Here's to another ridiculously fabulous celebration of your arrival on planet earth dhdigital! Bask in the enjoyment of YOUR day

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/the-paradox-of-multiple-goldilocks-zones-or-did-the-universe-know-we-were-coming

"But today, I can view my second grade teacher's statement from a different point of view. Today, astronomers have identified over 500 planets orbiting other stars, and they are all too close or too far from their mother star. Most of them, we think, cannot support life as we know it. So it is unnecessary to invoke God.

But now, cosmologists are facing this paradox again, but from a cosmic perspective. It turns out that the fundamental parameters of the universe appear to be perfectly "fine-tuned." For example, if the nuclear force were any stronger, the sun would have simply burned out billions of years ago, and if it were any weaker the sun wouldn't have ignited to begin with. The Nuclear Force is tuned Just Right. Similarly, if gravity were any stronger, the Universe would have most likely collapsed in on itself in a big crunch; and if it were any weaker, everything would have simply frozen over in a big freeze. The Gravitational Force is Just Right."

The evidence shows the Universe is not an accident; the observation of fine-tuning leads naturally to the conclusion that there must be a FineTuner, much in the same way that the evidence of a painting leads us to the conclusion that there must be a painter. The favorable circumstances of the laws that allow life to flourish on planet Earth are by design.

Applying the principle of Occams Razor, postulating the existence of multiple unobserved universes to try to account for our favorable circumstances should be ruled out in favor of a theory of a Creator because there are fewer assumptions needed and there is greater explanatory power. Once the existence of even "apparent" fine-tuning has been observed, ruling out the theory of a Creator is illogical and contrary to reason according to the principle of parsimony.

And why in the FUCK trancecoach, would there have to be examples cited, when it's glaringly obvious the system is flawed and fucked in favor of those who have perpetrated the ruse that IS, the completely fucked government scenario of what we have? Tell us all this please, in just how many ways is it NOT fucked, from prisons, to infrastructure, to bogus bureaucracy, to the nightmare of surveillance and privacy violations that make the Stasi in East Germany and the Soviet Union KGB look like fucking children's birthday parties?? The system worldwide is as inefficient as any goddamn circa 1840's battleship, and I will be fucked if I have to listen to this kind of trite brain-dead soliloquy of justifications as to what the fuck any news-hound's sources are or what the fuck she says, who gives a fuck if she has any examples cited?? Are you fucking asleep or simply that goddamn naive??

As far as I know this hot bitch is working for the cunt Putin, whose sucking Obama's dick and they're both licking his wife's asshole.

Goddamn. The issue at hand is this smug fuck laughing in the faces of every human on planet earth while fucking them and lying his ass off.

"Outrage get's a lotta shit done right."

All for amping-up the civil disobedience phase of a revolution before more social meltdown and a slow, ugly decline. Larry Wilkerson's perspective seems the most palatable though, unlikely. Arms embargoes, diplomacy and discussions about details of scenarios that have already been set into motion won't change the push forward into that direction I suspect.
The best form of civil and economic disobedience peeps can flex is through collective boycott/embargo/non-participation in failed or toxic systems. Stop watching television firstly and groom a thinking generation off the teat of their programming. Change the shit-think and the obvious answers appear. Welcome to planet earth it's a dangerous place, don't panic.

Ahaha! The red one. I feel human. This makes me feel human. Oh thank you robot overlords for granting me an inkling of feeling. Now, continue on your maximizing of profits off of planet earth.

I miss it too. It was fun and engaging back in the day.



Anyway, on to this topic.

Your definition of "God" makes him capable, uniquely among all things in the universe, of proving his existence to a human. (What about me? Don't I prove my existence to you by communicating with you? Or if I showed up in your neighbourhood and had a beer with you, wouldn't that prove my existence? What do you mean, "only God can prove Himself"?)

At the same time, my definition of human --and I hope you agree on this-- includes that humans can be 100% convinced of false things. There is plenty of evidence of this in the many religions and folk beliefs of the world, as well as in mental health documentation and police records. Agreed? Assuming yes, it is fully consistent with your experience then that you SB could be 100% convinced of a false thing. You, as a human, are incapable of telling the difference between 100% conviction of a false thing, and 100% conviction of a true thing. The proof of this is that you are human, and people exist who 100% believe things that are incompatible with what you believe, so it must be possible for a human to 100% believe something false.

Well, let me connect the thoughts in these two paragraphs. You certainly do prove your existence to me by communicating with me. If you showed up in my neighborhood and we had a beer together(i dont drink but i would drink one with you), I would come away being 100 percent certain that you exist. I'm fairly sure you will agree that my certainty about your existence would be justified. Does this 100 percent certainty about your existence mean I could 100 percent prove it to someone else, or even to myself? Certainly not. No matter what evidence I had, even a video tape, someone could say that I am really just sea turtle dreaming this and none of it is real. Is that plausible? Not even remotely, but I couldn't disprove that hypothesis using evidence, empirical or otherwise.

So I think the disconnect here is that you are equating 100 percent certainty with 100 percent proof. Yes, it is technically true I could be a sea turtle dreaming all of this, and I could never disprove that, but I am 100 percent certain that isn't the case. To believe otherwise would make rational thought impossible. Therefore rationality is impossible without first assuming you are capable of rational thought. I have to believe this even though I cannot necessarily prove it. This poses a problem for the atheist. Essentially, all an atheist can say is that "my reasoning is sound because my reasoning says it is"..which begs the question as to why the chemical soup in the brain of an exalted ape fizzing a particular way should be called rationality. Whereas I can say that I am rational because I was created in the image of a rational being, God. Both arguments do use circular reasoning, but the atheist argument is viciously circular.

So, this comes to my point about my belief in God. To me, His existence has been sufficiently proven to the point where I can claim complete certainty, just as if we hung out together I would claim complete certainty that you exist. There is no real difference there and in fact, God has provided me better evidence of His existence because He is with me all of the time. whereas you could only be with me some of them time. I cannot prove to you that God is with me, or that He runs my life, but it doesn't diminish the reality of what He has proven to me.

So I think this leaves you in the position of having to claim that we can be certain of nothing, but in actuality the argument is self-defeating because it requires you to be certain of something (that nothing is certain). It's just the same as trying to claim that only relative truth exists ("is that absolutely true?") Otherwise you will have to say there is a possibility my certainty is justified.

