Baptising a Child

[Sultan85]

Most people baptise their children at a very young age. By doing this, aren't you deciding what your child should believe in, instead of leaving it to be his or her choice?
When children are so young, their brain is not developed to tackle such hard issues, that we as adults cannot even come to agreement with. When you sell this story to children, they will easily believe in it (which could be a possible explanation to why anyone is religious at all). When doing this, you are by definition, indoctrinating a defenseless child; which I would argue is psychological abuse.


Question: Are Baptising and teaching religious doctrine to children morally wrong? On that grounds that it interferes with his freedom to choose.

[Kuan]

Whats biased about teaching your kids truth?

Is any religion that somebody may have necessarily true?

Does this include Atheism?

[LiamOS]

If it's the "There is absolutely no supreme being in any sense of the word that exists or can exist." then yes, it does.

If it's just the vague branch of vague non-Thiesm, then no. Because that doesn't count as religion at all.

[dianaiad]

As far as I'm aware, they don't use that Scientology machine..(can't for the life of me remember the name of the thing...'thetan remover?") on infants. Just sayin'...

Which makes Baptism worse... ?

I did say that I don't agree with infant baptism, right?

<snip to here>


[quote="AkiThePirateI also must ask, if you believe non-Christian children will go to hell(Do you?)[/quote]

Well, no...exactly the opposite, actually.

, would it not be a most horrid thing to allow children to be raised as non-Christians? IN that manner, they have absolutely no chance for salvation and it's all due to the choice of their parents.

(grin)

OK, here's the problem: first, you ARE talking to someone who believes that all children are born utterly innocent and who, if they die before they know the difference between right and wrong, go where innocents are supposed to go; heaven--which of course means that the above argument is not only missing the bulls eye, it's not even in the same room as the target.

Secondly, when parents teach their religion to their children, it's not just the ideas behind the religion that get taught; it's the 'why' and the 'how do you know?" of it. It has been my experience that religious faith is gained through a very different means than the scientific method; it's subjective, it's personal--and it's real. To force parents to refrain from teaching that to their children is like a deaf school board making it mandatory that parents and teachers ignore the sense of hearing in all things scholastic.

......and the only way to teach the 'religious' method of learning truth is to teach religion; the religion one believes to be the True religion. If parents do their jobs right, then the children grow up understanding that yes, their religion has Truth--but they also know how to go about finding it elsewhere, as well.

[LiamOS]

I did say that I don't agree with infant baptism, right?

Just checking that it was was you meant.

Well, no...exactly the opposite, actually.

At what point of development will non-Christians not go to heaven and why, by your beliefs?

OK, here's the problem: first, you ARE talking to someone who believes that all children are born utterly innocent and who, if they die before they know the difference between right and wrong, go where innocents are supposed to go; heaven--which of course means that the above argument is not only missing the bulls eye, it's not even in the same room as the target.

What about one as unfortunate as I, who is incapable of knowing right from wrong in that I must objectively know?

Secondly, when parents teach their religion to their children, it's not just the ideas behind the religion that get taught; it's the 'why' and the 'how do you know?" of it.

As a Catholic, I was given nothing more then assumption and assertion. Nobody ever told me why the Bible was the word of God, how they knew Jesus existed, how they knew miracles were indeed miracles, etc.

Perhaps your values are different, but children aren't exactly known for their objective and relentlessly sceptical enquiry.

It has been my experience that religious faith is gained through a very different means than the scientific method; it's subjective, it's personal

Too right.

and it's real.

How, may I ask, do you know this?

To force parents to refrain from teaching that to their children is like a deaf school board making it mandatory that parents and teachers ignore the sense of hearing in all things scholastic.

It would be if nobody had ever proven that sound existed.

and the only way to teach the 'religious' method of learning truth is to teach religion

How does one learn a truth religiously and how can this be verified to be correct?

[dianaiad]

I did say that I don't agree with infant baptism, right?

Just checking that it was was you meant.

Well, no...exactly the opposite, actually.

At what point of development will non-Christians not go to heaven and why, by your beliefs?

At the point at which they deliberately choose to do the wrong thing, understanding that it is the wrong thing, and not repent. At the base of it, that's the deal for everybody, Christian or not, I believe.

