believers do not require absolute proof, so to speak"
" How one could 'prove' the existence of God I could not begin to imagine"

In example No. 2. you ask me how I can "prove" something (in this case the difference between right and right (I've assumed this to be a typo and ignored) and right and wrong. I've responded by asking you to contextualise your question and then, in a good faith effort to answer what I thought to be the sense of your question, outlined my own guidelines for making a distinction between right and wrong behaviour. You then claimed that believers don't need proof.

Do you see what you've done? You've (a. asked me to detail how I would perform an impossible task and (b. dismissed my response on the grounds that it was unnecessary in the first place!

If you don't need proof why did you ask me how I would prove something??

This reeks of obfuscation - either that or you don't have a firm grasp of your own position, let alone anyone else's.

I hope I've expanded and explained - please let me know if you require further clarification :)
Reply · Like · 12 November at 17:43

CHRIS RAY:Chris Ray Chris, do you speak English as a first language? If not that may the reason for some of your confusion over my arguments - if so I apologize in advance for allegations of obfuscation. (facebook has a translator facility which may be helpful).

Firstly, you trying to patronize me in explaining your position from right and wrong, which is where our conversation/discussion is drawing to a close is rather unsurprising .. To consider that you have a upper hand on intellectualism and the mere thought that you believe 'no pun intended' that Christianity is deceiving, is rather dreamy. The Bible is a profound and factual source of information. Just because you don't believe that, doesn't mean the Bible's fact have been disproved. 2000 years of history must tell you that, the Bible has survived for a long period of time, longer than anything science has approved of or been able to prove, or perhaps been able to question and theorize. It is clear that the Bible has answered questions for peoples lives during its existence and is still relevant in the present day. It is unlikely considering your lack of faith, that I can shift the importance of the subject of faith. It is not required that you try and attack me with regards to my English, it is far from perfect, and I would be happy to tell you that I do not hold a high level qualification in English but even someone with a IQ of less than 120 could tell you that ;) (Me). You have made simple grammatical errors, confusing their and there. Of course dishonesty is the imperfection of man, I still sin, and I am not perfect, Christians don't believe they are perfect but try to live a life like Jesus, who was perfect, the Son of God. You however seem on a high horse, the 'higher moral horse' which I must point out does not exist unlike God. There is no human on earth that can define morals. You can point out your opinion on the subject but to define morals is not up to any standard of human position unless defined by God. I believe God set out morals in the Bible, you don't require a English degree to understand our different convictions on the matter.

"By the way, where I've capitalised it's to clearly attribute a quote from previous comments and/or to point out where my argument in a previous comment differs from your subsequent interpretation of it. To illustrate and respond to your comment - "

Perhaps I could briefly explain, you are rather mis-informed on the matter, I will point out I don't require to see a whole word in capitals to understand the point your getting to, I have enough intelligence to work out things on the subject of philosophy, obviously you put into practice taunts to 'strengthen' your argument, which I will inform you unbelievingly, do not.

"You're compromising your intellectual integrity to defend your position - doesn't that tell you something?" Please expand and explain how I'm doing so? -

"Ok, I will do that; to start off it must be noted that you've only quoted part of my comment "you're compromising ... etc ..." ;

the whole comment read "first NON-SEQUITURS now SHIFTING OF THE GOAL POSTS. You're compromising your intellectual integrity to defend your position - doesn't that tell you something?
(I've used capitalisation to draw your attention to points that you seem previously to have missed or ignored).

Two exchanges appeared in previous comments (I quoted from them both to illustrate my point previously - but am happy to again if my meaning was unclear) which I pointed out to be instances of the use by you of non-sequitur and shifting goal posts - both forms of obfuscation which suggest intellectual dishonesty or in other words that you are prepared to compromise your intellectual integrity to advance your position.
Repl

CHRIS RAY:I've numbered the exchanges for extra clarity:

1.NON-SEQUITUR

ME: "Yet Christians 2000 years later feel justified in saying that he (Jesus) definitely was God incarnate and that I can have life after death if I believe that and make appropriate demonstrations of belief (varying according to which denomination of Christian you listen to). These are preposterous claims, which do not stand up to the slightest rational scrutiny""

Preposterous if you don't believe, quite astonishing even if you do.

"YOU: "Can I ask how they are preposterous claims? I'm sure if someone said 500 years ago that you could split an atom, that would have seemed preposterous too"

ME: "Your example of splitting the atom is a non sequitur - 500 hundred years ago no one would have heard of an atom. Why would you expect them to take the idea seriously? Since then knowledge of the material world and the technology with which it can be measured and described have advanced considerably and now scientists are able to produce data strongly supporting the existence of sub atomic particles."

True. I'm not debating the breakthroughs of science.

The same cannot be said of Christianity (or any other deist belief), and yet even though 2000 years have passed without a shred more evidence that the claims made for him are other than fictional, Christians nowadays expect the rest of us to take there beliefs seriously." (I admit, I should have specified "supernatural claims" here)

The fact you describe its at least 2000 years isn't that a testament to Christ himself?. Has the notion of faith has eluded you? Science has concluded the present ( sub atomic particles ) not the past, which I may point out is history and cannot be entirely proved, this is why we have archaeologists, but even by digging up the past, as the past is long gone, its an ambitious task to unlock the 'secrets' of history. Theoretical science can debate philosophy, theorize with maths, but cannot prove it. Your previous message “Not scientists - they've come up with a whole theoretical frame work with maths and references to the study of existing atomic and astronomical phenomena supporting the idea of a universe expanding from a tiny core of matter - and even then, they are only claiming to have a theory that fits the available evidence - not proof.”