Maybe there are no gods, or maybe I simply am not perceiving your Yahweh while he chooses not to directly reveal himself to me. Both conditions appear identical from my point of view, and I am incapable of telling which is true, so long as I don't perceive Yahweh.

I agree, and think about this. When I got saved I quickly realized that I had been living in an information bubble my entire life. Living in secular culture, you get confronted with this illusion which makes it seem like you have your finger on the pulse of reality. You are consuming all of this information about where we are, where we are headed, where the culture is, the scientific advances, the dreams and aspirations of those who think like you, and you get this sense of being connected to what is going on in planet Earth.

But what I found out is that this is all just basically confirmation bias. I thought that because I had an extremely wide feed and a diversity of interests that my filter was very nimble and narrow and was just sloughing off all of the trivial and non-essential things, when in fact the filter was wider than the feed and I was staring into a hall of mirrors. When that happens it means you are actually just consuming everything that mostly confirms what you already believe, such as what television shows and movies you watch, and what music you listen to, and what books you read. People also tend to hang out with people who think like they do. The seeming diversity of secular interests is actually a very narrow band which reflects very little truth so you end up in a little bubble (which seems like a Universe).

Both of our experiences with direct communication with gods are consistent with both of our beliefs (me: no contact => there are no gods or just no contact yet; you: contact => there is a god or you're wrong because you're human). The difference is that I freely admit that either is possible, while you insist that your view is correct. Get it?

To you either could be possible, because both experiences look the same to you. Whereas, to me only one is possible because the two experiences are alien to eachother. When you look at me, you have no way to tell the difference because you see no difference, therefore you allow the possibility. If you allow the possibility therefore, it isn't necessarily wrong to think that I am justified in believing I am right.

As for what I've said about Yahweh, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never said I don't want him to reveal himself. I once, on your recommendation, got down on my knees and prayed for it, remember? I really, really, really want to understand the human condition and the true nature of the universe. If that includes the fact that Yahweh actually is our supreme being exactly as described in the Bible I would be very upset to learn that (just as I would be upset to find that I had been sold into slavery), but if that were the case, I'd want to know so I could make informed decisions for my future.

Yes, you're right, I think I did confuse you with someone else. Sorry about that.

I believe you when you say you just honestly want to know the truth, even if that truth wouldn't be pleasing to you. I think it reveals a lot about your character and the way that you think. I admire that kind of personal integrity.

Just before I became a Christian, when I found out that Jesus is the way God has chosen for us, I was resisting it because I knew that it meant that I had to stop living for me. I knew I was going to lose my right to my own personal autonomy and would have to place it in the care and trust of my Creator. What I found out though is that what I thought was freedom was slavery, and that the slavery I thought I was signing myself into was the true freedom. When you are born again, God makes you a new person and sets you free from all of the bondage of sin, and your present condition and your past suffering. This is literal and it is transformative. There is a tangible weight that lifts from your shoulders the moment you accept Christ and your sins are forgiven. It is a weight that is bowing you down all of your life. Everyone has their own theory about where the weight comes from..such as other people, the government, or even religion as some atheists like to think..but the weight is a spiritual weight stemming from the judgment against your sin. People become slaves of many things because they promise to remove that weight, but the weight always remains in the end because only God can set us free from it.

I do remember that prayer. One of the ways that God reveals Himself is through the reading of His word. Would you be willing to take it one step farther and read the gospel of John? I'm sure you've probably read it before, but this would be specifically for God to reveal Himself to you in a way that you can understand and relate to. You could pray before reading it..God, I once prayed for you to reveal yourself to me..I am asking that you do that through the reading of this book. Please help me understand what is being said and use it to give me revelation of your existence. Then read through it slowly..perhaps a chapter at a time, and going over each verse until you understand what it is saying. Pray each time before you read for revelation. I feel the Lord leading me to tell you this so I believe God will honor it and guide you.

In any case, it is good to talk to you again. God bless.

Jesus loves you and I love you. This is an extremely long post and I apologize. I am writing for anyone who is interested in critically examining the arguments Sam Harris makes and contrasting it to the actual truth as presented by the scripture. Sam has distorted this truth and the entire video is basically one long strawman argument.. I think that is you are going to utterly condemn something you should at least make a cursory effort to understand it. That's just me. I invite you guys to learn more about the scripture so that you can know the truth for yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360718403&sr=1-2&keywords=how+to+understand+the+bible

I'll answer some points..

Sam: The point of Christianity is to safeguard the eternal well being of eternal souls

You could perhaps categorize this as the main point, but there are many points to Christianity. I don't want to split hairs here; I am agreeing with Sam essentially but I just want to expand on it a bit. The main point of Christianity is to declare the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what Jesus said when He began His ministry: "repent and believe the gospel". The gospel is that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, came to Earth to live as one of us. Though He did not sin, He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross so that we could be forgiven and have eternal life. The point of Christianity is Jesus, and having a personal relationship with Him. Everyone who comes to know Jesus will be born again and become a new person. There are many other points to this but I will stop here.

Sam: 9 million children die every year

Yes, this is true but most of these children, if not all of them, will be going to Heaven. Not one of them have been forgotten by God or will suffer an unjust fate. There is an age of accountability for every person, and it is different for every person. It all depends on the revelation God has given each particular person and their response to it. It is fairly certain though that most if not all children under the age of 12 will make it to Heaven automatically.

Sam in discussing the dying children brings up the problem of evil..which has been sufficiently answered by Plantigas free will defense:

http://videosift.com/video/Since-Evil-Suffering-Exist-A-Loving-God-Cannot

Sam mentions the grief of the parents and that their unanswered prayers are part of Gods plan..

First of all, God answers every prayer, He just doesn't always answer yes. An example of a prayer God answered no to was when Jesus was in the garden of gethsemane and was asking the Father to let Him bypass the cross. Though it surely grieved His heart, He answered no to that prayer. He answered no because He was esteeming us more than Himself, which is what sacrificial love looks like. A key part of the prayer of Jesus was "never the less, not my will, but your will".

Christians do not pray to the exclusion of Gods will. we don't necessarily know what is best for us, but we trust God that He knows, and so we always pray that His will be done, even above what may seem needful for me at that time.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

I will also address the grief. The fact of the matter is, the scripture makes it very clear that Christians will suffer grief and loss on a constant basis:

Matthew 24:9

Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you:

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

Look at Pauls testimony:

1 Corinthians 11:24-28

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.

Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,

I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.

I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.

Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

If you read Foxes Book of the Martyrs (http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html) you will see that Christians are no strangers to suffering and grief. It is clearly taught in His word it will happen, which makes this argument have no weight at all and is simply a strawman.

Sam said that any God who would allow pain either can do nothing or doesnt care to so He is either impotent or evil

This is simply a false dichotomy. God may allow pain for a good reason, which is for the greater good. I'll give you an example:

This is Nick Vujicic, a man with no arms and no legs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXlCeKBWfaA

He is a motivational speaker and he has traveled around the world and inspired millions. Pretty much anyone who has a problem can relate to this man because Nick has overcome his extreme adversity with grace and he finds joy in his daily life. If God had answered Nicks prayer to be healed, then millions of people would have been robbed of the fruit that overcoming his adversity bore in his life. This is an example of how God can use pain for a greater good.

Sam asks what about all those who are praying to the wrong God, through no fault of their own..that they missed the revelation

This is just simply false..Sam seems to think that there are no reasonable answer to these questions when the real problem is his ignorance of Christian theology.

Romans 1:18-21

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The word of God states that every man coming into the world is given light, and that God makes it clear to them one way or the other that He exists. Every man, woman and child dying after the age of accountability and heading towards hell had received a personal revelation from God as to His existence. How they responded to that light determined what Gods next move was. If they had responded in the affirmitive, He could have then opened the door for them to know Jesus and be saved. Since they responded in the negative, they did not receive any further revelation and died in their sins.

So again Sam creates a strawman argument when he says that they missed the revelation through no fault of their own. The truth is that they received the revelation and rejected it. He also made it sound like people are just randomly born into the world when what the scripture says is that God appoints the times and places for every human being. There are no accidents about where you are born; it is simply that God is not limited by time and space. He is omnipresent and not limited to any particular locality.

Sam accused God creating the cultural isolation of the hindus - of orchaestrating their ignorance

The truth is that in the beginning all men knew God and that over time as men formed nations they moved farther and farther away from the truth about God and invented their own gods to worship. The hindus isolated themselves, though again this is not a limitation on God. He has reached out to every hindu who has ever lived and the ones who ended up in hell are the ones who rejected Him. You have to push past the love, grace and mercy of God to get to hell.

Sam mentions how a serial killer could get saved while an innocent perishes elsewhere:

What the bible says is this:

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

There aren't any innocents over the age of accountability. The man who has cheated on his wife is equally guilty in Gods eyes as the man who murdered his wife. What God calls good is not a relative standard like human beings use, as we compare ourselves to eachother and think we are good people because we haven't done the big two (rape, murder). What God calls good is moral perfection and what He calls evil is everything that falls short of that, even one sin. He also says that if you hate someone you have murdered them in your heart and you are a murderer at heart. Sam does not appear to understand what the bible says Gods standards actually are.

Sam said that there is absolutely nothing in Christianity to do with moral accountability

Again, this is false. What the bible says is that we're morally accountable to God for every sin we've ever committed, and your conscience will tell you that. It is not other people we have offended, it is God Almighty. What Sam seems to have a problem with is Gods absolute standard for moral accountability versus his relative standard (which conveniently excuses his sins against God)

Sam said there is a conflict between God being intrinsically good and what he describes as the "visitation of cruel unjust suffering on innocent people"

I've already answered this by point out there are no innocent people over the age of accountability. I would also like to add that God created a perfect world, and the reason there is sin in this world is because of mankind. The reason the world is the way it is today is exclusively because of the daily crimes of humanity (can you even begin to imagine the amount of evil that transpires on planet earth in one day?) and not because God wanted it that way.

Sam says it is a cop out to say God is mysterious and then use merely human understanding to establish goodness

Actually, what Sam has done here is create a distorted image of God by twisting or ignoring what the scripture says about Him, and the fate of human beings. Then he points to this grotesque image to condemn the true and living God who is in fact perfectly good. The truth is that His goodness is upheld entirely when you are looking at the true God through a sound understanding of scripture and not the distorted image Sam has created of Him.

Sam says its a cop out to be told God is mysterious to justify untold suffering

He is right here, it is a cop-out..and anyone making such an argument has a weak understanding of the bible. Gods will for us is actually no mystery; God makes it crystal clear what He expects from His creation, and kinds of things we will face. He is even gracious enough to tell us what will happen in the future, thousands of years in advance:

http://www.christadelphianals.org/bible_prophecy.htm

Sam says it is utter hubris and even reprehensible to think you're special because "God loves me don't you know"

Yet even little children understand that no one is worthy to be pardoned for their sins and no one can make it into Heaven on their own. There is absolutely no difference between me and anyone else except for one thing; I said yes to God, and some others say no. I am not worthy, in fact I am decidedly unworthy and I deserve the exact same punishment as everyone else does; the difference is that I accept the free gift of grace that Jesus offers upon the cross. God proved His love for all people on the cross, and He died for every single person, not just me. Jesus loves you more than you can understand.

Sam says it is morally reprehensible for Christians to drudge up some trivial circumstance God took care of while completely ignoring the suffering of other human beings

Sam is right about this and it is a complete shame to Christians everywhere that the western church is so materialistic and base in their feelings. Jesus called us to live a life of total sacrifice and to give up everything we have. I can tell you that God is even more appalled than Sam is about this issue.

Sam asserted that the bible supports slavery

This is false; the bible does not support slavery. Slavery as we understand it today is not the same as it was in the time this was written. In those times it was more of a profession and people would sell themselves into slavery so they could have food and shelter. The bible regulated these activities, but it also said that there was no difference between master and slave and that we are all equal in Christ Jesus. I will also point out that modern slavery was ended by Christians.

Sam says that the bible admonishes us to kill people for witchcraft

No, it does not admonish Christians to kill witches, or anyone else. There is no commandment for any Christians to murder anyone. It is true, however, that in the time of the Old Covenant, God set up laws for Israel which were very strictly enforced with the punishment of death. This was not anything that He ever imposed on the world, or any other people except the Jews. He also did not impose it on them: the Jews made a covenant with God to obey all of His laws, so that He would be their God, and they would be His people.

Sam says that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say against Muslims if they prayed to the right God

The God of the bible is not morally inconsistant, whereas the god of the muslims is.

