@shinyblurry

The facts are simple: the existence of God explains everything that you feel about wanting to do good, and the love that you have for people and life, and your atheism denies it. Yet you embrace what is contrary to your own experience.

AND from farther down

… your atheistic presuppositions about reality. You say no one has come back but one man has, but of course you dismiss the account as fantasy (again because of your atheistic presuppositions).

Those aren't facts though. Those are your opinions and conjectures. Your theory of God may explain a greater number of things around me than science, but it also raises more questions than it answers, which makes it a horrible theory. "My atheism" doesn't exist as a concept. I don't subscribe to any belief about Gods any more than a monkey does. Are monkeys atheistic? I'm like a monkey. I have no "-ism" that "denies" anything. I happen to lack belief in any supernatural deity. *This lack of belief defines my atheism, rather than atheism defining my lack of beliefs.* I can't believe you still don't understand my position (or lack thereof). I have no idea what you mean by embrace. Nothing about my experience with "meaningfulness" requires me to believe in any gods, particularly not Yahweh.

So if it makes you feel good its okay to be a slave? You don't mind being enslaved to a mindless irrational process because you get rewarded for it like a rat activating a feeder?

Chemicals in my brain cause me to feel hunger and crave food. I follow them because doing so makes me feel good. I don't consider myself weak for being driven by those chemicals in my brain. To really feel like a slave, I'd have to be compelled to follow the commands of a sentient being, like a plantation owner with a whip, or a god of love threatening me with eternal torture, for instance, not chemicals in my own brain. Can there be shame in being a slave to yourself?

So I will modify this and say that you're living like a theist does but denying it with your atheism.

You changed one word, but missed the point of mine, so I've changed the same word: So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians *theists* who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

Now what?

Therefore what you're talking about is a herd morality.

Yep. Pretty much.

The entire point of my example was to show that if we simply have a herd morality where the majority tells us what is good and evil, then if the majority ever said child rape is good it would be.

If your whole final end goal is to prove your child rape hypothetical is internally consistent, and not to extend it into the real world, then yep, that's logically quite true. However, if you want to use it make any point about proving my beliefs to be somehow wrong, then you'll have to give me reason to believe it could ever possibly happen in a sustainable way.

My point was that we all come pre-programmed with a need for worship, which you apparently agree with. That is what is natural to us … It is actually more natural for us to rebel against God because of our corrupt nature.

Are we programmed to worship, or to rebel against God? Which is it? I propose that we're genetically designed to do exactly what makes us happy. Being good to others makes us (non-psychos) happy. Worship also makes many of us happy. Cognitive dissonance does not. I don't believe in any god, so I can't possibly worship one with a straight face. That would be cognitively dissonant and make me unhappy. I see no need to introduce the concept of "corruption".

The sense we agreed upon and have been discussing is that that life without God is meaningless … Therefore the meaning you derive from your feelings is only an illusion created by chemical reactions in your brain.

All cognition, from self-awareness, to thought, to the senses, to desires, to emotions, to numinous experiences, all of it is 100% chemical reactions. It's only fair to call my conscience an "illusion" if I also consider everything else that I perceive to be an illusion created by the chemicals in my mind. My feelings are as subjectively real as my senses.

There are other causes of depression but you see my point. Hope is the solution to depression.

That can be true. It's human nature to want to worship, and worshipping something can give hope. So for some people, if they can convince themselves to believe it, worshipping a god can lift them out of depression.

On what basis do you say your belief is more likely?

Occam's razor.

You say there is no reason to speculate (ever); now that is an interesting statement from someone who believes in open inquiry. What you've said is actually the death of inquiry. And let's be clear about this; you have speculated.

If there's no way to establish the truth of something, then there's no sense in trying to do so. There are no reliable records of the afterlife, so hoping to reach a conclusion is a vain pursuit. You can imagine hypotheticals, but you can't give any rationale for preferring one over another. Except by Occam's razor. What you consider "speculation" is just me saying, "nothing disproves anything about the afterlife".

Of course anything is possible when you summon your magic genie of evolution. "Time itself performs the miracles for you."

It's scientific fact, not mine, not anyone's. It's yours too, if you want it. You just have to go and learn about it from an unbiased source, not from uninformed people with pre-conceived ideas about what it is and isn't.

So no one is really bad?