OK, here's the problem: first, you ARE talking to someone who believes that all children are born utterly innocent and who, if they die before they know the difference between right and wrong, go where innocents are supposed to go; heaven--which of course means that the above argument is not only missing the bulls eye, it's not even in the same room as the target.

What about one as unfortunate as I, who is incapable of knowing right from wrong in that I must objectively know?

Oh, unless you are an utter sociopath, you know the difference between 'right,' and 'wrong.' Trying to take it away from a specific religious and/or cultural base, I think that 'right' is anything that helps others or yourself learn something or be better, and 'wrong' is anything that hurts you or others in some way. What that means in any specific culture might change a bit, but the basics are there.

]Secondly, when parents teach their religion to their children, it's not just the ideas behind the religion that get taught; it's the 'why' and the 'how do you know?" of it.

As a Catholic, I was given nothing more then assumption and assertion. Nobody ever told me why the Bible was the word of God, how they knew Jesus existed, how they knew miracles were indeed miracles, etc.

Well, I never was a Catholic...but most of the Catholics I know talk about study, prayer, answer to prayer and faith.

Perhaps your values are different, but children aren't exactly known for their objective and relentlessly sceptical enquiry.

No, they aren't....that's one of the reasons we keep it simple for kids, and wait until they know (for instance) why it's wrong to steal something (other than 'I'll get into trouble if I do') before we baptize them.

However, it's a little like learning the piano; someone who waits until they are 20 before they begin to learn will probably never play at Carnegie Hall; you have to learn the basics when you are little. In terms of religion, you need to learn how to...feel...the answer to prayer early on. One can ALWAYS become a sceptic and throw that out, just as one can always stop playing the piano. It's harder to learn to use that aspect of one's life later. It can be done, of course, but it is harder.

]It has been my experience that religious faith is gained through a very different means than the scientific method; it's subjective, it's personal

Too right.

....and there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with that.

]and it's real.

How, may I ask, do you know this?

(grin) Nobody KNOWS anything, my friend. One only has faith in things..and that includes scientificly arrived at knowledge. I have a favorite example; I don't care how completely you understand the nature of a bridge; you may have studied archetecture for years, understand the principles of weight bearing support completely..perhaps even have built the bridge yourself and watched it hold people up for years, you still do not KNOW that it will hold you up until you have crossed it. Then you only know that it DID hold you up. You don't know that it will hold you up the next time. You DO, however, have a great deal of faith that it will; you believe in the evidence, so you excercise the faith, and you walk across it.

Nevertheless, someday someone will find that this bridge will not hold them up.

So. How do I know? Because I have had what I believe to be answers to my prayers about this, and accept that evidence as sufficient for my belief. That's how. It is subjective. It is not scientific--not transferable--and nevertheless, quite true.

You'll have to find your own, I'm afraid.

To force parents to refrain from teaching that to their children is like a deaf school board making it mandatory that parents and teachers ignore the sense of hearing in all things scholastic.

It would be if nobody had ever proven that sound existed.

Now, how could one prove that sound existed to someone without ears? There is an old saying about how in the country of the blind, a one-eyed man would be king--untrue. In that country, a one-eyed man would be--superfluous and probably at quite a disadvantage. Certainly he would never be able to prove that he could do something nobody else could; they would find other explanations.

]and the only way to teach the 'religious' method of learning truth is to teach religion

How does one learn a truth religiously and how can this be verified to be correct?

One follows the 'rules' set by the religion, and you will have to stop insisting that religious truth be verifiable by scientific means. That's a lot like insisting that one measure the blueness of the sky by weighing it, or using the Richtor scale to measure wind speed.

Doesn't work.

[LiamOS]

At the point at which they deliberately choose to do the wrong thing, understanding that it is the wrong thing, and not repent. At the base of it, that's the deal for everybody, Christian or not, I believe.

Is the decision not an inherent function of the person?
If your God made me the kind of person who chooses wrong, why should I be punished for it?

Oh, unless you are an utter sociopath, you know the difference between 'right,' and 'wrong.'