Sam said Christianity is what only lunatics could believe on their own

The bible says this:

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The scripture itself says that unsaved people will find the message of the cross foolish. This is the evidence that you are perishing. The things of the Spirit of God are foolish to the natural man, neither can he understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Sam made a little quip about catholicism

While I am sure there are saved catholics, the church itself departed from the true teachings of Jesus a long time ago.. There is also no teaching in the scripture regarding the Eucharist.

Sam said its very strange salvation depends bad evidence

God gives everyone good evidence that He exists but they suppress the truth. God reveals Himself through personal revelation. You cannot know God otherwise.

Sam says Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice

Jesus wasn't sacrificed against His will:

John 10:18

No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded."

He gave His life just as firemen have given their lives trying to save people from a burning building. Jesus didn't have to go to the cross but He did it out of love for us:

John 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Sam says the bible doesnt repudiate human sacrifice, that it celebrates it

Actually, it does repudiate it in many locations. The practice of sacrificing humans was utterly condemned in scripture. Jesus voluntarily giving Himself for the sins of the world does not resemble what Sam is implying even superficially.

Sam states that people used to bury children under the foundation of buildings and then says "these are the sorts of people who wrote the bible"

The kind of people who wrote the bible were eye witnesses to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They did not bury children under foundations; they followed the true and living God.

Sam said that if there is a less moral moral framework he hadn't heard of it

As he has presented it, most certainly, but the problem is that he largely invented it from his misunderstanding of Christian theology and personal prejudices.

The true question is this: are you an honest or dishonest skeptic? If you're an honest skeptic you will investigate, but a dishonest skeptic doesn't want to know. You will have to admit that you do not know whether God answers prayer or not, so here is a possible clue to knowledge:

Pray this: God, I don't know if you're there or not, and I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I am asking you to reveal the truth to me, and if you do, I promise to follow it where ever it leads. If it leads to Jesus, I will give my life to Him and follow Him.

After praying this, read the gospel of John. Read it slowly, a little at a time, each time beforehand praying that God will give you revelation concerning what you're reading. If you do this, by the time you reach the end of the gospel your skepticism will have grown wings and flown away.

God bless.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Ohhhhh... no Snake Plissken...


right here, sister....

Oh and another reason why I will continue to hack and pirate media until the end of the internet-

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/weinstein-co-sued-50m-over-escape-planet-earth-25190

What attracted you into conversation here is that the Sift is a de facto place for atheists to hang out. When you "speak your mind" about religion and atheism, there's two problems. The first is that since we are overwhelmingly non-believers, opinions against atheism and pro-religion are going to irritate a greater number of people, and so get the most attention. Our opinions against religion only offend you and maybe one or two other people ever, that I've seen. It's a numbers thing. Don't take it personally. The second is that, as I've mentioned already in this thread, you do come off supremely arrogant in your beliefs. Just saying, from our perspective. I'll turn it around to your perspective for a second. Consider these two sentences, a) "I consider the Bible to be fairy tales, and I don't understand why Christians people believe it's true." and b) "It's better to question the world rather than blindly accept a book of fairy tales." After which of these two sentences are you more likely to be able to continue reading for several more paragraphs, presumably all written in the same tone, with an open, clear, unangry mind? For most people —even atheists— the tone of the first sentence is preferable and more conducive to communication.

I'm not offended by your conversation, or your videos. In the past, I may have overreacted to insults, but they don't really bother me any longer. I am not sitting here enraged because some atheist suggested that God doesn't exist. I have heard just about every nasty thing anyone could possibly say about God, and then some. People have called me every sort of name that you could call someone. Even you can't resist putting in a dart here and there. That's just the way it is. If I let that bother me then I wouldn't be able to talk to anyone here.

If I've come off as arrogant, then that is unfortunate, because I don't feel superior to anyone here. I apologize to anyone who thinks that is the case. I am usually very direct in what I say, and I don't beat around the bush, and perhaps that has ruffled a few feathers. However, I always try to temper my speech with compassion and understanding. I don't think that is a fair characterization, and I think you are also ignoring the hyper sensitivity people have about their beliefs.

I've been using the sift since 06 or 07; the reason I finally signed up is because of the antitheistic bent the site had taken. Perhaps it was always there and I didn't really notice it. In any case, as a long time visitor here, I felt the site no longer represented me and I felt compelled to speak up for the other side of the argument. So I was not drawn to the sift because of atheism; I had already been using the sift for a long time.

I'll turn it back to the non-theist's perspective now. After listening to a cogent talk from Feynman explaining quite clearly why he would prefer to have no answer rather than possibly have a wrong answer, your first pitch over the plate was, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it", and then all rest of the stuff that followed that shows you didn't hear what he said at all. Feynman clearly doesn't prefer to "imagine that the answer is something else, because he doesn't like it." Then you used that as a launch pad for an assault on scientists in general through quotemining. I didn't read past the first paragraph. I moved straight down to see the reaction to your tone, and sure enough, it had started in earnest. I'd call that a failure in communication, unless you just wanted to vent, and maybe that day that's all the satisfaction you wanted. OK, but there you are. And you do this often enough, and people will see your avatar at the head of a comment somewhere else, and immediately their minds will shift into attack/defense mode, and your chances of communicating directly to their minds is almost zero – and they haven't even read a word yet.

Yet, someone who usually criticizes me agreed with me and said I had a good point. You say I didn't understand what Richard said, but apparently I understood it well enough to make a coherent point in opposition to what he said. What you're guilty of here is cherry picking. That sentence was part of an overall point and wasn't mean to be taken by itself.

In any case you say I failed, and perhaps I did in some ways, but not in the way you have asserted. You're right and you are wrong about what you've said here, but I get your overall point.

The fact is, since I've been here, this is the way people here have reacted to me. I don't get this reaction everywhere I go. Some of this is my fault, and some of it isn't. Either way I am not complaining. It is what it is. There is always room for improvement.

And to your comment about being invited. This place wasn't primarily designed for people to communicate opinions. It was designed for people to enjoy themselves while they procrastinate, feel a part of something, get some pseudo-community feelings going. There's no rule against giving any opinions here, nor against coming in large part to represent a certain opinion, but doing so runs against the main purpose of the place, organically defined by the intent of the people who come. This isn't an ideas discussion/debates forum with focus on arguing points to a conclusion. You can do that, but that's not the main purpose. What you tend to do here makes it more difficult for others to achieve their main purpose here, which is kicking up and not really thinking for an hour or two. And uh-oh, there's a comment from sb, killing the buzz. We could ignore it, but we just can't help reading what it says even though we already know it's almost certain to infuriate us with a relentless brand of reasoning that we do not understand.