In the relative non-objective morality sense, no, nobody is inherently bad or "evil" apart from our judgement of their actions. We often call people "bad", but that's just shorthand for what I said, or for having difficulty accepting that another person can do something so contrary to our concept of good.

Well, I'm fairly sure you've told me before that you hate the idea of God telling you what to do.

True, I would resent anybody giving me free will, then giving me a choice of doing what they say or accepting the worst conceivable torture for eternity. Did I misunderstand something?

[me:]Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[you:]I've covered this above, but I will also add that if we had evolved differently, then in your worldview, all of this would be moot. We are only in this particular configuration because of circumstance, and not design. It could just as easily be 1000 different other ways. There could easily be scenarios where we evolved to exploit children instead of nuture them.

For a species to evolve to exploit children rather than nurture them is nearly impossible. That gene would get weeded out of the gene pool very quickly. Maybe I'm missing your point, and what you're really trying to say is that according to me, human feelings about right and wrong are, at their essence, random, because humans could have developed different feelings about right and wrong. I agree.

Back to my question: Does the Bible say that rape is wrong? Does it say that you cannot marry a child? To save time, could you point me to a neat summary of all the biblical rules that still stand? The Commandments were given in the Old Testament. I thought that law was struck down and there was a new covenant now, no? No sex before marriage is one, I'm assuming. Do you have to attend mass on Sundays? What are the others? I'm surprised to hear that you don't think the Bible suggests any position on condom usage. Is that just a Catholic hang-up then?

[me:]In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules.

[you:]Romans 13:9-10

I agree that the rules in that verse are clearly derived from "love your neighbour", except maybe coveting, but that's not the point. Once I see the summary of biblical edicts, I'm sure I'll be able to point out that "Love your neighbour" isn't enough, that there are rules you would only follow because they're stated in the Bible, not because they obviously flow from the concept of neighbourly love.

So, when we think about doing unto others, we would think about it in the context of how Jesus taught us to behave.

So you're saying that we have to adjust our conscience first to align with the Bible, and then follow it. I'm saying we can just follow it according to what is bad for people.

abortion statistics

Good point. Foetal rights/women's rights is the moral debate of our times, IMO, maybe of all history. I haven't found any solid position on that issue. I've thought a lot about it, but this isn't the place to debate it. Suffice it to say I don't see abortion as a good thing, but not equal to infanticide either.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

Yes, I think an entire society could end up agreeing on something that depraved, just like the ancient Greek society approved of paedophilia.

You know Germans were 94% Christian during WWII, right? And that the Greeks had those relations consensually? I'm against legalizing sex with children because it would be abused and children would be victimized, not because I think it's impossible for a child to enjoy and benefit from sex. I did it when I was underage and it was nothing but good.

You also act as if I am trying to defend all religion, which I'm not.

The thing is, you regularly invoke the 85% of humans who are theist when having a large number bolsters your argument, yet you disassociate yourself from most of them when their behaviour weakens your argument. I can never tell who you're talking about. Clearly identify the people you're talking about at all times, and we won't have this problem.

In any case, there are many examples of non-believing societies doing sick and depraved things to their populations.

And many Christian societies too, but I'm sure you'll disassociate yourselves from *those* Christians.

Tortured for Christ

According to Jesus, the Romanian government was appointed by God, so those Christians must have been doing something wrong, perhaps rebelling:

Romans 13:1-5

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

That passage, BTW, makes my stomach turn for all the people (Christian or otherwise) who have been tortured and killed at the hands of immoral rulers. And Jesus says might makes right. Go Jesus go. Prick.

[you:]… logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature …

[me:]You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

[you:]Now you're just trying to duck the issue, and perhaps you don't understand what solipsism is, because this is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that only your mind is sure to exist.

What I am talking about is right in line with the video. Without God you don't have any ultimate justification not just for any kind of value, but even for your own reasoning. It is a direct implication of a meaningless existence. This is what I mean about a justifies b justifies c justifies d into infinity. You have nowhere to stake a claim which can justify anything which you experience, or even your own rationality. If you feel you do, please demonstrate why you believe your reasoning is actually valid.

Then you've entirely missed the point of me making those rules back at Qualiasoup v. Craig.

We agreed not to question the validity of our senses. If I can trust my senses, then I am self-aware. I must assume I'm a rational agent, since it was my own rational awareness that defined my self. If I'm a rational agent, then I can trust logic, which Craig tells us in the same video is a rational thing to do.