Can you give examples of things that are right or wrong?
I guess I'm a sociopath.

Trying to take it away from a specific religious and/or cultural base, I think that 'right' is anything that helps others or yourself learn something or be better, and 'wrong' is anything that hurts you or others in some way. What that means in any specific culture might change a bit, but the basics are there.

Why are those right and wrong?

Well, I never was a Catholic...but most of the Catholics I know talk about study, prayer, answer to prayer and faith.

I don't consider those answers. My mother is studying Catholic theology, and it's just absolutely packed with assumptions.

...and there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with that.

Religious experience being subjective to the degree it is would incline me to think that it's a problem with the mind rather than an aspect of reality.

you still do not KNOW that it will hold you up until you have crossed it.

If you know everything about it, you can know that it'll hold you up under certain circumstances.
Basic physics.

Nobody KNOWS anything, my friend. One only has faith in things..and that includes scientificly arrived at knowledge.

Does that justify wild assumptions?

Nevertheless, someday someone will find that this bridge will not hold them up.

Which could be known before their crossing too.

So. How do I know? Because I have had what I believe to be answers to my prayers about this, and accept that evidence as sufficient for my belief. That's how. It is subjective. It is not scientific--not transferable--and nevertheless, quite true.

What about the millions of Muslims who, by the same method, received completely conflicting revelations?

Now, how could one prove that sound existed to someone without ears?

By first defining what sound is, and then using an apparatus to detect waves of varying frequency and amplitude travelling through the air. Then, one could deduce a causal relationship between things that make sound and sound itself.
Easy.

you will have to stop insisting that religious truth be verifiable by scientific means.

Scientific or logical will do.
Popularity, subjective experience and subjective interpretation won't do it for me.

That's a lot like insisting that one measure the blueness of the sky by weighing it, or using the Richtor scale to measure wind speed.

Why can't religious things be demonstrable and repeatable? By not being so, they are 100% consistent with phenomenon that don't exist.

[dianaiad]

At the point at which they deliberately choose to do the wrong thing, understanding that it is the wrong thing, and not repent. At the base of it, that's the deal for everybody, Christian or not, I believe.

Is the decision not an inherent function of the person?

??? Careful, your Calvinism is beginning to show...

If your God made me the kind of person who chooses wrong, why should I be punished for it?

Yep, your Calvinism is showing. See, there is a huge problem when an atheist begins to argue theism with a theist. You are at such a disadvantage--after all, the theist already knows your position, but in order to combat theism, you have to understand exactly what sort of theist you are debating. For instance--for the above argument to work, you need to be arguing WITH a Calvinist, who indeed beleives that God is the grand Puppet Master of the Universe. Since I'm very much of the opinion that God is our Father, not our puppet carver, and that we do indeed have free will and the ability to excercise it, then of course---

Well, you see the problem, I'm sure.

Though you are correct: if I WERE Calvinist and a believer in predestination, your argument is a pretty good one.

]Oh, unless you are an utter sociopath, you know the difference between 'right,' and 'wrong.'

Can you give examples of things that are right or wrong?
I guess I'm a sociopath.

Really? I've never actually met one of those. Of course, I'm not all that certain that a real sociopath would understand exactly what that meant...

]Trying to take it away from a specific religious and/or cultural base, I think that 'right' is anything that helps others or yourself learn something or be better, and 'wrong' is anything that hurts you or others in some way. What that means in any specific culture might change a bit, but the basics are there.

Why are those right and wrong?

What would you describe these actions as? "Right" or "productive/positive' vs. 'wrong' or 'unproductive/negative'? Such perceptions do change according to culture, but there are some things that all cultures I know about agree on: it's not a good idea to eat your children, for instance. It's generally problematic to go around killing everybody you don't like. It's probably a good idea to tell the truth most of the time. People who work hard get more rewards than people who don't, as a rule. Families...however the culture defines them (whether by blood kin or formal groupings) ...are generally more successful in most cultures than single folk. Basic stuff like that.

These things are good things--and true things--no matter what misinformation might surround them. This is not 'everything is relative,' either. It's...some things seem to be foundational to human society. You might ascribe it to evolutionary adaptation and socialization. I call it Gods' rules. Whatever, they seem to be fairly standard.