I have regarded faith as not requiring proof you asked
Reply · Like · Monday at 01:43

CHRIS RAY:And ...
...then you kindly point out I may have compromised my intellectual position, perhaps I better advance further on your ability to shift the goalposts where you enjoy to criticise others but not be able to prove your own position on the matter..
“first non-sequiturs now shifting of the goal posts. You're compromising your intellectual integrity to defend your position - doesn't that tell you something? “

You have noted that us Christians cannot prove the claim that Jesus is the saviour and we must go through him for eternal life.

However, I have previously pointed out that faith does not require absolute proof, which is something you still seem to be missing and I still have to keep pointing out.

The non-sequitur here is :

Comparative Cases

a).500 years ago, people would have found the idea of splitting the atom preposterous.

b).Today, I find the idea that Christians know for a fact that 2000 years ago Jesus death gave me the chance of eternal life preposterous.

Extrapolations from Premise

a). In the intervening years to date, advances have been made in mankind's ability to observe and explain the material world and evidence has come to light which makes the idea of splitting atoms less preposterous.

b). no further evidence has been forwarded for the claim that Jesus death = eternal life for believers.

Conclusions

a). Therefore people nowadays are likely to find the idea of splitting the atom less preposterous than did people 500 years ago.

b). Therefore my response to Christians' claim to certainty that Jesus death = eternal life for believers should be to find it that it is not preposterous.

See above

The non-sequitur lies in the failure to produce a comparative extrapolation from premise in case b).

So It does not follow that because claims that people 500 ago found preposterous in case a). are no longer found AS preposterous today, that I should find claims made in case b). any less preposterous - the one does not follow from the other.

2.SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS

YOU: "I wondered where you got your notions based on morality, and if you don't believe in God, how can they stand up to any scrutiny, how can you 'prove' right from right and wrong from right?"

ME:"How can I prove right from wrong? "Prove" it to whom and for what purpose? In terms of my day to day life I don't find it difficult to distinguish right from wrong - do you?? Here are some rules of thumb: ... etc ..."

Perhaps I should have continued to ask you about this, for what purpose? For what purpose? (Note I said that two times, no typo hint hint :)).. you have already answered your own question “for the common good!” I heard someone say ;). Which if you're in any doubt, you said previously. I should have asked what good is the common good, if its based on a constantly changing population? How does good change, is good or right, time dependent, or is right defined right one minute and wrong the next? Which I thought was the purpose of morals, a definition to live by for the good of humans! Note I answered your question, for what purpose ?* However perhaps thats too philosophical for your mind to delve into, the perception that 'for the good of mankind' could actually exist, that the mere contradiction of philosophical debate cannot answer simply its own questions. God doesn't change as he is already perfect, is eternal life not perfection itself? Or does the very thought of existing forever scare you?
Reply · Like · Monday at 01:44

CHRIS RAY:YOU:"Christians or any other believers do not require absolute proof, so to speak"
" How one could 'prove' the existence of God I could not begin to imagine"

In example No. 2. you ask me how I can "prove" something (in this case the difference between right and right (I've assumed this to be a typo and ignored) and right and wrong. I've responded by asking you to contextualise your question and then, in a good faith effort to answer what I thought to be the sense of your question, outlined my own guidelines for making a distinction between right and wrong behaviour. You then claimed that believers don't need proof.

Do believers require proof? What is the point of faith? Doesn't science require faith in order to theorize?

Right from right, is not a typo, but as you ignored it I will point out the point I was making. So in order for you I will try to explain, are two rights the same, say the right to live? And the right to die? Are these moral debates? One of the ten commandments; You must not murder (Exodus 20:13). I don't see that we require a debate on the subject of death, its clear that the Bible clearly states, you should not do something. But the right to live, what is right, and clearly if you approve a law to be passed for the right to end someone's life, would you be happy to personally kill them if they asked you to do it? And on the same basic question of killing, how many people would happily kill an animal they were going to eat for a roast dinner? I doubt the same handful of people would happily kill animals or people if put into that position. It seems easy to debate these topics, but put yourself into the moral high chair and you fall flat into you face. Hence for the love of God, I love the Bible and try to lead my life according to the Bible.

"Do you see what you've done? You've (a. asked me to detail how I would perform an impossible task and (b. dismissed my response on the grounds that it was unnecessary in the first place!

If you don't need proof why did you ask me how I would prove something??"

I only ask you to prove why you do not think we require moral or morality, you cannot except God has the moral authority, you said previously to teach and inspire.. That sounds like a ideal that will never be reached, inspire what? Creativity? but at what price? Doesn't everything have and require limits, don't we have laws set in place to limit us in our actions? Isn't mortality or morals, limits that man must do in order not to destroy itself?

Life is a gift from God, and so to destroy ourselves would be a contradiction of life itself, would it not?

I'll note the definition of faith

faith
1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

This reeks of obfuscation - either that or you don't have a firm grasp of your own position, let alone anyone else's.