If your whole argument is, "a god must exist for you to be able to use logic" then I put it to you to show me logically (and not tautologically) why that must be true. To me, there's no connection.

I still don't see the infinite regression. Give me a real example of it in the form a justifies b which justifies c....

Also, what's "uniformity in nature" and when do I ever appeal to it?

>> ^gwiz665:

It's like saying warmongering peace.
>> ^hpqp:
quality breakdown of what secularism means, and why it's ridiculous to whine about supposedly "militant secularism".

I beg to differ on the semantics.


Militant: "vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"
A "militant secularist" might be someone who actively seeks out examples of theism (such a prayer, acknowledgment of a divine power, or symbols of theist holidays in government settings) in order to protest, or one that continues their opposition despite broad support for theist behavior in the affected community. You can determine for yourself if this type of action is objectionable or laudable, but I think it's entirely possible to be a "militant secularist".

It's like saying warmongering peace.
>> ^hpqp:

quality breakdown of what secularism means, and why it's ridiculous to whine about supposedly "militant secularism".

*equality and *gay as well. Very good talk, as usual coming from QualiaSoup.

@shinyblurry

What spirit do you believe in if you don't believe in anything supernatural?

These don't form my "faith", per se, but my best educated guesses or hunches at the moment. I rarely verbalize my beliefs on these matters, so it probably won't come out too coherently, but heregoes:

All the experiences that humans have are part of the natural condition of being human, and are ultimately caused by something in nature and in our natures, not by anything supernatural. I don't believe there are any higher powers necessarily, though our knowledge of what happened more than 14 billion years ago is nil, and there is so much yet undiscovered, so really, anything could be there. I don't think we had a conscious creator. I don't believe there are any superior entities that interfere with the universe at all, and none have a personal interest in us.

Any spirituality I have, therefore, stems from experiences as a human only. I believe conditions like nirvana probably exist and are achievable with great concentration and effort. I believe that faith in something helps it become real, and lack of faith hinders it. This includes health and psychological matters, as well as attracting success or failure in your endeavours.

I think that humans probably don't actually have free will, but considering how complex a question that is (the sum of all laws that govern everything in the universe), it's better for me to interact with the world as if we do. I believe that the the closest thing a person has to a "calling" or a "true path" is to be true to themselves, find their own person, and let it express itself perfectly in the world. This can be done by achieving mental calmness and following your heart and what feels right [edited]. In a state of mental calmness, your heart will never misguide you. There is no single correct expression of a person, just as there is no single correct "good" thing to do at every given moment. It can be suppressed by the self or others, and this suppression always causes unhappiness, which causes people to do bad things to others and themselves. True happiness and fulfilment can only come from feeling free to express who you really are. That to me is the human spirit.

Words do have meaning, and I would suggest, considering the content of our previous conversations, that your conclusion is based on the many misconceptions and misunderstandings you have about scripture.

You're quoting the Bible at me as if I already accept that it's true. I don't. If I were to interpret that passage's spirit into my spiritual framework, it would say that humans usually cannot have numinous experiences unless they are very much in tune with their true selves, and let that spirit flow through them and guide their actions, and leave the ego out.

I will also note that these objections are always concerning the Old Testament, a lot of which applied only to Israel and not to Christianity.

I'm not talking about the laws. I now understand that they no longer apply. I'm talking about the historical account of events. I don't understand how the OT could have been accurate and the word of God before Jesus, but then suddenly ceased to be after. Either a book is God's word and it's true, or it's not. And a god's word should not be something ephemeral. Its truth value cannot change ever. So, either God did all those horrible things in the OT that are ascribed to him, or he didn't. If he didn't, then the OT is wrong.

Instead of considering the words of Jesus on their own merit, skeptics try to do an end run around Him and undermine the OT so they can dismiss Him entirely. [edit: didn't insert this quote in the first draft]

I don't know everything that Jesus preached, but I consider him to be probably the best moral philosopher I've ever heard of, at least in broad strokes.

Actually, statistically, it would be the people who are unaware that there is a supernatural reality who would be considered defective.

Statistics don't determine fact. I thought you told me you were a scientist before your conversion.

There is no evidence that your scenerio is true, it is actually only your confirmation bias at work; you had an issue where you believed something was going on which wasn't true, and then you unjustifiably extrapolated that to everyone elses spiritual experience. That just doesn't follow.