]Well, I never was a Catholic...but most of the Catholics I know talk about study, prayer, answer to prayer and faith.

I don't consider those answers. My mother is studying Catholic theology, and it's just absolutely packed with assumptions.

I know. One does have to go back to the basics. Like "hello, God, are you there?"

]...and there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with that.

Religious experience being subjective to the degree it is would incline me to think that it's a problem with the mind rather than an aspect of reality.

Some people do think that, it is true.

you still do not KNOW that it will hold you up until you have crossed it.

If you know everything about it, you can know that it'll hold you up under certain circumstances.
Basic physics.

However, there is no real way of knowing if all those circumstances hold at any one particular instance. Just ask the folks in Bridgeport, Con a few years ago, who had their bridge drop out from under them when a car hit a truck containing 8000 gallons of fuel. Who expected that one? Or the folks in Minneapolis in 2007. People had to do some very fancy back tracking to figure out that problem--who expected that one? Just last year the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge failed; not the main bridge, but the repair that was supposed to FIX the bridge. Hmmn....

The point is, knowledge is absolute; anything less than absolute isn't knowledge. It's belief--and acting upon that belief is faith. The difference between belief in religion and belief in scientific evidence is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. The evidence can be rock solid and scientifically sound--but you can bet that someone is going to say...sorry, don't believe it. Evolution is a pretty good example of that one. (and yes, I am an 'evolutionist.' I have a Darwin fish right next to my CTR bumper sticker, just to mess with people's heads.)

Nobody KNOWS anything, my friend. One only has faith in things..and that includes scientificly arrived at knowledge.

Does that justify wild assumptions?

I never justify wild assumptions. Of course, you are going to have to define 'wild,' and 'assumption' for me.

Nevertheless, someday someone will find that this bridge will not hold them up.

Which could be known before their crossing too.

Hmn. Tell that to the over 100 people killed when the Hyatt REgency walk way collapsed in Kansas City.

Y'know, almost fifteen years ago now there was an earthquake 'round my way that collapsed a couple of freeway interchanges...killing a few people and pretty much isolating my not-so-little valley from greater LA. It was, of course, repaired and rebuilt; looks GREAT, all those arches swooping gracefully over the roadways. We have all been assured that it has been engineered to withstand earthquakes of the size that leveled the first set...

I take the dirt bound truck route most of the time, when I have to go 'down below' (to Los Angeles). Don't have any problem with bridges as a rule, though.

]So. How do I know? Because I have had what I believe to be answers to my prayers about this, and accept that evidence as sufficient for my belief. That's how. It is subjective. It is not scientific--not transferable--and nevertheless, quite true.

What about the millions of Muslims who, by the same method, received completely conflicting revelations?

Honest answer?
I believe that they recieved perfectly valid confirmation of truth. The problem is all the stuff that they surrounded those truths WITH, that might not be quite so. Of course, that's my opinion.

As well, yes...I do believe that people can be fooled. T'aint easy.

Now, how could one prove that sound existed to someone without ears?

By first defining what sound is, and then using an apparatus to detect waves of varying frequency and amplitude travelling through the air. Then, one could deduce a causal relationship between things that make sound and sound itself.
Easy.

Really?

First, you have to convince someone that there really is such a thing as sound, and then find an experiment that would accurately measure something you have no idea how to measure...and hope like the dickens that you aren't attempting to measure temperature with a yardstick.

The thing is, if one has no way of recieving sound, or any reason to use it, then how would one go about testing for it, nor knowing what it is you had when you did?

Shoot, it's only been very recently that we have figured out that elephants communicate by infrasound--it came as quite a shock, and we know about sound!

you will have to stop insisting that religious truth be verifiable by scientific means.

Scientific or logical will do.[/quote]

(snort) Sorry. One CAN use logic to figure out belief systems once a few assumptions are made...but for the basic premises, like 'does deity exist?" Not a chance.

[Popularity, subjective experience and subjective interpretation won't do it for me.

Your choice, of course. Works for me, though. I get the best of both worlds.

