Jews and atheism

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Is it any wonder that they cannot debate skeptics after being turned from critical readers to conformists by their authoritarian teachers? And this is just on stuff that everyone should agree on. I would like to see the look on the kid's face when he joins college and hears the Problem of Evil argument for the first time. 🙂

.[/b]

Debating in general is an art form. Not everyone is trained to do it. I think we have all been at the losing end of a debate only to realize afterwards that we were right all along so losing a debate does not necessarily mean you are wrong. In addition, sadly most people I have met that say they are Christian know next to nothing about the Bible nor their espoused faith. I'm sorry to hear you had such a bad experience in your church. No doubt, they would think me a heretic for my stance on evolution and the age of the universe.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But everyone can be privy to what God wants us to do or not do.

It's right there in black and white in the Bible.

(C'mon, you had to know that was coming.)

Yes, but I am grateful for the confirmation🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
Probably the rejection of the Son of God as their King. Or the evil
things Bobby Fischer could tell you about them if he were still alive.

P.S. But God still loves them anyway. How strange, isn't it?

Wait, God and Bobby Fischer were on the same side? 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and i have provided reasoning which seems to me to prove that you do oppose belief in
God, for you are willing to give credence to events that you have not observed but
state that because of lack of evidence (where in fact there is plenty of evidence) you
dont believe in God, why? well its possible that you dont want to or oppose the idea of a divine and intelligent creator.

So if I claim that you are evasive and deflective in a debate, that for you is an ad hominem attack.

It is my experience that you do not actually address the points or opinions of your fellow posters unless you either agree with them or find it is neutral with regard to your position.

My original post to you was a response to the assertion that atheists 'oppose the existence of god'. This is blatant nonsense as atheists simply assert that there is no objective evidence for god. You cannot be in opposition to something that you do not accept the existence of. It is similar to the accusation that atheists want to destroy god, they do not, how can they want to destroy something that there is no objective evidence for. If you have objective evidence robbie then post it!

You direct me to a video that you clearly have not watched and contains no evidence for the existence for god whatsoever , I can only assume that you did not realize that the title was written with a sarcastic pen in hand.

That is the kind of BS that I was referring to robbie, and it refers specifically to your tactics in debate and is in no way an attack on you in the wider sense. If I stated that I know you personally and that you are an habitual liar, thus rendering everything you say as suspect, then I would accept the ad hominem accusation. However I have witnessed you debating other aspects of life on these forums and you tend to be witty and enthused, it is only when you are trying to defend the impossible position of claiming that god exists outwith your own subjective experience that you let yourself down.

Originally posted by whodey
Debating in general is an art form. Not everyone is trained to do it. I think we have all been at the losing end of a debate only to realize afterwards that we were right all along so losing a debate does not necessarily mean you are wrong. In addition, sadly most people I have met that say they are Christian know next to nothing about the Bible nor their ...[text shortened]... No doubt, they would think me a heretic for my stance on evolution and the age of the universe.

Well, it wasn't all bad. On the whole, the people in my church were nice people. Through the church, I was given the opportunity to play music, participate in plays, and speak in front of people. Our youth group bought an old building and cleaned it up. We brought in a pool table, foosball table, and video games. I kept my drum set there, and me and my brother used to go jam at 12 in the morning [we had our own key to the place]. I had a lot of fun and made a lot of friends there.

But yeah, you would have been in trouble supporting evolution and an old earth. 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
Um, yeah, I get all that. I fully understand your point of view. You're just wrong, is all.

In fact it is a foundational cornerstone of my position that believing things that are false is dangerous as it can lead to making harmful decisions.

This is where your position falls apart. It is my position that I do not believe anything that is ...[text shortened]... from God is immoral. What a twist on the word immoral.

And that is why you are wrong.

Um, yeah, I get all that. I fully understand your point of view. You're just wrong, is all.

The beauty of a properly formulated logical argument is that if the premises are sound and the argument
is sound the conclusions must also be sound.

I presented a logical argument for why belief (in anything) based on faith is immoral.
Unless you can show that either my premises or my argument is logically faulty then I am not "just wrong".
I am in fact correct.

So here is the argument again in it's simplest form.
[for the purposes of this argument the word faith is here defined as being belief in a proposition without
evidence that justifies that proposition, or despite or in the face of, evidence that contradicts that proposition.]

Premise 1.
It is moral to try to make choices that do the least harm to others and do the most good for others.
So we should strive to make choices and decisions that cause the least harm and most good.


Premise 2.
Incorrect decisions will typically lead to suboptimal outcomes leading to more harm and less good than
correct decisions.