It is unfortunate that you believe I don't have a firm grasp of my own convictions and position. I admit, my English could be improved but I wish you are unfortunate not to be able to expand on your own moral statue, other than using capitalisation, please use correct English, as you inform I am not able to do so, you can teach me how one does use the correct tongue.

I hope I've expanded and explained - please let me know if you require further clarification :)

“No, me either but it's not me going around talking about it as if it were proven and expecting others to accommodate my position. Christians clearly Don't need proof lol I don't need "proof" but I do need strong supporting evidence if I 'm going to accept the various claims made by churches to moral authority “

Faith is proven, but I feel its only the believers who realise the strength in believing, but you may be confusing my strength of faith with a complete stance of thinking I have proof, I never said that, please quote me if I'm wrong.. Moral authority, a position that God is the creator of everything and that we must adhere to his laws if we have a chance of everlasting / eternal life. Humans are becoming a product of their own demise, the destruction of the planet is a simple outlay of the complexity of intellectual authority of humans believing they know more than they really know or can comprehend. Although super computers can predict weather systems by a matter of days, they are still incorrect on many accounts, yet we increasingly rely on them for global predictions of our climate for years to come!.. isn't that a strange and funny concept?

Morals don't disappear in a puff of ineffability, or do they?

If I have made any grammatical errors, I apolgise, I also apoligise of my knowledge of theology as it is not perfect, but I concur I am quite happy to discuss further.
Reply · Like · Monday at 01:44

ME:Chris Ray No. You're completely missing the point here - you expressly asked me to expand and explain my suggestion that you are compromising your integrity by resorting to non-sequitur in your argument. That's what I'm doing^ I'm not interested in your thoughts about science, they're irrelevant to the point which was that your argument contained a non-sequitur. Now, I've been to some pains to explain very clearly where the non-sequitur occurs, if you can't be bothered to read and respond to what I've actually written then you're wasting both our time.
Reply · Like · Monday at 17:14

Emma Jane Robertson · Tewkesbury School
Chris Ray You're making precisely the preposterous statements I was talking about. I don't believe there's a God, I don't believe in or want eternal life.

God is an invention of Man, a fictional creation. Therefore any morality attributed to God is man made. All morality must come from ourselves and be agreed and administered by consensus.

No one has the right to claim moral authority by invoking God since God was invented by people in the first place.

Now, you can believe whatever you like in private but unless you (not just you, but believers generally and particularly the spokespeople of organised Religion) can provide evidence supporting your beliefs it is dishonest to perpetuate the idea that they are factual and to claim moral authority based on them.
Reply · Like · Monday at 17:31

CHRIS RAY:Emma Jane Robertson your last answer and reply is far from rational, its also irresponsible and as you cannot determine what the moral authority is you so kindly utter about.

I have read everything you have written and I have answered accordingly, just because you don't wish to live forever and cannot see that eternal life is the most beautiful concept out of living itself then it seems you are subjecting my argument by dismissing it altogether, which isn't very science like is it?

Faith isn't dishonest as it sets out in the first place that we cannot provide physical evidence of God other than what happened in the scriptures. The Bible teaches people right from wrong, though I admit its not the easiest book to read!

Humans cannot truly determine morality, if you could have asked Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin what they thought morals were, they would likely be different than that of Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr.Martin Luther King's. And that's the problem of authority, as its time dependent, with time the authority changes. But God, does not change.
Reply · Like · Tuesday at 14:56

ME:Chris Ray What have I said that's not rational? What was irresponsible? don't make allegations without backing them up.

I said moral authority comes from people, whether through an honest and transparent process of consensus - parliamentary democracy for instance, or through a spurious and unaccountable proxy agency such as "God" as is the case with religion. In both cases the ultimate source is human since "God" is a human invention.

I can determine "what the moral authority of which I utter" is perfectly well thanks. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You haven't read everything I've said and answered accordingly - I clearly demonstrated instances of obfuscation in your comments which you have not responded to.

Again - you say I dismiss your argument "just" because I don't want to live forever.

No I didn't. I didn't say any such thing - you've added misquoting to shifting the goal posts and non-sequiturs.

I strongly questioned the veracity of your claim (I wouldn't call it an argument) not because of anything I might or might not think or feel personally, but because there is no evidence for it - and I think you'll find that in fact, yes that is fairly science like.

Who said "Faith is dishonest"? - not me. I said it's dishonest to make statements about supernatural phenomena such as God, everlasting life etc. as though they were based on anything other than faith.

If all religious pronouncements were prefaced with

"it's my personal belief, based on hearsay and my personal decision to believe something that appeals to my (vulnerabilities/masochism/sense of self righteousness etc ...add in your own reason/s) ... (that Jesus is the son of God and died to give us all everlasting life) (God created the Earth and made Adam out of dust etc.) ...

then they would be perfectly acceptable. What is dishonest is to leave these kinds of statement unqualified as though they had objective truth.

I'll give you an example of objective truth for comparison -

"To observers on the Earth's surface it appears that the sun appears over the Eastern horizon regularly every 24 hrs "

The truth of this statement does not depend on what anybody thinks or believes about it. There is no need for Faith - just observational skills.

You think the Bible teaches right from wrong? So what about Moslems? Hindus? followers of the Japanese Shinto tradition? The Chinese?? The Jews? You think none of these billions of people can tell right from wrong?? Do you believe that if you'd never come into contact with the Bible you would not be able to tell right from wrong? You wouldn't know if your actions were hurting others or not?

