Tuesday, August 23, 2016

[AvC] Re: Would it Matter



On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 7:22:11 PM UTC-4, Bret wrote:
  Atheists insist on proof of God but if they got it would it matter? I mean what then for an atheist? Would they suddenly want to cooperate with God'rules , probably not. Jesus had an interesting reply to the rich man who wanted to return from hell to warn his brother about his evil ways so he would not end up in hell too. Jesus said if he would not listen to the prophets he will not listen to a man who has come back from the dead. This seems a fairly amazing thing to say. But looking closer Jesus has a point. A supernatural event or miracle can be denied through excuses or ignored to continue ones consistent world view. This it is truer than you think. After a supernatural event a person is in shock for a while than he tries to be devout .He also gets very scared about the ramifications of what he now knows. After a while he has to put it in the back of his mind because it's just to much to deal with. We really don't deal with eternal truths very much. The confrontation of the reality of them can make life much more difficult. A bit of compartmentalizing occurs. A person gets good at simple things in life. There is a period of trying to get busy in the hustle and bustle of day to day life to forget. Some distance is needed unless a person comes from an intense religous or metaphysical inclination to begin with.Then there is a return to life somewhat as before but a little bit improved and a bit more conservational with God. The idea of the total turn around does happen at times , as it did with St. Paul on the road to Damascus, but I would not say it's the rule. The human mind has a hard time abandoning its core beleifs. Was Jesus implying miracles won't work. No not at all. He was saying its not just or primarily about miracles it's about faith in God. Without faith there will always be an excuse or an intentional denial of Gods words. In other words if Jesus walked on water in front of some New York Times journalists and MSNBC hosts the following report would be Jesus can't swim.

You were doing good until you came to that last sentence of the corrupt media not acknowledging Jesus walking on water.  That is when your Christian warrior ignorantly produced unfounded corruption of the media. Or the truth of your warrior "unfounded corrupt atheist" We will acknowledge gods, miracles, Jesus return or anything else you present with infallible evidence. It is sad that you allow your warrior faith to make up lies in your head about rational people. It is a type of mental illness. No different than any liar or thief.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Would it Matter



On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:40:17 AM UTC+2, Bret wrote:
  The question was if God was proven to you what would your reaction be. Would you listen to him or not. In other words would it matter.

Well, if I encountered what struck me as sufficient reason to believe that God exists, then I'd come to believe that God exists and then I'd weigh up how to respond to that situation.

But as Kent points out our ideas of what wound count as sufficient reason might be a little bit different to yours.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Judge dismisses ACLU suit against Kim Davis



On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:05:28 AM UTC+2, Dingbat wrote:

What exactly is the claim that Kim Davis is making? Her religious views require her not to solemnise same-sex marriages? How did she prove that? Did she cite scripture or the teachings of her church? How do you go about proving such a claim?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Would it Matter

The question was if God was proven to you what would your reaction be. Would you listen to him or not. In other words would it matter.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Interesting paper on the consequences for ethics of the universe being infinite



On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:09:44 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 5:14:16 PM UTC-6, spectacular8360 wrote:


> On Aug 20, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "But indeed it [physics, ethics] is a human idea and as John says local. If your concept of ethics depends on what happens on the far side of the universe it has severe problems" -Kent
>
> Two thoughts.
>
> 1. From the fact physics is local -- if indeed it is -- it does not follow ethics is local.
>
> 2. An ethics that did not depend on "what happens on the far side of the universe", because it did not depend on what happens, because it is not a cnsequantialist ethics, would not necesarilly be local.  It remains to be demonstrated all non-consequentialist ethics are local.    If, for example, it is always and everywhere wrong to condemn an innocent man to death, why should it matter where in the universe this injustice occurs?

If ethics is universal, as you seem to be implying, why are there so many conflicting sets of ethics, both locally and universally? There are no more than a small handful of ethical standards that most people in the world agree on--and even then there are differences in their standards. How can you claim that ethics is universal? Every ethical standard known to man contains ifs, ands, buts and maybes.

A classic thought experiment is to answer the question. The question: "If you could
push a button that would anonymously lead to the murder of an unnamed, unknown person in China, and you
would receive a huge cash award, say $1 million, would you push the button.?"  If not, is there any condition
under which you would push the button? What would that be?

If I knew I could stop them from doing permanent  damage to an innocent human being. Kill the predator to save the innocent.



 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Judge dismisses ACLU suit against Kim Davis

http://www.bpnews.net/47427/kim-davis-suit-dismissed-but-challenges-persist

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Would it Matter

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 4:22:11 PM UTC-7, Bret wrote:
> Atheists insist on proof of God but if they got it would it matter? I mean what then for an atheist? Would they suddenly want to cooperate with God'rules , probably not. Jesus had an interesting reply to the rich man who wanted to return from hell to warn his brother about his evil ways so he would not end up in hell too. Jesus said if he would not listen to the prophets he will not listen to a man who has come back from the dead. This seems a fairly amazing thing to say. But looking closer Jesus has a point. A supernatural event or miracle can be denied through excuses or ignored to continue ones consistent world view. This it is truer than you think. After a supernatural event a person is in shock for a while than he tries to be devout .He also gets very scared about the ramifications of what he now knows. After a while he has to put it in the back of his mind because it's just to much to deal with. We really don't deal with eternal truths very much. The confrontation of the reality of them can make life much more difficult. A bit of compartmentalizing occurs. A person gets good at simple things in life. There is a period of trying to get busy in the hustle and bustle of day to day life to forget. Some distance is needed unless a person comes from an intense religous or metaphysical inclination to begin with.Then there is a return to life somewhat as before but a little bit improved and a bit more conservational with God. The idea of the total turn around does happen at times , as it did with St. Paul on the road to Damascus, but I would not say it's the rule. The human mind has a hard time abandoning its core beleifs. Was Jesus implying miracles won't work. No not at all. He was saying its not just or primarily about miracles it's about faith in God. Without faith there will always be an excuse or an intentional denial of Gods words. In other words if Jesus walked on water in front of some New York Times journalists and MSNBC hosts the following report would be Jesus can't swim.



It is not proof we want but evidence, for example a clear correlation between praying for the sick the sick being healed. One off miracles are on the whole not very convincing because basically they are one off and too easy to account for by non supernatural means.

We have two sets of models for how the universe works; one set with God, one set without. Now the question is do the models that assume God exists make testable predictions that differ from the models with no God? If so have what are the predictions and have they been tested?

I would say that to date the with God models lack a significant track record of successful predictions. Indeed the whole God works in mysterious ways is an attempt to explain why there is no track record of sucessful predictions and why one must rely on faith.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.