Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Morality demands, and materialistic naturalism has no demands, nor a means of providing them.

Hume's Law is no less a problem for theistic beliefs than it is for materialistic naturalism.

In reality, morality can be derived from values that we hold, even while we ask ourselves why we hold them, or whether we ought to hold different values.

 

[Theunis]

You used a site using the same flawed logic as you to explain your view. It didn't help your case at all since AIG is dishonest and uses flawed logic in order to maintain its literialism.

Thus you claim dust is not a component of this earth

 

[Theunis]

Read your own source.

Try reading paragraphs 2 + 3 under his "Career" and further on. Yes dear boy he believed some things and rejected others !

 

[Theunis]

None argument. All your are doing is complaining that I pointed out flaws in your logic and questioned your knowledge of it rather than working on your argument better

Nope you asked if I know what "specific" means. I then specifically used specific but apparently your comprehension of my non-American and non-British English confuses you and then you duck and dive

 

[Theunis]

No idea if the lecturer did or not. Could of been scrambled before or after.

So he liked the way I applied it so what now!

 

[Theunis]

Red herring. Pitdown Man is a known fraud and has nothing to do with modern evolution. Evidence of evolution has been increasing while your idea has not.

What idea is this - that evolution has produced fraudulent evidence is nought.? It appears in no way it bothers you. Well how many other unrevealed fraudulent things do they hide in their cupboard? One may be sceptical about their findings. Go check out the Madagascar Clay Digs

 

[Theunis]

When you produce more than a wiki page you never bothered to read we can talk. Until then you still have nothing backing your view

Quite evasive wot - Oh was it the one you did not bother to read in full and then tried some strawman tactics.

 

[outhouse]

from any perspective morality is the system used to distinguish or judge between good and evil actions.

Correct

Also, not sure what you mean by from a Christian perspective,

In that you believe your god demands morality from you

Materialistic Naturalism simply lacks the ability to provision such judgement.

I don't see how anyone could claim that.

People are born with sense of right and wrong, and society often has standards that dictate good from bad.

 

[leibowde84]

Correct



In that you believe your god demands morality from you



I don't see how anyone could claim that.

People are born with sense of right and wrong, and society often has standards that dictate good from bad.

And, this can be seen clearly by the fact that different societies often have different judgments as to what is "right" and "wrong".

 

[Shad]

Quite evasive wot - Oh was it the one you did not bother to read in full and then tried some strawman tactics.

Not evasive at all since I read your link and it openly states using the conclusion as premise is begging the question.

What idea is this - that evolution has produced fraudulent evidence is nought.? It appears in no way it bothers you. Well how many other unrevealed fraudulent things do they hide in their cupboard? One may be sceptical about their findings. Go check out the Madagascar Clay Digs

Irrelevant red herring. Evolution does not produce evidence as evolution is an idea not a person. Beside science is capable of discarding frauds and falsified ideas . You end with speculation. nothing solid.

You will have to provide a reference beyond a name so I can find the specific you are talking about instead of reading everything then attempt to find the point you didn't bother to make about your vague statement

So he liked the way I applied it so what now!

I question he grasp of logic.

Nope you asked if I know what "specific" means. I then specifically used specific but apparently your comprehension of my non-American and non-British English confuses you and then you duck and dive

No you turned a generalization which provides no specifics itself into one in an ad hoc manner which is just falalcious reasoning to save a belief from being falsified. I dodged nothing

Try reading paragraphs 2 + 3 under his "Career" and further on. Yes dear boy he believed some things and rejected others !

None of which contains a single scientific verified experiment. Believing is one thing. Show the believe has merit is completely different.

Thus you claim dust is not a component of this earth

Dust itself is not a component as it is made of components, atomic and chemical structures as particles. Dust is made of componenets, it is not a compon

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not sure how those are supposed to be mutually exclusive categories, but that's a side issue.

I'm not familiar with all of those religions, but all of the ones I even know a little about are chock-full of objective truth claims. Take Shinto: at its core, it's based on three ideas being factually true:

- kami literally exist
- kami have real effects in the physical world
- kami's effects on the physical world can be altered by human rituals

I'm really surprised that you put Religio Romana on that list. One of the things that becomes apparent when you study Roman history is just how superstitious the Romans were. Their religion had rituals for everything in order to accomplish very specific real-world goals. Do you think that when Roman generals would consult the sacred chickens, for instance, they were only honouring a pointless tradition and not trying to gain actual knowledge about the real-world future by supernatural means?

These don't seem to be objective truth claims, which stem from the intent to actively convince people to change their minds, and thus behaviors, from one belief to another. These are basic, largely unquestioned and unchallenged assumptions held by people raised in these cultures. In other words, cultural paradigms.

Hence why I specified that these religions aren't dependent on objective truth claims, even in the presence of them. The rituals themselves are far more central; the beliefs merely provide the framework, but aren't actually essential to the rituals' presence or effectiveness. For a modern, secular equivalent, I don't buy into the paradigm that the US is the "land of the free", but I still watch the Fourth of July fireworks. These aren't "pointless traditions"; the presense of such rituals is an essential part of human social behavior. Hence why I'd be willing to bet that there's plenty of Japanese folks who don't believe the Kami literally exist, and still gladly attend festivals and give offerings. Remember that Shinto is an oral folk religion, not a scriptural dogmatic one.