Ok, again, if humans don't determine morality nobody will since there isn't anyone else.

You mention Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin - Hitler was a Christian, and how about Nobel Peace Prize winner Mikhail Gorbachev and Gandhi's colleague Jawaharlal Nehru on the atheist side - by the way I don't think you'll find Gandhi took the Bible as his inspiration for right living.

"God does not change" yes, "God" does change - the Christian idea of God is a relatively new invention - different creation stories, different belief systems, different perceptions of god or gods and indeed different criteria for morality are woven through our history - the only true constant is that they are all dreamt up by humans!
Reply · Like · Tuesday at 18:18

CHRIS RAY:"Chris Ray What have I said that's not rational? What was irresponsible? don't make allegations without backing them up.

I said moral authority comes from people, whether through an honest and transparent process of consensus - parliamentary democracy for instance, or through a spurious and unaccountable proxy agency such as "God" as is the case with religion. In both cases the ultimate source is human since "God" is a human invention."

You cannot prove God is a human invention, anymore that I can 'prove' his existence.

"I can determine "what the moral authority of which I utter" is perfectly well thanks. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "

Your welcome, I'm sure no- single person, can, as you said "I said moral authority comes from people, whether through an honest and transparent process of consensus" So moral authority does not come from a individual but in your preference, it comes through "people", as you have said and singularity proved my point correct, thanks.

"But you have not explained it. "

I have detailed my explanation, you said previously you didn't care for my "I'm not interested in your thoughts about science"

You want me to explain my entire belief of my faith?

“I strongly questioned the veracity of your claim (I wouldn't call it an argument) not because of anything I might or might not think or feel personally, but because there is no evidence for it - and I think you'll find that in fact, yes that is fairly science like.”

Why not call it an argument? There's nothing wrong with arguing with someone, that's just a difference of opinion, we cannot all have the same opinion, that would be a boring world, yawn.

"Who said "Faith is dishonest"? - not me. I said it's dishonest to make statements about supernatural phenomena such as God, everlasting life etc. as though they were based on anything other than faith."

But the principles of certain faiths have made claim to certain things, so isn't saying it's dishonest to make statements about the supernatural, the same thing?

"The truth of this statement does not depend on what anybody thinks or believes about it. There is no need for Faith - just observational skills. "

Monkeys observe, but somehow I don't think they managed to build the LHC - CERN. So observation isn't only required.

"You think the Bible teaches right from wrong? So what about Moslems? Hindus? followers of the Japanese Shinto tradition? The Chinese?? The Jews? You think none of these billions of people can tell right from wrong?? Do you believe that if you'd never come into contact with the Bible you would not be able to tell right from wrong? You wouldn't know if your actions were hurting others or not?"

I have not dismissed any other religions, as a Christian I am taught to be respectful of other people's faiths. That doesn't mean I cannot believe the Bible does not teach right from wrong. I know other faiths can teach good values, that I am very pleased and respectful for, but atheists, like to dismiss that all faiths are wrong on the principle that atheists don't believe God exists.

"God does not change" yes, "God" does change - the Christian idea of God is a relatively new invention - different creation stories, different belief systems, different perceptions of god or gods and indeed different criteria for morality are woven through our history - the only true constant is that they are all dreamt up by humans!

The idea of God changes, not God himself. Your rationally trying to displace God's existence based on your own thoughts of morality, not proof or any matter that social society believes in, like equality and respect. Your being irresponsible, as you are trying to disprove faith perhaps not deliberately but if you say 'something does not exist because you feel its an invention of man' then in a matter of word you are trying to disprove it, denounce its importance and evidently destroy people's belief/faith. So that's why I think you are irresponsible.

The problem lies that I have said I cannot backup the entire Bible as truth but I can believe through my faith that is tell the truth. How can I prove the Bible? That a preposterous thought.. And you say your not attacking faith, but as I have said faith is about believing something that cannot be proved.

The problem when it comes to identifying certain people as Christians is that, were they really Christians? As a Christian I should not judge, so who am I to say? It appears that I could call myself a Christian but do I really live a Christian life? So frustrating to you, others may have called themselves Christians but doesn't being a Christian mean you must live by what you answer and what you preach? I believe Christianity teaches us that we can repent our sins and ask God for forgiveness, but then that doesn't mean he will give it, I for one, hope he forgives me for my sins. I believe Hitler went to Hell.
Reply · Like · Tuesday at 23:31

Chris Ray · Subscribe
btw
"But you have not explained it. "

I have detailed my explanation, you said previously you didn't care for my "I'm not interested in your thoughts about science"

Science is the explanation of the material world and everything in it, I cannot explain what is outside the material world, sorry.
Reply · Like · Tuesday at 23:35

ME:Chris Ray "The idea of God changes, not God himself"

How do you know?
Reply · Like · Tuesday at 23:54

ME:Chris Ray "You cannot prove God is a human invention, anymore that I can 'prove' his existence".

I can't prove that, and as I have said time and again in this conversation, if you would just pay attention, I'm not claiming to prove anything.

What I can do is point out compelling evidence that God is a human invention.