Are you going "lalala" with your hands over your ears? That's not what I said at all. Fact: there are lots of people besides me and you around the world who have transcendental experiences. Fact: they often identify the entity in their experience as a divinity from a particular religion. Fact: they are just as fervent about what they believe as you are about what you believe. If you agree that those are facts, then I don't see how you can tell me that your interpretation of your experience must be the correct one and all those other people's are false ones. Logically, this is strong evidence that your interpretation is not necessarily accurate, and may in fact represent something in the human condition caused naturally.

What I know and you don't know is that most everyone who claims to be speaking to a real entity actually is speaking to one.

How could you know this? Are you in their minds? Did God give you some statistical data?

There are superior beings, fallen angels, whose only purpose is to convince people, usually with supernatural signs and evidence, that anything but Jesus Christ is the truth. They have invented uncounted false religions, cults, spiritual systems, philosophies, etc, to blind human beings to the light of Christ. The people who believe in them are not just deluded, they are deceived.

How can you say that your revelation is the truth, and that all these other people's revelations are false? They would tell me with equal fervency that theirs is real and all the others are false. Saying yours is necessarily right is illogical. I mean, what separates you from these other people that got fooled by what you think are false visions? How do you know you haven't been fooled too? I mean, if they can get fooled, why can't you? Are you smarter? Stronger? What?

Is it possible we're all plugged into the matrix? Sure. Is it possible the Universe started five seconds ago and all of our memories are false? Sure.

We agreed back at Qualiasoup vs. Craig not to introduce solipsistic arguments.

I presuppose that God created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Do you have other evidence besides your relationship with Jesus? What is it?

Now I'm paraphrasing the Imam: "I presuppose that Allah created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Allah through the teachings of his prophet Mohammed (PBUH)."

What's the difference between the two of you? How can you say you're right and he's wrong?

Now me: "I presuppose that reality is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. My presupposition is not justified in any way. It just makes my experience of life more meaningful."

+1 on motion sickness.

The only atheists I consider dogmatic are the ones that believe no gods can possibly exist (I've met a few), though I suppose that depends on the definition of "gods". For some reason that group (definite belief against) seems to be what many think of as "atheists".

I think QualiaSoup has one of the best descriptions of "lack of belief": http://videosift.com/video/Lack-of-belief-in-gods

Trivia: TheraminTrees is QualiaSoup's brother, and both make excellent videos on religion and the mind (while sharing that soothing voice).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evolution, creationists, complexity, darwin, debunking' to 'evolution, creationists, complexity, darwin, debunking, qualiasoup' - edited by xxovercastxx

Except QualiaSoup's argument doesn't rest on ad hominem attacks. You're pointing to the single use of a word, "pseudoscientific," which in context (about 4:23) was used as "Some anti-evolutionists repeat an argument put forward by Michael Behe - an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement..." (and again, no mention of the word fraud, that was your own addition). That is simply not an ad hominem fallacy, since he is not attacking Behe's character. Perhaps it's just you who interprets it as such? If we're going to debate semantics here, the word "pseudoscience" has a formal definition (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudoscience) that, while pejorative, is still not an ad hominem attack against Behe. QualiaSoup used it as an adjective to describe intelligent design, suggesting that it does not conform to the principles of the scientific method. Which is a true statement. It doesn't. QualiaSoup is not questioning Behe's wealth or IQ or sexuality or what Behe's mother did last night or any other personal quality completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Ad hominem = "to the man" - Behe the man is not under attack. Behe's beliefs/opinions are.

Behe's scientific knowledge and work can absolutely be isolated from his pseudoscientific beliefs/advocacy. Isaac Newton sought ways to perform alchemy, does that mean his contributions to fundamental physics are invalid or that it's an ad hominem attack against him personally if I were to say that alchemy is pseudoscience?

Also, would it help put your mind at ease that QualiaSoup isn't blowing smoke out of his ass if a noted and widely published evolutionary scientist like Richard Dawkins made the exact same argument years ago?

>> ^bmacs27:

There was a reason I put pseudoscientific in quotes, and left fraud out of quotes. Calling him pseudoscientific implies he is a fraud, as he claims to be a scientist. It is ad hominem. An appeal to accomplishment is a valid response to an argument that rests on ad hominem attacks.
Further, as far as logical fallacies go, particularly within science, an appeal to expertise hardly seems inappropriate. In fact happens all the time. That's why courts employ expert witnesses, and we accept the recommendations of grants reviewed by peers not laymen. While there is of course always room for arguments from evidence, in the absence of such we generally defer to the intuitions of experts.
There are plenty of arguments that suggest the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction could have evolved. Why not make them?

