PZ Myers discovered a wonderful website that proves, once again, that the correlation between believers and idiots is very strong and the fight really is between superstition and rationalism.
Okay this prompted me to write a long reply with comments on like half the steps...nitpicking really. But I'll save them all for my own facebook or myspace page... To get right to the heart of it, the flaw is here:
"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore..."
Unlike all the times before, he never asked us is we agreed with this syllogism. Obviously we don't, (that's basically the nature of us being atheists). So if we don't believe the premise, thus we are not forced to accept the "logical" conclusion.
It's like saying "You believe in bees right? You agree bees exist?" "um...yeah?"
Then going "well bees can only have been made and put here by aliens, therefore..."
And suddenly I'm "forced" to believe in aliens >.<
Ah. But if you don't believe in absolute moral laws, then you must think it's alright to molest children for fun.
Checkmate.
I don't see how it necessarily follows that you have to think it is OK to molest children for fun if you don't believe that there are moral laws.
What we know is that nature pretty much doesn't give a damn whether children are getting molested or not; the rational reason why we don't think it is OK to do it is that it often results in the development of persons with various psychological pathologies, which in turn is a problem for the rest of us, for the rest of these people's lives.
BTW, some rational thinking also tells us that the other extreme (preventing children from learning about sexuality for as long as possible) is also very bad, for them, and for society as a whole, but this is what we consider "moral" in our culture.
The bottom line is that what is "moral" and what is rational are often very different things, and nature doesn't care at all about the former. A consequence of that is that many things we consider "moral laws" in our culture are actually detrimental to our survival as a species (like the idea that it is immoral to use coercive methods to control population, for example). Then the question is do we stick to the "moral laws" that have no meaning or do we act rationally when we have to?
That's why religion is a lot more harmful than many people think and it is not just a question of science education and freedom from belief - because religion inhibits rational thinking, at our own peril
Abstract entities don't exist in nature, therefore... God.
I think they forgot the possibility that abstract entities don't exist, period. I think they also forgot that if abstract entities exist, that doesn't mean God exists. I think they also forgot that "exist" can have more than one meaning.
What we know is that nature pretty much doesn't give a damn whether children are getting molested or not; the rational reason why we don't think it is OK to do it is that it often results in the development of persons with various psychological pathologies, which in turn is a problem for the rest of us, for the rest of these people's lives.
BTW, some rational thinking also tells us that the other extreme (preventing children from learning about sexuality for as long as possible) is also very bad, for them, and for society as a whole, but this is what we consider "moral" in our culture.
These two things are connected. Children without proper education about sexuality are far less likely to alert an adult who will do something about the problem. Thus the molestation continues for much longer.
It boxes you in with he very first question about absolute truth. Truth always exists within a context, such as a universe or a mind. There may be universes where physical laws are quite different. So which laws are "truth"? It makes no allowance for modal reasoning, or any other reasoning except for it's own narrow focus.
11 comments :
This site is good because they actually try to make some sense. It's still wrong though. Take a look and let us know what you think, Professor.
http://celestialmechanic.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm
Yeah, if you don't accept that there are absolute moral laws, you can't proceed to the proof that God exists...
Very nice indeed...
Ah. But if you don't believe in absolute moral laws, then you must think it's alright to molest children for fun.
Checkmate.
Okay this prompted me to write a long reply with comments on like half the steps...nitpicking really. But I'll save them all for my own facebook or myspace page... To get right to the heart of it, the flaw is here:
"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore..."
Unlike all the times before, he never asked us is we agreed with this syllogism. Obviously we don't, (that's basically the nature of us being atheists). So if we don't believe the premise, thus we are not forced to accept the "logical" conclusion.
It's like saying "You believe in bees right? You agree bees exist?" "um...yeah?"
Then going "well bees can only have been made and put here by aliens, therefore..."
And suddenly I'm "forced" to believe in aliens >.<
...whoah there, slow down nelly :P
Ah. But if you don't believe in absolute moral laws, then you must think it's alright to molest children for fun.
Checkmate.
I don't see how it necessarily follows that you have to think it is OK to molest children for fun if you don't believe that there are moral laws.
What we know is that nature pretty much doesn't give a damn whether children are getting molested or not; the rational reason why we don't think it is OK to do it is that it often results in the development of persons with various psychological pathologies, which in turn is a problem for the rest of us, for the rest of these people's lives.
BTW, some rational thinking also tells us that the other extreme (preventing children from learning about sexuality for as long as possible) is also very bad, for them, and for society as a whole, but this is what we consider "moral" in our culture.
The bottom line is that what is "moral" and what is rational are often very different things, and nature doesn't care at all about the former. A consequence of that is that many things we consider "moral laws" in our culture are actually detrimental to our survival as a species (like the idea that it is immoral to use coercive methods to control population, for example). Then the question is do we stick to the "moral laws" that have no meaning or do we act rationally when we have to?
That's why religion is a lot more harmful than many people think and it is not just a question of science education and freedom from belief - because religion inhibits rational thinking, at our own peril
Abstract entities don't exist in nature, therefore... God.
I think they forgot the possibility that abstract entities don't exist, period. I think they also forgot that if abstract entities exist, that doesn't mean God exists. I think they also forgot that "exist" can have more than one meaning.
I wonder why they forgot all that stuff...
Yeah, if you don't accept that there are absolute moral laws, you can't proceed to the proof that God exists...
Very nice indeed...
Yeah it doesn't seem like it wants to prove very much. Sounds like kind if a self defeating proof there! Lol.
What we know is that nature pretty much doesn't give a damn whether children are getting molested or not; the rational reason why we don't think it is OK to do it is that it often results in the development of persons with various psychological pathologies, which in turn is a problem for the rest of us, for the rest of these people's lives.
BTW, some rational thinking also tells us that the other extreme (preventing children from learning about sexuality for as long as possible) is also very bad, for them, and for society as a whole, but this is what we consider "moral" in our culture.
These two things are connected. Children without proper education about sexuality are far less likely to alert an adult who will do something about the problem. Thus the molestation continues for much longer.
It boxes you in with he very first question about absolute truth. Truth always exists within a context, such as a universe or a mind. There may be universes where physical laws are quite different. So which laws are "truth"? It makes no allowance for modal reasoning, or any other reasoning except for it's own narrow focus.
"Ah. But if you don't believe in absolute moral laws, then you must think it's alright to molest children for fun.
"
No I mustn't.
Try my similar website for doubting that God exists:
http://www.naturalisms.org/doubtgod/
Post a Comment