You cannot provide any evidence (not proof - evidence, please, please, please try to understand) at all that he is not a human invention.
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 00:00

CHRIS RAY:"Emma Jane Robertson
Chris Ray "The idea of God changes, not God himself"

How do you know? "

Know? I know only what I believe and because my idea of God, my neighbour's idea of God and my friend's idea of God have been different, therefore I feel for my own argument I can apply a simple function that the "people's" idea of God changes, and as I live in a time dependent universe, I can apply the notion, that over time the idea of God changes.

God himself does not change, as God is perfect, unless you are making claim that God can change (and a reason..?) we only change to adapt to our environment, therefore for survival purposes but as God is the creator, why should he require to change, but for the argument of God changing to be true you would have to accept the validity of God existing, are you making such a argument?
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 00:03

ME:Chris Ray "Your rationally trying to displace God's existence based on your own thoughts of morality, not proof or any matter that social society believes in, like equality and respect"

No i'm not. I'm not trying to displace God's existence - I don't even know what you mean by that. I'm not trying to disprove God's existence either - what I am doing is questioning the veracity of claims made in the name of God. It's got nothing to do with my thoughts on morality, other than that I think it's dishonest to make unfounded claims - it's a matter of evidence not morality - you brought morality into it when you asked me how I would prove right from wrong remember???? No of course you don't since you're not following your own line of "reasoning" let alone mine.
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 00:08

Emma Jane Robertson · Tewkesbury School
Chris Ray "But the principles of certain faiths have made claim to certain things, so isn't saying it's dishonest to make statements about the supernatural, the same thing?"

The same thing as what? What are you talking about?
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 00:09

Emma Jane Robertson · Tewkesbury School
Chris Ray" Monkeys observe, but somehow I don't think they managed to build the LHC - CERN. So observation isn't only required."

What on earth is the relevance of this to anything?? Even for you this is off the hook!!

Seriously what the hell are you talking about??? LOL

What do monkeys observe exactly and how is it relevant to the point I was making about an objective truth as opposed to an opinion or belief?
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 00:14

CHRIS RAY:Emma Jane Robertson Chris Ray "You cannot prove God is a human invention, anymore that I can 'prove' his existence".

I can't prove that, and as I have said time and again in this conversation, if you would just pay attention, I'm not claiming to prove anything."

But in response to the article, you make arguments, or as you say you make "veracity of your claim (I wouldn't call it an argument)"... whatever, and any such statements is laying testament that in "your belief" that throughout your own moral understanding of the material world, you are setting out to prove I am wrong, hence otherwise what would be the point of making any statement or veracity of someone elses claim? if it was not to dis"prove" someone's point or understanding of a subject matter, unless I mistake the point in having a argument at all and therefore, having a opinion. I set out to "prove my point" your setting out to "prove your point", just because you didn't state precise claim and specifically in the English language use the word "prove", does not mean your argument holds any less value.

Google define: Prove - 2. Demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be: "innocent until proven guilty".

Hence you have been trying to "prove" your argument. And making a claim to prove anything, saying that God is a human invention, isn't that trying to make a claim? What is your claim based on, how can you claim that God is a human invention?

"What I can do is point out compelling evidence that God is a human invention.

You cannot provide any evidence (not proof - evidence, please, please, please try to understand) at all that he is not a human invention."

Please read, and try to understand both our arguments, then observe, then provide evidence to support your claim ;).

Compelling depends what other people believe, and to do so, would be attacking the very nature of my faith, so in essence you do not respect my or other peoples faith, as you have tried to make a claim that I don't think other faiths know right from wrong.
Reply · Like · 23 hours ago

ME:Chris Ray "I have not dismissed any other religions, as a Christian I am taught to be respectful of other people's faiths. That doesn't mean I cannot believe the Bible does not teach right from wrong. I know other faiths can teach good values, that I am very pleased and respectful for, but atheists, like to dismiss that all faiths are wrong on the principle that atheists don't believe God exists."

So where do they get their values from if they don't take the Bible as their moral reference.

Atheists don't dismiss all the values and ideas attached to religious faiths just the supernatural stuff - what's wrong with that? Why believe something for which there's no evidence? You have somehow fallen into the misapprehension that humans need a supernatural external source of morality or values - I can assure you this is not the case.
Reply · Like · 23 hours ago

Emma Jane Robertson · Tewkesbury School
Chris Ray "The problem lies that I have said I cannot backup the entire Bible as truth but I can believe through my faith that is tell the truth. How can I prove the Bible? That a preposterous thought.. And you say your not attacking faith, but as I have said faith is about believing something that cannot be proved."

Ye gods!!!! How many times??? Nobody is asking you to "prove" anything. You clearly can't. The point is that you insist on making claims for which you have no evidence (do you understand the difference between evidence, proof and personal opinion - I tried explaining it earlier and got monkeys and the LHC at Cern!!!!!!!!! please look it up) as though you did have evidence. That's what is dishonest. You don't know God exists. You just think he does. You don't know that Jesus death gives us the chance of eternal life. You just like to think that it does. Fine - you're entitled to whatever bizarre notions get you through the night - but if you say it as if it's an observable (fighting the impulse to capitalise here!) phenomena then you are being dishonest.
Reply · Like · 23 hours ago

CHRIS RAY:Emma Jane Robertson Here are some of your replies, I cannot quote everything as it would be too long..

"I'm not trying to disprove God's existence either, but you said "What I can do is point out compelling evidence that God is a human invention."

Can can you call God an invention of man but then say your not trying to disprove his existence?