My childhood best friend recently got married. He and his wife had a Christian wedding. I still attended and was respectful, even though I'm not Christian. That was not "only honoring pointless tradition". It wasn't pointless to them, after all, therefore it wasn't pointless to me. We simply had different points.

It's important to remember something when reading history, especially of Europe: Christian sources, in particular, were really intent on making the superstitious, barbaric pagans look as dirty and uncivilized as possible when compared to the enlightened, intellectually-driven Christian Church (no, really: there's a reason Aristotle got the highest seat in Dante's Inferno. Modern intellectual elitism owes its entire existence to its most hated enemy, the Medieval Catholic Church). Even when the primary sources are pre-Christian, remember that even when it comes to Rome, Time has consumed far more than it preserved. Hence why I'm not surprised that their pre-Christian superstitions often get highlighted, as if we, or Medieval Christianity, as cultural wholes, were any less superstitious. We may not look to chickens' eating habits for omens, but we do seem to love our quick "fixes". (Or, heck, consider the still widespread superstitions among theater folks regarding Shakespeare's Macbeth ... oh, excuse me, "That Scottish Play" ... or since this is text, would M*cb*th be acceptable?)

...incidentally, from the Wikipedia page you link to:

However, on that particular morning of 249 BC, the chickens refused to eat – a horrific omen. Confronted with the unexpected and having to deal with the superstitious and now terrified crews, Pulcher quickly devised an alternative...

Combined with this statement from another website your page links to,

These ‘sacred chickens’ were revered for the power they conferred on those who heeded the predictions about the future that were gleaned from their eating behaviour.

I'm inclined to regard this as support for my own claim that these aren't so much objective truth claims as they are cultural paradigms. So engrained are they that the chickens refusing to eat did indicate defeat; or, more accurately, resulted in that defeat from crushed morale among the crew. The ill-omen fulfiled itself.

Of course, that illustrates the problem of having such paradigms exist so strongly even in life-or-death situations, but that's another side issue. Perhaps more relevant is that the confusion here could easily come from the fact that, while cultural paradigms are conceptually separate from objective truth claims, the former can take on the latter's role in certain circumstances. I certainly don't deny that. All I deny are the notions that these cultural paradigms are always objective truth claims, and that these paradigms, and thus religions, cannot exist or function without that role.

 

[Thief]

People are born with sense of right and wrong.......

I don't think so......
the first word we learn is .....no....
it comes to us as quickly as the name we are given.

 

[Mister Emu]

Hume's Law is no less a problem for theistic beliefs than it is for materialistic naturalism.

Non-materialistic philosophies at the least have avenues of addressing Hume, Materialism can only accede.

In reality, morality can be derived from values that we hold, even while we ask ourselves why we hold them, or whether we ought to hold different values.

You've reduced morality to preference, lost any meaningful ability to speak of good and evil, and I think have agreed with my original premise.

Also, I just find entirely lacking the idea that the great moral cry of the people is "stop liking what I don't like".

In that you believe your god demands morality from you

You are, of course, correct. However, that is not what I said; I said that morality makes demands of us.

I don't see how anyone could claim that.

People are born with sense of right and wrong, and society often has standards that dictate good from bad.

If inborn senses of right and wrong define morals we have nothing to say against the thief, the murderer or the rapist whose inborn sense tells them their crimes are okay.
If society dictates right and wrong there is not justification for decrying other societies' standards as evil or upholding others as good. There is no grounds for decrying human rights violations, the whole idea of universal human rights goes out the window.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Non-materialistic philosophies at the least have avenues of addressing Hume, Materialism can only accede.

That isn't true. At some point, you still have to make a leap based on your own values.

Depending on the god we're hypothesizing, maybe he has better insight into "what is" than we do, but this doesn't magically bridge the gap between "is" and "ought".

God is just another player in the game... another source of values (or "preferences", as you put it). If that isn't good enough for you when we're only talking about humans, how would adding God into the mix solve any of the purported problems you claim?

You've reduced morality to preference, lost any meaningful ability to speak of good and evil, and I think have agreed with my original premise.

I think we need to back up and define what "morality" actually means. If morality means anything at all, it's about the participants in the system of which it's concerned; IOW, it's concerned with human well-being. The values that humans hold nearly universally (e.g. life is generally preferable to death, pain is generally undesirable, freedom is generally desirable) are some of the facts that inform what makes up "well-being" for humans.

If an act results in a net harm to well-being, it's immoral. This is true even if we don't really have a good foundation for why people care so much about the things that make up well-being for humans. If someone wants to make an argument that humans should actually love death and pain, and hate freedom, they're welcome to do so (I'm not sure how they'd support their position, but they can try), but it doesn't change the fact that here and now, the vast majority of people don't want to be hurt and don't want to die if they can help it.

That's what I was getting at. Morality isn't a "preference", but since morality concerns human well-being, it has to take all the factors that affect human well-being, including their values, into account.