Premise 3.
We make decisions and choices based upon the beliefs we have about the way the world operates.

Correct beliefs about the world will lead to more decisions that best reflect reality. Correct decisions.

Incorrect beliefs about the world will lead to more decisions that don't best reflect reality. Incorrect decisions.


(correct and incorrect here being measured against the moral imperative of maximising good and minimising harm)

Premise 4.
Belief based on faith can and does lead to beliefs that are incorrect and to beliefs who's veracity [accuracy] cannot be established.


Therefore we can argue thusly.

Argument 1.
IF P1 "it is moral to try to minimise harm and maximise good."
AND
IF P2 "incorrect decisions typically lead to suboptimal outcomes."
THEN
Conclusion 1. "It is moral to try to minimise incorrect decisions and maximise correct decisions."
Or conversely
"it is immoral not to try to minimise incorrect decisions and maximise correct decisions."


Argument 2.
IF C1 "It is moral to try to minimise incorrect decisions and maximise correct decisions."
AND
IF P3 "The number of correct or incorrect decisions we make is based upon the accuracy of our view of reality."
THEN
Conclusion 2. "It is moral to try to maximise the accuracy of our view of reality."
Or conversely
"It is immoral not to try to maximise the accuracy of our view of reality."


Argument 3.
If P3 "The number of correct or incorrect decisions we make is based upon the accuracy of our view of reality."
AND
IF P4 "Belief based on faith can and does lead to beliefs that are incorrect and to beliefs who's veracity [accuracy] cannot be established."
THEN
Conclusion 3. "Belief based on faith can and will lead to incorrect decisions based on an inaccurate view of reality."


Argument 4.
If C1 "It is moral to try to minimise incorrect decisions and maximise correct decisions."
AND
IF C2 "It is moral to try to maximise the accuracy of our view of reality."
AND
IF C3 "Belief based on faith can and will lead to incorrect decisions based on an inaccurate view of reality."
THEN
Conclusion 4. "It is immoral to believe a proposition about reality based on faith"


To demonstrate that this conclusion is not justified you need do demonstrate that either my premises are incorrect.
and/or that the argument following them is incorrect.

If you can't do either then you have no logical or rational choice but to accept the conclusion that
"It is immoral to believe a proposition about reality based on faith"

Your next line:
[quote]Intentionally doing so or not taking reasonable precautions to prevent you doing so is thus immoral.

indicates that you think that not preventing me from believing what I believe is immoral.
I think that is perfectly ghastly, actually. Not that you will succeed, but that you think not trying to turn me from God is immoral.
What a twist on the word immoral.[/quote]


I wouldn't and don't put it like that.

I believe that not trying to convince you that belief based on faith is immoral.
Or rather that it is immoral not to try to get society as a whole to see that belief based on faith is immoral.

The word 'preventing' implies a degree of coercion or force which I would consider both impractical and in of itself immoral.

I would very much like to convince you (and the world at large) that you are wrong, but that is entirely not the same as
trying to force you to believe that you are wrong or to try to prevent you from believing based on faith.

Which I don't think is even possible even if it were desirable.

And that is why you are wrong.

No you have presented no argument that holds water for why I am wrong or presented any refutation or rebuttal of my argument.

All you have done is stated that you think I am wrong which we knew before hand.

Unless you can refute or rebut my argument by showing my reasoning is incorrect or by undermining or falsifying one or more premise then
my argument stands and you are in fact wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Um, yeah, I get all that. I fully understand your point of view. You're just wrong, is all.

The beauty of a properly formulated logical argument is that if the premises are sound and the argument
is sound the conclusions must also be sound.

I presented a logical argument for why belief (in anything) based on faith is immoral.
Un ...[text shortened]... hen
my argument stands and you are in fact wrong.

I think that your argument admits of a strong version (faith, as you have defined it for purposes of the inference, leads to incorrect/inaccurate judgments), and a weaker version (faith leads to judgments the accuracy/correctness of which is indeterminate)—I have put those parenthetical statements in my own words, not as any critique of your word choice, but just to help with my own thought process.

Under the weaker version, arriving at a correct judgment could simply be a random event. Since one should want to maximize the probability of arriving at a determinate correct judgment in order to maximize the good and minimize the harm, knowingly opting for a strategy that does not maximize the probability of a determinate correct judgment is itself immoral (paraphrasing from your inference).