"Chris Ray" Monkeys observe, but somehow I don't think they managed to build the LHC - CERN. So observation isn't only required."

What on earth is the relevance of this to anything?? Even for you this is off the hook!! Seriously what the hell are you talking about??? LOL

What do monkeys observe exactly and how is it relevant to the point I was making about an objective truth as opposed to an opinion or belief?"

You said; There is no need for faith - just observvational skills.

OK, so you think or believe that all the scientists working in and on the LHC, the Large Hadron Collider, don't think or believe in God? Isn't that a preposturous claim, as without somesort of survey you could not possible know that!?

I was joking around when I referred to Monkeys, this is be whatever other animal exists, all animals observe (that the point) but what makes humans different is our faith (this could be argued, do Monkeys believe in God?) but lets not go there and stop Monkeying around ;). Us humans and our acknowledgement of what is and what could be, and what is not, and is this not the argument of morality? Do morals exist, why do they exist, whats the point of morals? For the common good or for the good of ALL the people?

"So where do they get their values from if they don't take the Bible as their moral reference."

I think the Muslims - the Qur'an, Hindus - the Vedas, and other faiths their scriptures etc. But if I'm wrong, then its because I have not read into other faiths throughly, though that does not mean I don't want to learn about other faiths but good and respectful understanding of other faiths only..

"Atheists don't dismiss all the values and ideas attached to religious faiths just the supernatural stuff - what's wrong with that?"

Are you sure? Google define atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist.

But dismissing God would then subsequently break up the backbone of faith in God. So you again appear not to realise the consequence of your actions, arguments or veracity against other peoples so called claims of faith.
Reply · Like · 23 hours ago

CHRIS RAY:I was joking around when I referred to Monkeys, this is be whatever other animal exists, all animals observe (that the point) but what makes humans different is our faith (this could be argued, do Monkeys believe in God?) but lets not go there and stop Monkeying around ;). Us humans and our acknowledgement of what is and what could be, and what is not, and is this not the argument of morality? Do morals exist, why do they exist, whats the point of morals? For the common good or for the good of ALL the people?

To add further, even though monkeys and other animals process observational skills, they do not process the skills in order to build scientific equipment or nuclear reactors, or putting man up onto the moon! Though perhaps Monkeys made the Americans and the Russians do it, who knows!!!!!

Seriously I feel faith is VERY IMPORTANT. Enuff said. Night :)
Reply · Like · 23 hours ago

ME:Chris Ray "God himself does not change, as God is perfect,"

How do you know?

"Compelling depends what other people believe, and to do so, would be attacking the very nature of my faith, so in essence you do not respect my or other peoples faith, as you have tried to make a claim that I don't think other faiths know right from wrong."
No I don't respect blind, unfounded faith - why should I? I respect your right to believe whatever you like as I've said - I think you're misguided and that at the very least you should refrain from wildly speculative assertions like "God is the creator". - that's merely an unsubstatiated opinion.
"God"'s existence can only be observed and verified in human works of visual art,literature, song, drama, film and so on and in the verbal expressions of human devotees. He exists in much the way that popular fictional characters exist - Hercules, Luke Skywalker, Superman etc.

Furthermore previous versions of the God idea e.g. Zeus/Jupiter, Odin have lost their status as deities over time and are now known (almost - there may be some diehards about) exclusively as fictional characters.

This is not "proof" but it is strong circumstantial evidence - you don't have any evidence for your position, just opinion.
Reply · Like · 23 hours ago

CHRIS RAY:Emma Jane Robertson This is not "proof" but it is strong circumstantial evidence - you don't have any evidence for your position, just opinion.

Just opinion and "faith" ;)

HURRAY, you've finally listened, or just about got there on your own merit. Well done.

I have not said I hold any "proof" on Gods existence, I was beginning to think you weren't ever going to understand, but hurray you do. Thank God. Praise the Lord!

Amen.
Reply · Like · 23 hours ago

ME:Chris Ray "But in response to the article, you make arguments, or as you say you make "veracity of your claim (I wouldn't call it an argument)"... whatever, and any such statements is laying testament that in "your belief" that throughout your own moral understanding of the material world, you are setting out to prove I am wrong, hence otherwise what would be the point of making any statement or veracity of someone elses claim? if it was not to dis"prove" someone's point or understanding of a subject matter, unless I mistake the point in having a argument at all and therefore, having a opinion. I set out to "prove my point" your setting out to "prove your point", just because you didn't state precise claim and specifically in the English language use the word "prove", does not mean your argument holds any less value."

Imagine an employer - one of her employees is off work because they have cancer and have to undergo chemotherapy etc.and have provided doctors certificates, hospital appointments, as well as being observably unwell

another is off work because the planets Mars and Saturn have formed particular angles with Earth and with the employees natal Sun position and he will suffer terrible bad fortune if he goes to work during this transit.

The employer takes disciplinary action against the second employee and the case goes to a tribunal.

Do you believe that in this situation the employer must prove that the employee will not have bad luck due to the position of the planets - or is the onus on the employee to prove that he will.

I don't need to disprove that God exists as an entity independent of human creation, any more than the employer in my example needs to prove that the planets don't bring bad luck.