Where in the video does he call Behe a "fraud"? I was listening for it and it never came. Calling Behe "pseudoscientific" is not an ad hominem attack.

Furthermore, the suggestion that QualiaSoup's arguments and logic are insufficient because you don't see journal publications with his name attached to them is a red herring fallacy of its own - Appeal to Accomplishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment).

>> ^bmacs27:
Instead, by writing him off as a "pseudoscientific" fraud, or similar ad hominem attacks, they are guilty of equivalent logical fallacies, and should be given equivalent respect. The guy is actually a scientist, with publications in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Journal of Molecular Biology, and the Journal of Biophysiology, on topics like DNA and protein structure. Frankly, unless there is a CV somewhere I can see for these qualia-soup people, Behe has them trumped on credentials, so they might avoid the ad hominem, and critique the substance of the actual arguments put forth.

QualiaSoup's videos are always so refreshingly logical.

Hey, Sifters? I have a problem with you.

As most of you probably know by now, I'm a staunch anti-theist, and yet:

- Religion is not the root of all evil.
- Nothing is and nothing could ever be the "root of all evil". (Dawkins' words (paraphrased), not mine)
- To say that religion is the root of all evil is impossibly immature, it alienates the moderates and does not help the causes of rationality and science in the slightest, and Sifters ought to know by now that it's mostly extremists that see the world in black and white.
- Jesse Ventura is a paranoid conspiracy nut that just happens to have been influenced by someone to add religion to one of the batshit-insane ideas he subscribes to (Alex Jones, I'm looking at you).

Here's a couple of things Mr.Ventura believes in, via reddit:

* He thinks the Bilderberg Group controls the world and is looking to thin out the population through disease and vaccines. Also, they're going to KILL HIM, apparently.
* He thinks there's a weapon in Alaska that can change the weather, shoot down satellites or trigger global mind control.
* He thinks we're all gonna die in 2012 (except for the elite few who get to hide in bunkers).
* He thinks Big Brother is real.
* He thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

So please, don't upvote Jesse Ventura just because he happens to identify as an atheist, because his reasoning is inherently flawed. His view of the world is more similar to that of Jenny McCarthy rather than, say, Christopher Hitchens. You do upvote QualiaSoup's amazing videos because of his rational explanations of how one arrives at his beliefs (or lack thereof), don't you? So please, don't tolerate Ventura's 9/11 theories, just because he "bashes religion" - next time you see a clip of him venting, evaluate his line of thought and THEN cast a vote accordingly.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheism, theism, agnostic, indefensible, fervency, jury' to 'atheism, theism, agnostic, indefensible, fervency, jury, qualiasoup' - edited by gwiz665

Good to see you again too, it's been a while.

About the debate style, yeah, I'm not a huge fan either, the other atheist talkers, qualiasoup, thunderf00t, aronra, are better. She does make sense though, so all-in-all a positive.

"one of the worst titles"
Pfft. It could have been waay worse. And it brought it the "bang their drum" types. I suppose I should have gone with the more pedestrian "Hot Romanian Girl goes second round with Islam".

I would have changed it if people asked nicely (because I'm so goddamn nice), but they didn't so, well, fudg'em.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
Hey there mate, long time no see

Concerning the downvote, I never really liked her style of "debate", especially in this one (doesn't come close to QualiaSoup, and even he has demonstrated personal bias a couple of times) plus, it's one of the worst titles for a video that I've ever seen. I looked through the comments and obviously you weren't going to change the name, hence the downvote.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
A downvote for http://videosift.com/video/That-girl-with-the-rack-Second-round-with-Islam ?? But.. she has a rack and a good argument? There's just no pleasing you!!

Hey there mate, long time no see

Concerning the downvote, I never really liked her style of "debate", especially in this one (doesn't come close to QualiaSoup, and even he has demonstrated personal bias a couple of times) plus, it's one of the worst titles for a video that I've ever seen. I looked through the comments and obviously you weren't going to change the name, hence the downvote.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
A downvote for http://videosift.com/video/That-girl-with-the-rack-Second-round-with-Islam ?? But.. she has a rack and a good argument? There's just no pleasing you!!