Now, that the probability of actually arriving at correct (maximize good, minimize evil) judgments is less under the “faith strategy” needs to be demonstrated; otherwise you cannot rule out the possibility that “empirical strategy” may lead to judgments that are also subject to random distribution, say, because of a generally poor interpretation of the relevant empirics (observations). I suspect that can be demonstrated—but I don’t think piles of anecdotal evidence (on either side of the argument) are sufficient. The same for the stronger version. I want to stress, what you make clear, that you are not saying that “all” judgments under either strategy will be either inaccurate or accurate—which is why an anecdotal list, in my view, would not constitute a defeater.

In other words, what seems to remain is demonstrating (deductively or empirically) a causal link between the strategy adopted (“faith” versus “empirical” ) and the accuracy/correctness of the judgments; I don’t think that the argument can rest on “self-evidence”.

Good stuff. Now I have to go do chores… 🙁

Originally posted by vistesd
I think that your argument admits of a strong version (faith, as you have defined it for purposes of the inference, leads to incorrect/inaccurate judgments), and a weaker version (faith leads to judgments the accuracy/correctness of which is indeterminate)—I have put those parenthetical statements in my own words, not as any critique of your word choice, but ...[text shortened]... k that the argument can rest on “self-evidence”.

Good stuff. Now I have to go do chores… 🙁

Indeed you are correct.

However I am quite prepared to demonstrate the efficacy of science and reason vs faith in
coming to an accurate picture of the world in the event that someone contests that premise.


I take it as a given because I believe that it has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable
doubt that science provides a more accurate and reliable picture of the world than faith based
belief.


There are a host of concepts and ideas that I take as given in my premises.


I am happy and capable (I think) of defending all of them in the event that someone disagrees with them.

Otherwise I would not be making the argument.


I admit that most Creationists and general purveyor's of Woo are not convinced of the efficacy of science
in describing the reality we live in however that position is not I believe reasonable or defensible to take
in the light of the knowledge and technological ability enabled by science and the lack thereof enabled
by faith based belief.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, it wasn't all bad. On the whole, the people in my church were nice people. Through the church, I was given the opportunity to play music, participate in plays, and speak in front of people. Our youth group bought an old building and cleaned it up. We brought in a pool table, foosball table, and video games. I kept my drum set there, and me a ...[text shortened]... ds there.

But yeah, you would have been in trouble supporting evolution and an old earth. 🙂

That is because evolution is not true.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Look, it is the very same living, just God who put the Jews through the Holocaust as the living, just God who put them through the Babylonian Exile.

The Jews have a long history of disobeying God, to their extreme peril.

God is now bringing Jews back to the new nation of Israel that was
created in a day with a new people just as he foretold.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is because evolution is not true.

Broken record much.

We all know that you are indoctrinated into believing this but do you really have to constantly
say so over and over again?

You are not adding anything to the debate here by simply stating your already well known
position over and over again with no supporting argument.

Particularly where it is pretty irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Indeed you are correct.

However I am quite prepared to demonstrate the efficacy of science and reason vs faith in
coming to an accurate picture of the world in the event that someone contests that premise.


I take it as a given because I believe that it has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable
doubt that science provides a more accurate and ...[text shortened]... technological ability enabled by science and the lack thereof enabled
by faith based belief.

I see you are still ignoring the evidence for the truth of the Holy Bible
and the existence of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I see you are still ignoring the evidence for the truth of the Holy Bible
and the existence of God.

Because you still have not provided any.

I have explained what constitutes evidence to you before and yet you continue to present
stuff that doesn't even come close.

There is no evidence for the 'truth of the bible' or the existence of your god (or any god)
and there is in fact quite a lot of evidence that the bible is in fact not true and that your god
does not in fact exist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because you still have not provided any.

I have explained what constitutes evidence to you before and yet you continue to present
stuff that doesn't even come close.

There is no evidence for the 'truth of the bible' or the existence of your god (or any god)
and there is in fact quite a lot of evidence that the bible is in fact not true and that your god
does not in fact exist.

There is no evidence that the Holy Bible is not true or God does not exisit or evolution is true according to your criteria for evidence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Indeed you are correct.

However I am quite prepared to demonstrate the efficacy of science and reason vs faith in
coming to an accurate picture of the world in the event that someone contests that premise.


I take it as a given because I believe that it has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable
doubt that science provides a more accurate and ...[text shortened]... technological ability enabled by science and the lack thereof enabled
by faith based belief.

Your post just stimulated my own thought. 🙂 Aside from empirical demonstrations (which you can bring to bear better than I), I’m wondering if a reductio ad absurdum might be constructed, to show that adoption of a strategy that does not maximize causally determinate good judgments leads to absurd conclusions. But I haven’t had time to think it through.