]That's a lot like insisting that one measure the blueness of the sky by weighing it, or using the Richtor scale to measure wind speed.

Why can't religious things be demonstrable and repeatable? By not being so, they are 100% consistent with phenomenon that don't exist.

How DOES one prove that it is love that causes a man to do things for his wife? How does one prove that Matisse is a better artist than Van Goghe, or vice versa? How do you prove that you love your children equally, even if one of them needs more...attention/care/stuff...than another one?

How in the world does one prove that the Flower Duet from Lakme is more beautiful than Claire de Lune?

How does one prove the Sublime, anyway?

[dianaiad]

At the point at which they deliberately choose to do the wrong thing, understanding that it is the wrong thing, and not repent. At the base of it, that's the deal for everybody, Christian or not, I believe.

Is the decision not an inherent function of the person?

??? Careful, your Calvinism is beginning to show...

If your God made me the kind of person who chooses wrong, why should I be punished for it?

Yep, your Calvinism is showing. See, there is a huge problem when an atheist begins to argue theism with a theist. You are at such a disadvantage--after all, the theist already knows your position, but in order to combat theism, you have to understand exactly what sort of theist you are debating. For instance--for the above argument to work, you need to be arguing WITH a Calvinist, who indeed believes that God is the grand Puppet Master of the Universe. Since I'm very much of the opinion that God is our Father, not our puppet carver, and that we do indeed have free will and the ability to exercise it, then of course---

Well, you see the problem, I'm sure.

Though you are correct: if I WERE Calvinist and a believer in predestination, your argument is a pretty good one.

]Oh, unless you are an utter sociopath, you know the difference between 'right,' and 'wrong.'

Can you give examples of things that are right or wrong?
I guess I'm a sociopath.

Really? I've never actually met one of those. Of course, I'm not all that certain that a real sociopath would understand exactly what that meant...

]Trying to take it away from a specific religious and/or cultural base, I think that 'right' is anything that helps others or yourself learn something or be better, and 'wrong' is anything that hurts you or others in some way. What that means in any specific culture might change a bit, but the basics are there.

Why are those right and wrong?

What would you describe these actions as? "Right" or "productive/positive' vs. 'wrong' or 'unproductive/negative'? Such perceptions do change according to culture, but there are some things that all cultures I know about agree on: it's not a good idea to eat your children, for instance. It's generally problematic to go around killing everybody you don't like. It's probably a good idea to tell the truth most of the time. People who work hard get more rewards than people who don't, as a rule. Families...however the culture defines them (whether by blood kin or formal groupings) ...are generally more successful in most cultures than single folk. Basic stuff like that.

These things are good things--and true things--no matter what misinformation might surround them. This is not 'everything is relative,' either. It's...some things seem to be foundational to human society. You might ascribe it to evolutionary adaptation and socialization. I call it Gods' rules. Whatever, they seem to be fairly standard.

]Well, I never was a Catholic...but most of the Catholics I know talk about study, prayer, answer to prayer and faith.

I don't consider those answers. My mother is studying Catholic theology, and it's just absolutely packed with assumptions.

I know. One does have to go back to the basics. Like "hello, God, are you there?"

]...and there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with that.

Religious experience being subjective to the degree it is would incline me to think that it's a problem with the mind rather than an aspect of reality.

Some people do think that, it is true.

you still do not KNOW that it will hold you up until you have crossed it.

If you know everything about it, you can know that it'll hold you up under certain circumstances.
Basic physics.

However, there is no real way of knowing if all those circumstances hold at any one particular instance. Just ask the folks in Bridgeport, Con a few years ago, who had their bridge drop out from under them when a car hit a truck containing 8000 gallons of fuel. Who expected that one? Or the folks in Minneapolis in 2007. People had to do some very fancy back tracking to figure out that problem--who expected that one? Just last year the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge failed; not the main bridge, but the repair that was supposed to FIX the bridge. Hmmn....

The point is, knowledge is absolute; anything less than absolute isn't knowledge. It's belief--and acting upon that belief is faith. The difference between belief in religion and belief in scientific evidence is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. The evidence can be rock solid and scientifically sound--but you can bet that someone is going to say...sorry, don't believe it. Evolution is a pretty good example of that one. (and yes, I am an 'evolutionist.' I have a Darwin fish right next to my CTR bumper sticker, just to mess with people's heads.)