I'm saying that unqualified claims such as "God is the creator" are essentially dishonest since you don't don't know any such thing; I find dishonesty offensive in public debate and believe that it should be challenged - that's what I'm doing.
Reply · Like · 22 hours ago

ME:Chris Ray "You said; There is no need for faith - just observvational skills.

OK, so you think or believe that all the scientists working in and on the LHC, the Large Hadron Collider, don't think or believe in God? Isn't that a preposturous claim, as without somesort of survey you could not possible know that!?"

Chris - when I said "There is no need for faith - just observvational skills." I was referring specifically to an example I gave of an observable phenomena - the movement of the Earth in relation to the Sun - as opposed to an opinion such as the existence of God. I didn't mean you only need observational skills for life in general - I think that was pretty clear to honest.

I made absolutely no claim whatsoever about the beliefs or otherwise of scientists at Cern.

"Can can you call God an invention of man but then say your not trying to disprove his existence?"

I'm not trying to disprove God's existence because their is no evidence that he does exist -

Here is the exchange that led me to mention evidence that God is a creation of man -

"Chris Ray "You cannot prove God is a human invention, anymore that I can 'prove' his existence".

I can't prove that, and as I have said time and again in this conversation, if you would just pay attention, I'm not claiming to prove anything.

What I can do is point out compelling evidence that God is a human invention.

You cannot provide any evidence (not proof - evidence, please, please, please try to understand) at all that he is not a human invention."

The fact that evidence exists does not mean that I'm trying to prove anything with it. I referred to the evidence to distinguish between claims that CAN be supported by evidence e.g.

"God is a human invention" "The Sun appears to rise in the East"

and ones that can't e.g.

God exists independently.
Reply · Like · 22 hours ago

ME:Chris Ray Emma Jane Robertson This is not "proof" but it is strong circumstantial evidence - you don't have any evidence for your position, just opinion.

Just opinion and "faith" ;)

Yes indeed - so stop talking about it as if you did have any evidence!!
Reply · Like · 22 hours ago

Emma Jane Robertson · Tewkesbury School
Chris Ray" But dismissing God would then subsequently break up the backbone of faith in God. So you again appear not to realise the consequence of your actions, arguments or veracity against other peoples so called claims of faith."

I don't have any faith in God - and since those that do are not susceptible to reason why should my "actions" (?) worry you?

"I think the Muslims - the Qur'an, Hindus - the Vedas, and other faiths their scriptures etc. But if I'm wrong, then its because I have not read into other faiths throughly, though that does not mean I don't want to learn about other faiths but good and respectful understanding of other faiths only.."

Not good enough - where do those texts come from? Presumably you don't believe they all come from God, the Hindus have a completely different belief system and many Chinese don't have religion as such at all - so if the scripts on which they base their values are self generated by your logic they are invalid since morality cannot be sourced from humans.

Anyway the fact remains that claims made for the supernatural powers of God, Jesus, et al are indefensible because they lack any basis in observable evidence, and I would defend my initial charge of preposterousness in the case of some of the more far fetched examples.
Reply · Like · 21 hours ago

CHRIS RAY:Emma Jane Robertson This is a forever debatable topic one which will still be in discussion for another thousand years, unless the secular movement try and ban religion, which no doubt I believe they will. Its one topic which we still continue to have the same arguments, which are repeated over and over again..

It would not worry you to break someone elses faith/or religion on the basis that you don't believe in their religion or God, it appears so. Even scientists require faith of a theory for their work before they amount evidence to prove it. So faith IS required in science and religion. If we only require observational skills as you previously said, then many of the scientific theories to date would never exist, as science would have no 'faith' in itself.

"Not good enough - where do those texts come from? "

God knows (see the pun there!?), I don't 'know' the exact source, prophets I do believe. I don't presume where other people's scriptures come from, that would lead me to judge, another thing I am advised by God not to do.

"et al are indefensible because they lack any basis in observable evidence"

They were observed by the disciples at the time and documented in the Bible. As far as I know, what happened in the Bible is history, so how could there be any thing to 'observe' your argument is invalid.
Reply · Like · 6 hours ago

ME:Chris Ray The secular movement seeks to separate church and state not ban religion - it's perfectly possible to be a Christian and a secularist.

How can I "break" someone's faith? You don't require evidence or a rational explanation to believe what you believe - so you are immune to my reasoning and appeals to evidence (or lack of).
I would like Christians and followers of other religions to stop lying about what they do and don't know. As I said before I find dishonesty offensive. If you have to "break" your faith to be an honest person then your faith's not worth much in the first place and you are better off without it :)

Scientists' faith in their theories is based on observation of external phenomena - chemicals, electricity, weather phenomena, rocks, stones etc. and how they behave and interact. They test their theories and revise or abandon them altogether if they don't show the expected results.
This is a fundamentally different process from settling on some millenia old story and simply accepting it at face value, no questions asked, for no reason other than that you like the sound of it.

By "observable" I meant observable to us now in the present time.

The Bible is not history - some historical events and figures appear but the same could be said of Greek and Roman mythology - it's not in itself a historical document; and even if it was, a collection of confused and contradictory reports of questionable providence regarding events that took place in an era when superstition was rife hardly make for convincing evidence of supernatural happenings; and as I understand it the disciples did not actually observe God or observe sins being redeemed or people living forever.

" If we only require observational skills as you previously said, then many of the scientific theories to date would never exist, as science would have no 'faith' in itself."