Come on. People are not just here to relax, they are also here to promote their political, philosophical and (anti)religious ideologies. The sift loves red meat. People here love to express their opinions about what they love and what they hate, and they love to argue when anyone disagrees with them.

I get what you're saying. I could be more sensitive to how my comments will be perceived, and try to say things in a different way. I agree with you here. I'll keep it in mind.

In the end, however, the main purpose of this site is whatever the site operator purposes. What the site operator has said is that I am a valuable member of this community.

Fallacious arguments? Every time I point out a mistake, you invent a convenient new rule for understanding the Bible (or more likely you copy-paste what it says on some apologia clearinghouse website). I could literally find a quote that says, "oranges are black" and you'd justify it somehow. I just found a passage that gives two incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham. And in a book that's supposed to be completely true, you excuse it by telling me the writers are taking artistic licence? WTF????? This isn't a poetry slam! It's the bloody word of God! If you claim everything in it is true, so much so that you've given up sex, condemn gay people, etc., then everything else in it *must* be literally true or you have no foundation for giving up sex or condemning gay people. Those could be metaphorical warnings about the lure of great pleasures in general. Either one of those things about Joram and Joatham written in the Bible is false, or anyone can point to any passage and call it optional, or poetry, or a style of writing, or just a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

Now this is simply your ignorance talking. When I gave you my answer about the lineage in Matthew, I wasn't just pulling something out of a hat. Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

It's not false, it is simply a writing style employed by Matthew to emphasize the lineage in a particular way. This is not some kind of desperate analysis to cover up a mistake, but is a well known style used in ancient literature. I'm not making excuses, or putting off something to metaphor; Matthew was definitely using Chiastic structure, and that is why that verse is symmetrical.

First, I'm saying the effects of personal prayer *can* be scientifically measured, so either your contention that God will not be tested is bunk, or self-prayer is really just meditation. You also didn't understand the set-up of the prayer-for-other test. In that scenario, there were real ill people in the hospitals, and they compared the outcomes for patients who had had others sincerely praying for them from a distance versus those who didn't. IOW, the sincere prayer happened. There has never been any measured health benefit for the ill people. They died off and recovered in equal numbers.

No, they can't be scientifically measured. You would never know during your test whether God was simply feeding you a certain kind of result. Think about it. God knows the entire time that you're trying to test for His existence outside of what He ordained (faith in Jesus Christ). His choice is either to give you results that will prove His existence outside of Christ or results that will make it ambiguous. What do you think He is going to do?

You keep saying that my position is one of cognitive dissonance. Look at yourself. You twist your mind into any shape you need for your dogma to hold true, never once truly considering the possibility that it's all in your head. You've said the words that you might be wrong, but you've never shown it's more than lip service. I've never seen you take a critical eye to your position on God and the Bible, despite the numerous opportunities I and others have given to you.

And this is exactly what Feynman's talking about when he says the scientific approach starts from the position that all hypotheses are wrong, then goes about trying to prove it through observation. Anything that's still standing afterwards is good scientific theory.

You're acting is if I have no evidence for my beliefs. If it was just a matter of believing the bible was true because I wanted to believe it, you might have a point. The reason I believe the bible is true because of personal revelation. I experience the presence of God in my daily life. It would be illogical for me to deny the existence of God based on the evidence I have received. I do not "twist my mind into any shape" to believe what I read in the bible. My worldview is internally consistent, and it is also rational. You may find it irrational because of your presuppositions, but that is because you reject the evidence I have receive apriori. To you there must always be some other explanation, and that is the way you interpret everything I say. You've already come to the conclusion that I am deluding myself, and everything I say you filter through that conclusion. Rather than letting the evidence interpret the conclusion, you are interpreting the evidence through the conclusion.

Religion, on the other hand, starts from the assuming the conclusion that God and the Bible are real, and any observational facts that don't line up must themselves be wrong facts, no matter how well documented they are. And when those facts can no longer be denied, then the Bible passages in question are suddenly no longer considered to have literal meaning, and now have only a "metaphorical" meaning, or must be understood from a different perspective.

If every word in the Bible is subject to this convenient wishy-washy fanciful method of interpretation, then it's a lousy foundation for a system of faith. You cannot follow anything that you can change the meaning of by arbitrarily saying, "That part is meant to be understood non-literally." The Bible, as it stands now, is either a 100% true book that we humans are incapable of understanding; OR a book that we are meant to learn from that also has lots of loopholes in it. It cannot be both, not as it stands now. The whole Bible should be re-written such that what's left in it is literal unmistakable unfudgeable truth. I think it would be a very, very short book, or, a much longer book filled with qualifications, something along these lines:

I'm well aware that many Christians have compromised with the world and reinterpreted the bible to reflect worldly wisdom, but I'm not one of them. Though not everything in the bible (like the song of solomon for instance) could, or should be taken literally, I believe it contains the literal history of planet Earth. As I've explained in other threads, I didn't always believe that. I assumed where science said it was right, the bible was wrong. It was only when I questioned that and investigated the evidence that I found it was the other way around. I believe the bible is true not only because of revelation, but because of the evidence, not in spite of it. You have unfairly mischaracterized me, because I am the last person you will talk to who will turn the bible into a metaphor to avoid the facts.

Otherwise, as you seem to fear about secular morality, the Bible itself could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything by anyone at any time, if they thought hard enough about it.