Nobody KNOWS anything, my friend. One only has faith in things..and that includes scientifically arrived at knowledge.

Does that justify wild assumptions?

I never justify wild assumptions. Of course, you are going to have to define 'wild,' and 'assumption' for me.

Nevertheless, someday someone will find that this bridge will not hold them up.

Which could be known before their crossing too.

Hmn. Tell that to the over 100 people killed when the Hyatt REgency walk way collapsed in Kansas City.

Y'know, almost fifteen years ago now there was an earthquake 'round my way that collapsed a couple of freeway interchanges...killing a few people and pretty much isolating my not-so-little valley from greater LA. It was, of course, repaired and rebuilt; looks GREAT, all those arches swooping gracefully over the roadways. We have all been assured that it has been engineered to withstand earthquakes of the size that leveled the first set...

I take the dirt bound truck route most of the time, when I have to go 'down below' (to Los Angeles). Don't have any problem with bridges as a rule, though.

]So. How do I know? Because I have had what I believe to be answers to my prayers about this, and accept that evidence as sufficient for my belief. That's how. It is subjective. It is not scientific--not transferable--and nevertheless, quite true.

What about the millions of Muslims who, by the same method, received completely conflicting revelations?

Honest answer?
I believe that they received perfectly valid confirmation of truth. The problem is all the stuff that they surrounded those truths WITH, that might not be quite so. Of course, that's my opinion.

As well, yes...I do believe that people can be fooled. T'aint easy.

Now, how could one prove that sound existed to someone without ears?

By first defining what sound is, and then using an apparatus to detect waves of varying frequency and amplitude travelling through the air. Then, one could deduce a causal relationship between things that make sound and sound itself.
Easy.

Really?

First, you have to convince someone that there really is such a thing as sound, and then find an experiment that would accurately measure something you have no idea how to measure...and hope like the dickens that you aren't attempting to measure temperature with a yardstick.

The thing is, if one has no way of receiving sound, or any reason to use it, then how would one go about testing for it, nor knowing what it is you had when you did?

Shoot, it's only been very recently that we have figured out that elephants communicate by infrasound--it came as quite a shock, and we know about sound!

you will have to stop insisting that religious truth be verifiable by scientific means.

Scientific or logical will do.[/quote]

(snort) Sorry. One CAN use logic to figure out belief systems once a few assumptions are made...but for the basic premises, like 'does deity exist?" Not a chance.

[Popularity, subjective experience and subjective interpretation won't do it for me.

Your choice, of course. Works for me, though. I get the best of both worlds.

]That's a lot like insisting that one measure the blueness of the sky by weighing it, or using the Richter scale to measure wind speed.

Why can't religious things be demonstrable and repeatable? By not being so, they are 100% consistent with phenomenon that don't exist.

How DOES one prove that it is love that causes a man to do things for his wife? How does one prove that Matisse is a better artist than Van Gogh, or vice versa? How do you prove that you love your children equally, even if one of them needs more...attention/care/stuff...than another one?

How in the world does one prove that the Flower Duet from Lakme is more beautiful than Claire de Lune?

How does one prove the Sublime, anyway?

[LiamOS]

Careful, your Calvinism is beginning to show...

Well, to preface, if you pull the 'free-will' one, I'll require you to prove free will.

Regardless, it's quite evident that somebody raised to do the wrong thing, then they'll go and do that.

You are at such a disadvantage--after all, the theist already knows your position, but in order to combat theism, you have to understand exactly what sort of theist you are debating.

What makes you think that I don't?

Yep, your Calvinism is showing. See, there is a huge problem when an atheist begins to argue theism with a theist.

That I don't take free will as given?

For instance--for the above argument to work, you need to be arguing WITH a Calvinist, who indeed beleives that God is the grand Puppet Master of the Universe. Since I'm very much of the opinion that God is our Father, not our puppet carver, and that we do indeed have free will and the ability to excercise it, then of course

Well, then I guess I am requesting that you either provide evidence that humans have the power to override the laws of physics and do what would not have otherwise been done.
Also, if you accept the cosmological argument there is an inherent contradiction.