Stop misquoting me please, it's incredibly rude - I've already explained this once, it's just common courtesy to pay attention if you're going to quote back to me.
Reply · Like · 2 seconds ago

Nick Heath

Nick Heath "Russia eliminated the practice of religion under Communist rule, so did China. Both countries have been subject to severe scrutiny of their human rights records. So much for your secular castle in the sky. This constitutes falsification of your theory so scientifically you must therefore conclude that religion is not the underlying problem in such cases".

They didn't abuse human rights in the name of Not Christianity or Not Islam though - whereas theocracies such as Iran do abuse human rights in the name of a deity in fact they exhort the faithful to commit atrocities such as murder of apostates and adulterers as religious duties.

Stalin's and Mao's atrocities were committed in the name of a political ideology - not as a direct result of a lack of belief in a deity. In fact from an atheist point of view there's not much difference. Theocracies differ in that they resort to appeals to the supernatural as a propaganda tool both to control their own populations and to deflect criticism from outside agencies.

"So you would take religion from 'the insecure' because you don't need it? Would you subject children to pitch darkness because you don't need a night light on? If it brings people peace, why is it so bad? If modern education creates minds as powerful as yours, I might shelve my agnosticism and pray for help."

I personally wouldn't take religion from the insecure or anyone else - how can I? You can't prevent people holding misguided beliefs, but I would take away the authority vested in organised religion to promote it's ideas to the insecure as though they were factual (by which I mean derived from evidence that is observable by all regardless of whether they already subscribe to the belief being evidenced) I would do that not because I don't need religion, but because they are practicing a deception, and no belief based on a falsehood can confer genuine security. Likewise I wouldn't "subject" children to pitch darkness because I don't need a night light - I'd stay with them in the dark and help them reach an understanding that darkness in itself is nothing to fear. I would help them to build confidence in themselves and their own ability to assess the world around them realistically and thus deal with risks effectively as they arise (which they surely will). That way they will avoid a life of insecurity and irrational fears and the beliefs attendant upon them.
Reply · Like ·

Some more in answer to Nick

Nick Heath Thanks Nick, for sharing your enjoyment in "correcting" me - how kind of you. I must however take issue with one or two points

"Nope, but my point was that the presence of religion is arbitrary to the incidence of human rights atrocities under malevolent totalitarian governments. Iran may present cultural or religious narratives in support of it's human rights abuses, but the function and execution of them is political, not religious."

Perhaps my pseudo intellectual brain is slow to catch on but are not the political and religious integrated in a single power system in a theocracy? - How is it possible to distinguish political function and execution of abuse (or any other act of government) from religious when the legislation used in mandate is drawn from religious text i.e. Sharia Law?

I think you'll find that many if not all the human rights abuses committed in Iran by the government and it's agency the Revolutionary Guard against it's citizens are explicitly prescribed in the Q'ran and regarded in the ruling orthodoxy as Allah's given punishments for sins against him.

So much for the Islamic Republic - next stop Iraq and WMD.

Not an instrument of specifically secular propaganda is it? Blair and Bush didn't say "We've found weapons of mass destruction which are an offence to our commitment to separation of church and state, therefore we must go to war" In fact Blair couldn't since we have no such commitment here (although - as you mentioned - popular sentiment here probably favours secularism more than does that in the States).

I take your point that an outright lie is impossible to confront till it's been exposed. However where's your guarantee that religious leaders are not in the habit of practicing similar lies. After all, they've got previous. Any leader can tell lies whether they are already misleading the population on religious grounds or not.

Your final argument seems to be that if you don't hoodwink people about the nature of reality they will lose all semblance of a moral compass. Why do you believe that? Why is it unrealistic to base morality on learned experience alone? Where does religious morality come from if not learned experience - it's just a compendium of people's experiences and ideas- formalised in various doctrines and attributed to a supernatural force for reasons of ignorance and/or PR.

You don't need the supernatural element. Selflessness, concern for the weak and vulnerable are features of affluent, educated societies, not religious ones, and it would be my contention that the presence of a strong religious influence in a society tends to inhibit rather that foster educational and social inclusiveness, not least because the more educated the population the harder it is to dupe them.

Anyway, whether it's the case that religion supports morality or not is immaterial to the fact that it is, in my view, an immoral act in itself to present as truth an unsubstantiated opinion e.g. "God is our heavenly father - he's done this that and the other for our benefit so worship him" "Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem our sins and give us the chance of everlasting life"

These are indefensible statements unless you regard them as part of a fictional narrative, which is where I believe they belong and where they may play a part in framing and nurturing societies moral values. I don't want to "censor" the message of religion - unless by that you mean "require it to tell the truth". I do want to prevent it making moral demands - I don't believe it has any right to make such demands as I don't accept it's moral authority. You can't demand morality - only teach and inspire.

I didn't describe providing a light in darkness I described providing living human companionship and reassurance for the moment and education for the future .

Infidelica

Friday 10 February 2012

Why it's important to tell people atheism is NOT a religion

Sunday 8 January 2012

Welcome to 2012

Sunday 18 December 2011

Equality and Diversity v The Bible

Sunday 11 December 2011

God - unprofessional

Saturday 10 December 2011

Fun and Games

Wednesday 7 December 2011

Rowan Williams "It doesn't make sense because you don't understand" - debate following article by Julian Baggini in The Guardian