I don't fear that, I know that. You're absolutely right, you could make the bible say anything you want to. People do it all the time. It's only a literal reading that makes any sense. Even atheists know that:

destroy adam and eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God and take away the meaning of His death

-american atheist association

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

Overall, this is how I summarize your arguments: (A) Life without God is meaningless, and (B) a meaningless life would sometimes be difficult to tolerate, therefore (C) God exists. We pretty much agree on A, and we do agree on B, but C does not follow from A and B. You can correctly conclude that (C) life without God would be difficult to tolerate at times. So? That still doesn’t mean that God exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, so I conclude from A and B that life is difficult to tolerate at times. Which is true.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Fair point. They may not have ever had the philosophical conversation with themselves about whether their lives have meaning, so it never occurred to them to be upset about it. I agree that it could be a very difficult thing to face, and I think that’s why the human species developed a proclivity for religion. Elsewhere here I’ve suggested we developed metaphysical faith because we’re intelligent and inquisitive, and it freed our minds from the obvious nagging questions of our existence with a one-stop catch-all answer: “Because God”. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If believing you have a purpose in the grand scheme of things makes you feel better and gives a higher community bond, then it conveys higher survivability to you and your genes. It may be (or once have been) helpful for us to believe that a god exists (any god/gods, mind you, or even a non-deity-based faith system like Buddhism), but this still is not an indication that any god exists.

Hope is what keeps people going … They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

I’m going to be blunt here: you don’t have a clue what depression is. You’re starting with your conclusion, and applying it to whatever pop psychology you’ve picked up. You’re like a North Korean telling me what democracy is, and concluding that Kim Jong Un therefore is the greatest person on Earth. I know what depression is for me, for my family members and my friends who have suffered from it, and I have done private research on it beyond that. Reducing depression to the factor of “hope” is incorrect, and presuming to know something because you’ve got Yahweh on your side is arrogant. You don’t know us, you don’t understand our condition, so please don’t assume to speak for us. You can guess, and you can ask me, and I’ll tell you what I feel, what I have experienced, and what I have learned. Then if it fits your argument, you can let me know.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

Your first sentences are close enough I’ll just agree. The last one is your own fantasy straight out of nowhere. That aside, so what? We’re close to killing ourselves. I don’t know if humanity will survive another 100 years. I hope it does, but I can’t know. It’s hard to face, and very frustrating to watch our so-called leaders (who all leverage claimed faith in God, mind you) pissing it all away for money and power. No other age has had to face the possibility of the destruction of civilization. It’s hard. You said your point was that there’s nobody in the driver’s seat. I agree. What’s your point? How do you figure Yahweh’s “in the driver’s seat”?

My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

This is my fault. As I mentioned in my last comment, I had intended to write further down about people who do find bliss in hurting others, and I had it fleshed out in the drafting process, but I guess I accidentally deleted it before posting. Anyway, here it is. First, there’s psychopaths. You don’t understand what a psychopath is. It’s not a blood-crazed killer from a Hollywood movie. In real life, a psychopath is someone who fails to feel empathy or sympathy, someone who has no sense of altruism. They do whatever serves their own interests best – however they define that. This is in sharp contrast with how the rest of us think about other people, which is mostly with compassion. I’ve been close to a few psychopaths, and they enjoy things like music or sports or writing or whatever like anyone else, and they mostly understand that others think hurting people is bad, so they avoid it. They don’t get any special thrill from hurting others – it just doesn’t hurt their conscience if they do. I’m guessing they don’t really ever feel the bliss I’m talking about.

Separate from those people, let’s imagine there’s a group of people who feel they’re experiencing the same bliss you feel in your numinous experiences, but they feel it only when they hurt or kill people. Now, I’m asserting that these people probably don’t exist, but if they did, people behaving according to the principles of what’s “good” (which I’ll get to later) would have to restrain them from hurting other people, and with a heavy heart, would probably imprison them. And while they were in prison, compassionate people on the outside might be researching ways to help the inmates self-realize – within the limits of their confinement, like they do in the Swedish penal system.

Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything.

The reason we’re having this conversation, or at least the reason I am, is because we both already have a sense that some things are right and other things are wrong. That is primary. We both agree that we have this sense, and that for us it feels important to follow it. So for me, the fact that I have this feeling that some actions are good and others aren’t is all the “ought” I need. I don’t need anybody’s permission or orders. I ought to do things that I feel are good things to do. So, whether my conscience comes from human DNA (my position) or from an external entity (your position) doesn’t matter because we have both already decided to follow it, and so has just about every human on Earth.

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead. What I want to do at any given time is what feels good to me, and that’s the same with almost everyone, in spite of what religions teach people about their wicked “fallen” souls and how not to trust themselves (except when they paradoxically teach us to trust ourselves). Like, I might like to eat your cookie, but it would feel worse to steal it from you than it would feel good to eat it. Instead, I think about how I can have the cookie without feeling bad about it. I would probably ask you for some of your cookie, and then I’d not only have some cookie, but I’d also share a friendly interaction with another person in my community, someone who will probably enjoy sharing their cookie with me and be glad I asked them. Win-win. So to recap, “taking what I can” to me and most people, involves having the greatest amount of personally rewarding experiences I can, and those involve not doing bad things, and often involve doing good things.

I don’t feel I’m wasting any time navigating any landscape. I hardly think about morality at all, since to me, it’s quite easy. Jesus knew it; he just claimed that his father had made it up. I think it’s human nature. It gives me immense joy to see people in love getting married. That extends identically to same-sex people too. See? It’s not complex. Taking what I can when I can in the malevolent sense feels awful, and I don’t want to do that.

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

I agree completely (except where you said I think it’s out of ignorance or automatic function, which I didn’t say). You say it’s about people getting carried away or being enticed. What I was explaining is when that happens and why. It’s not relevant anyway. People are the only ones who can be held responsible for their own actions, and they should be, but not because they are bad people who need to be punished, but because their behaviour hurt someone and as a member of society, they need to understand this, make amends, and hopefully change their behaviour moving forward.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

But I would have had to already accept Yahweh to think that’s true. And I don’t, so it’s not. Nothing in me tells me that the bible is a holy book or that following it has anything to do with what is good, so I don’t need to follow any religious dogma.

what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

It involves accepting one assertion: Harris’ definition of “bad”. If you accept that, and you accept that “good” is its opposite, then moving away from something bad must be good. I think your problem with my argument is that there’s no argument for a metaphysical morality. That’s because I don’t believe in one. As I said above, this whole conversation, for me, is based on our shared feeling that there are right and wrong things. That’s it. If I kick someone’s dog, no matter who they are or what their religion, they’re going to know without consulting any authority that I did a horrible thing. I don’t really know why, and I don’t care. I do know that humans share this sense, and I’m keen to live with respect to it.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself…That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

Second, you can’t possibly make the argument that “better for people” and “makes the world worse” are arbitrary concepts. They’re not perfectly defined, but that doesn’t mean arbitrary. As for the torturing babies example, according to Harris’ morality, it’s bad because babies are people, and torture causes misery. Where’s the ambiguity?

Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

But yours does. Whatever else you address, please answer this: I believe –and forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth– somewhere on the Sift you agreed that if God commanded you to do something people think is horrible (like torture an infant/rape your own son/etc.), that you would do it. Is that true to say? If so, then by your own witness and a test you came up with, it’s your system that allows for the possibility of absolutely any vile act, and it’s time for it to go.

If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

True. Your point?

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

It’s not arbitrarily invented. Religion is. I must be misunderstanding you. By my reading, your argument is that the connection between reducing people’s misery and doing good is arbitrary. Is that right? You don’t think that wanting to help people who are suffering is normal and good? If you agree that there is a connection between the two, that’s all you need. If you don’t agree, then your morality system really sucks, and I don’t know who I’m talking to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_1636593.html

I take it you didn’t read the article yourself. There’s no mention of Americans, anyone of college age, nor anyone who can’t identify Hitler. It’s about German high school students who didn’t know that Hitler was a dictator, etc. Please take better care with your arguments. It’s disrespectful and a waste of my time.

I found these to be presumptuous. They do happen to some people, maybe even most people, but they don’t happen to all. Many people of no religion, and despite immense tragedies, live happy and fulfilling lives, and feel happy and fulfilled on their death beds. I’d further argue that people with religious faith also get depressed. I suspect you’d counter that anyone who is depressed has insincere faith. That seems tautological to me, but either way, it’s moot, for now.

Well, the central argument of the video is that life without God is meaningless. You've already agreed with that point, so the argument now seems to be is whether someone can be happy and fulfilled with a meaningless life. I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Some people do, at least in part. It’s a lot more complex than just a lack of hope though. For some people it’s due to a tragedy, or overwhelming cognitive dissonance, or it’s simply chemical, and has no correlation with anything in their lives at all. Maybe I’m nitpicking. I just want to make clear that depression is a mental disorder and is not a synonym for, "lack of hope because I don’t have God in my life."

Hope is what keeps people going. Without hope, you are just going through the motions. When you have hope and lose it, it is emotionally devastating. A person without any hope is a person most likely clinically depressed.

You can call depression a kind of mental disorder, and some people may be born without the right chemical receptors for instance, but most people are depressed because of a lack of hope. A person, for instance, who worked their whole life and lost their retirement in an afternoon, or a mom whose kids abandoned her to live in a nursing home. They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

Here you slipped into metaphysical talk that means nothing to me, full of judgemental words ("sick and depraved") and terms that I had just told you I don’t accept as objective concepts ("evil"). You also know that I don’t think there’s any hope in your Yahweh God since he’s a mythological character, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

The reason I made that comment about God is because of your comment about your depression. The reason you have that feeling that if you believed in God you wouldn't be depressed is because you know there is hope in God.

(Also, not that it’s critical to the discussion, but I’d like a reference for your poll about young people not knowing who Hitler was.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_163659 3.html

Now, about "bliss". I didn’t define what I meant by that, so you didn’t understand it. I’ll make up for that now. By “bliss”, I don’t mean immediate pleasure, or instant gratification, or fulfillment of a goal, or basically anything you mentioned. I do mean a great powerful feeling of being centred, being in tune, achieving self-fulfillment, overflowing joy, love, inner peace, elation, connection, lightness, "harmony", "rapture" or a feeling that many describe as "doing what I was born to do/meant to be doing" or "transcendent". It’s the kind of happy that boosts your immune system and makes people around you feel good about themselves as well. (The words in quotes aren’t words I tend to use myself—I’m employing them to help clarify the concept I’m talking about.)

If you understand now what I mean by "bliss" (as opposed to instant gratification, etc.), you’ll understand that people don’t follow their bliss and rape people, nor find inner peace by beating their wives, and so there’s no need to append any rules about not hurting. I can’t imagine how anybody’s bliss could ever include causing harm to other people, but I’ll even address that hypothetical, towards the end of this comment.

Thanks for the elaboration. I am familiar with the philosophy of Sam Harris, and I figured you were borrowing from him, but it is good to know where you stand. My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

You also say that you feel the best state of a human being is to be blissfully happy. I'm sure everyone will agree with you that feeling blissfully happy is good. However, why should we believe this is actually what good is?. Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything. Maybe this is just incredibly selfish and the opposite of good, or somewhere in the middle is true, or maybe none of it. You give no actual reason (beyond arbitrary statements like that which makes the world better or worse) to equate feeling good with moral goodness. In a meaningless Universe, neither is there any basis for thinking that you have any moral duties. This leads me to some questions that you didn't actually address in the last post. Let me ask them again because they are central to this discussion:

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

I'll also address some of your comments:

In all cases, whatever they did, it was because they were feeling bad about something, weren’t centred, and reacted from "lizard brain" instincts of individual survival rather than from human compassion

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

Divine morality isn’t necessary. Having any collective understanding of what is good and what is bad is enough. For most of humanity’s existence, even up to now, there hasn’t been a clear standard. In patches of geography where there was one, it only applied well to that time and culture. Just as ordinary people supplanted kings and emperors as absolute leaders without society collapsing, and just as ordinary people supplanted religions are sole arbiters of the law without society collapsing, ordinary people can supplant religion as arbiter of what is good and what is bad as well, and society will continue not to collapse.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

And better than a list of what’s good and what’s bad is a system that determines for us what’s good and what’s bad. I’ve seen one model that I like, delivered by Sam Harris. The most salient bit starts at about 10:00 and runs to around 27:30. If you don’t want to watch it now, I’ll summarise the most important ideas: For a moral code to have meaning, it has to apply to some form of consciousness – it cannot apply to rocks and dust. Then there’s the central point which requires you to imagine "the worst possible misery for everyone", and assume that this situation is "bad". "Good" is then defined in terms of moving people away from this "worst possible misery for everyone". That’s it. I recommend hearing it from Harris himself.