If you cause a person to feel pain, all else being equal, you cause that person harm because pain is undesirable to him; you also cause harm to everyone who loves that person because of what they value (i.e. the well-being of that person). This is true even if you don't have a clear idea of why someone loves the person in pain. Heck - it's even true if he shouldn't love that person but does anyway.

Also, I just find entirely lacking the idea that the great moral cry of the people is "stop liking what I don't like".

... as if "stop liking what I think my god doesn't like" is any better? What's your alternative?

 

[outhouse]

If inborn senses of right and wrong define morals we have nothing to say against the thief, the murderer or the rapist whose inborn sense tells them their crimes are okay.

I don't think their sense tells them that, they act knowing what they are doing is wrong, and do it anyway.

There is no grounds for decrying human rights violations, the whole idea of universal human rights goes out the window.

But men define that differently to some extent.

I said that morality makes demands of us.

I don't see it that way. I see it as a man made description of right and wrong.

What was moral 100,000 years ago, is probably not what we would call moral today.

 

[Mister Emu]

That isn't true. At some point, you still have to make a leap based on your own values.
...
God is just another player in the game

No, I don't found morals in personal feelings, so I don't have to make a leap based on values. I have the luxury of positing a mind independent moral system. I can suggest the metaphysical reality of moral constants. Materialistic Naturalists can't.

God is the architect of the game, including morality.

I think we need to back up and define what "morality" actually means. If morality means anything at all, it's about the participants in the system of which it's concerned; IOW, it's concerned with human well-being. The values that humans hold nearly universally (e.g. life is generally preferable to death, pain is generally undesirable, freedom is generally desirable) are some of the facts that inform what makes up "well-being" for humans.

You've made several unfounded leaps here. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with or discourage them, but they are leaps and you do recognize that your punches, as it were, have no weight behind them, yes?

Even granting that materialistic naturalism is a given, you can't support the idea that morality even exists outside of the subjective minds of humans. That would actually defeat the purpose and run countrariwise to the given. Any manner in which you support your chosen definitions of morality can be used just as forcefully to support any other ethical stance.

This is true even if we don't really have a good foundation for why...
...I'm not sure how they'd support their position, but they can try

Why should you consider it even proper for you to expect support when you've hand-waived any responsibility you have to do the same?

it doesn't change the fact that here and now, the vast majority of people don't want to be hurt and don't want to die if they can help it.

You've just given me zero reason to consider that fact at all in making decisions.

That's what I was getting at. Morality isn't a "preference"

Yes, you've just defined morality to your convenience with no support other than that is what you prefer it to be.

What's your alternative?

Stop evil, love good.

Morality isn't about values, it is an intrinsic quality of our existence.

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't think their sense tells them that, they act knowing what they are doing is wrong, and do it anyway.

Will you really make me go through a list of evils? Are you suggesting in argument that no one inadvertently commits evil?

But men define that differently to some extent.

Therefore? Do you believe that human rights exist independently of society or do are they society's constructs and we have no grounds to demand them of different cultures?
I'm of the first bent.

I don't see it that way. I see it as a man made description of right and wrong.

And we're back to my original statement. If morality exists solely as a man made description, then right and wrong truly mean like and dislike or really, really, like and dislike. Morality is now opinion and we've lost the meaning. No difference between morals preventing murder and those preventing eating left handed.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Because G-d claims it .
Regards
paarsurrey said: ↑
I am as certain (or even more or most or absolute certain) that G-d exists as I am certain that I have a father or ancestors and distant ancestor fathers that existed million of years ago since inception. It must be one's assumption that God does not exist just out of one's being sceptic, else one should give one's evidence that God does not exist. Please don't enumerate any hypothetical/mythical names that one does not believe in oneself.
Regards

It is always the burden of those claiming that an entity exists to provide evidence to back up that claim. Asking to prove a negative is absurdly unreasonable.

I don't have any burden whatsoever on me of others. Please
Regards

 

[Thief]

It is always the burden of those claiming that an entity exists to provide evidence to back up that claim. Asking to prove a negative is absurdly unreasonable.

it is unreasonable to plea for evidence when you already know....
God is beyond such proving....
and all we have are our reasonings....

 

[Shad]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Because G-d claims it .
Regards
paarsurrey said: ↑
I am as certain (or even more or most or absolute certain) that G-d exists as I am certain that I have a father or ancestors and distant ancestor fathers that existed million of years ago since inception. It must be one's assumption that God does not exist just out of one's being sceptic, else one should give one's evidence that God does not exist. Please don't enumerate any hypothetical/mythical names that one does not believe in oneself.
Regards

I don't have any burden whatsoever on me of others. Please
Regards

Shifting burden of proof. You claim God exists, it is your burden to demonstrate this. I can merely reject your claims and so-called evidence you provide. Nothing more is required. You comparison is false since humans require sexual reproduction to multiple which is based on evidence from not just one culture but all cultures. This is not the case with God since many cultures have different ideas of God that differ drastically at times while there is no drastic difference when it comes to human reproduction.