I am familiar with his system, to which I reiterate the point; what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

The three advantages that occur to me of this system over Yahweh’s morality are that it’s a simple system rather than a long intricate list, so it’s quick to teach, easy to absorb, understand and reference, hard to corrupt, and all-inclusive; there’s absolutely nothing random about it, so odd details like not being allowed to wear garments made from two different thread types won’t make it in and there’s nothing objectionable about it from the standpoint of people who just want to do the right thing; and it’s truly universal in that it applies equally well now as it would have in 4000 BC China, in 30 AD Mesopotamia, or will in 12 000 AD Mars, so it’s broadly acceptable too.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself. As Jesus told us:

Matthew 22:40

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Every act that is good makes things better for people. If an act makes the world worse, then it’s bad. Simple. Lots of generalities can be derived from it, like killing people is bad, respecting other people’s property is good, and there’d be no arbitrary crap about touching pig skin being bad or extra-marital sex being bad.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

Even more generally, we clearly don’t require any god to tell us what’s good and what isn’t. We already have a conscience inside us that tells us what’s good and what isn’t regardless of laws. I know you believe that Yahweh made our conscience for us. Even if that were so, it doesn’t change the fact that if properly relied upon, a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws. Any law that echoes what everyone naturally feels already is superfluous. Any law that contributes to human misery is morally wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

You state that without a divine moral standard that exists outside our consciousness, there is no objective justice. This is true by definition. Without a true objective moral code, you further argue that nobody can condemn any action as bad without being hypocritical, so in effect, everything is permissible. This is not the case, however. Although the moral code I advocate isn’t "objective" in the sense that it exists beyond our consciousness, it is universal among humans. And if we’re only attempting to determine moral behaviour for humans, then a universally accepted standard among humans suffices, regardless of where we think it came from.

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

If there is no objective morality, then nothing is really wrong. Any system you create in the end is a human invention, based on human interpretation, and agreed upon by human consensus. You still cannot get an ought from an is. Good could be defined as a world of people who love each other, or a world of people who love to eat children. What is wrong then is simply based on your personal preferences.

The arguments I make here don’t describe a perfect system. That’s wasn’t my intention. I believe they do, however, answer your concerns about non-objective morality being insufficient to guide humans.

I understand that this wasn't meant to be perfect. It has, however, raised more concerns than it answered.

>> ^messenger

I'm glad you enjoyed the video and I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I'll reply by saying that if you accept meaninglessness as a fact, then there are many implications to such a belief. For instance, if it true that life is meaningless then it is also true that there is no such thing as justice. It means that any truly terrible things that happen to you will never be adequately recompensed, and that frequently, the purveyors of such will get away with it scott free. It means that ultimately, might does make right, and he who has the gold makes the rules. If you are smart enough to get away with it, or powerful enough to avoid the consequences, you will never face any justice for any evil that you've done.

It also means that everything you have worked for and dreamed about could be randomly taken away from you at any moment, and so could all the people you love and care about. One moment you are an eternal optimist, the next, you get into a car accident and become a parapalegic. Now, you can say that this could happen to you even if there is a God, since it obviously happens to people all the time. This is true, but, if this life is all you have then it means that the hope you have is a very limited and fragile commodity. Hope is not a limited commodity for a Christian. For instance, the closer you are to death the less happy and hopeful you will become. When you're young, you don't concern yourself with it as much, even though it could happen at any time. As you get older, you start to realize how little time you have left to accomplish your goals. Your mobility starts to decrease, the sharpness of your intellect and your beauty fades. You become less desirable to others and to society in general. What this means is that your happiness is always situational. Eventually, when enough tragedy happens to you, you will break down and the future will become more and more like a millstone around your neck.

Yes, some people are able to squeeze some happiness out of desperate circumstances, and more power to them, but they have no real hope. A meaningless universe provides you with zero hope in the end. Many people believe they will achieve some lasting legacy but think about all the people you remember from the last century. Shockingly, a poll done by college age kids from America and Germany showed that many of them had no idea who Hitler was. If no one can remember Hitler, they probably won't remember you either. Where does that leave you? Your best case scenario is that you lead a completely pointless life where you hopefully experience a modicum of pleasure before expiring prematurely, never having reached anything near your true potential, with all your love and dreams being cruelly erased from existence forever.

People become depressed because of a lack of hope. If you look at the world today, and constrast it to our history, you will see that nothing has really changed on planet Earth. For all of our so-called progress, humanity is just as sick and depraved as it always has been. Evil is increasing, not decreasing, and mankinds destructive appetites will never be satiated. There is no hope in man, but there is in God. I think you know that.

Now, you make an argument about following your bliss, but if what is good to do is simply what makes you feel good, then you could excuse some of the worst crimes in history. People murder, rape, cheat, steal, etc because it makes them feel good. I'm sure Hitler took a lot of pleasure in what he did, and was following his bliss for aquiring absolute power. You can't use what feels good as a compass for what is right. Now, I think you're trying to insert the caveat that we shouldn't do what causes harm to people, but what if it is someones bliss to harm people? You would be stopping their bliss and thus violating your own rules. In short, there is no way to impose any absolute standard of morality when you are determining it by a completely arbitrary standard. In a meaningless Universe there is no right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

For myself, what led me to start thinking about what was true was to notice how much this world was going down the tubes, and with seemingly no one in the drivers seat. I noticed the love I felt from this world being slowly drained away, year by year. I saw that humanity was on a collision course with ultimate destruction if nothing changed. If life is meaningless then it doesn't matter. But deep down, you don't really believe its meaningless, and neither did I. That's probably another reason why you're depressed. Your head says its meaningless but your heart tells you that this is a lie. Until the two reconcile you will never be happy and you will never be truly free. It's only Christ that can reconcile them, because He knows the reason that you're here, and only He can point you in that direction. It is only by discovering the meaning of your life, the reason that you're here, that will lead your mind and heart to agree with one another.

>> ^messenger

>> ^kymbos:

I want the full interview!!!


The full interview is in two parts and both can be found on this page:
http://www.laughspin.com/2012/06/26/louis-c-k-tells-jay-leno-hes-the-weirdest-looking-person-on-the-planet-earth-video/

7 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Payback:

What blows me away is (I drive large vehicles for a living, usually through small openings) that I would bet money there was enough room to get out without touching anything. He just needed to get the butt of his car further to the left. There was DEFINITELY enough room after the first hit.


Tbh i think he just needed to turn the steering wheel most of the time. He was always pointing at the car rather than at the gap. Doesn't know the width of his car and too scared to find out even at half a mile an hour. These type of people wind me up no end on the road.

Please people, the planet earth will get happier when everyone learns the width of their car.