Well, you see the problem, I'm sure.

I see many. Do you?

Though you are correct: if I WERE Calvinist and a believer in predestination, your argument is a pretty good one.

Well, I can only hope that an inability to prove free will should cause you to reflect on the nature of your beliefs.

it's not a good idea to eat your children, for instance.

I'll have you know that my children taste fine, thank you very much.

What would you describe these actions as? "Right" or "productive/positive' vs. 'wrong' or 'unproductive/negative'? Such perceptions do change according to culture, but there are some things that all cultures I know about agree on: it's not a good idea to eat your children, for instance. It's generally problematic to go around killing everybody you don't like. It's probably a good idea to tell the truth most of the time. People who work hard get more rewards than people who don't, as a rule. Families...however the culture defines them (whether by blood kin or formal groupings) ...are generally more successful in most cultures than single folk. Basic stuff like that.

These things are good things--and true things--no matter what misinformation might surround them. This is not 'everything is relative,' either. It's...some things seem to be foundational to human society. You might ascribe it to evolutionary adaptation and socialization. I call it Gods' rules. Whatever, they seem to be fairly standard.

You have still not shown that anything is good or bad and/or why.

I know. One does have to go back to the basics. Like "hello, God, are you there?"

I did this quite a bit in my early teens when I really began to doubt Catholicism.
And here I am.

However, there is no real way of knowing if all those circumstances hold at any one particular instance. Just ask the folks in Bridgeport, Con a few years ago, who had their bridge drop out from under them when a car hit a truck containing 8000 gallons of fuel. Who expected that one? Or the folks in Minneapolis in 2007. People had to do some very fancy back tracking to figure out that problem--who expected that one? Just last year the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge failed; not the main bridge, but the repair that was supposed to FIX the bridge. Hmmn....

If you knew that a truck was going to explode, you could work it out.
It is possible to know how a system will behave to arbitrary precision with the physics of 100 years ago.

The point is, knowledge is absolute; anything less than absolute isn't knowledge. It's belief--and acting upon that belief is faith. The difference between belief in religion and belief in scientific evidence is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. The evidence can be rock solid and scientifically sound--but you can bet that someone is going to say...sorry, don't believe it. Evolution is a pretty good example of that one.

If one can define what they consider to be evidence and justify it, then you're set.
I don't accept vague, personal experience because I cannot justify that.

I never justify wild assumptions. Of course, you are going to have to define 'wild,' and 'assumption' for me.

In this context, an assumption is a belief one takes for which there is no available evidence. The assumption is usually taken such that it is self-consistent and has no apparent contradictions.
Wild would imply that logical clarity and consistency are not necessarily a part of that particular assumption.

Hmn. Tell that to the over 100 people killed when the Hyatt REgency walk way collapsed in Kansas City.

Gladly.

Y'know, almost fifteen years ago now there was an earthquake 'round my way that collapsed a couple of freeway interchanges...killing a few people and pretty much isolating my not-so-little valley from greater LA. It was, of course, repaired and rebuilt; looks GREAT, all those arches swooping gracefully over the roadways. We have all been assured that it has been engineered to withstand earthquakes of the size that leveled the first set...

I take the dirt bound truck route most of the time, when I have to go 'down below' (to Los Angeles). Don't have any problem with bridges as a rule, though.

I get what you're saying, but it is possible to know.
It isn't practically possible yet, but it's possible.

I believe that they recieved perfectly valid confirmation of truth. The problem is all the stuff that they surrounded those truths WITH, that might not be quite so. Of course, that's my opinion.

How do you explain those whom God apparently told to slaughter people? Simple interpretation can't really account for the exact opposite meaning.

Really?

First, you have to convince someone that there really is such a thing as sound, and then find an experiment that would accurately measure something you have no idea how to measure...and hope like the dickens that you aren't attempting to measure temperature with a yardstick.

The thing is, if one has no way of recieving sound, or any reason to use it, then how would one go about testing for it, nor knowing what it is you had when you did?

Shoot, it's only been very recently that we have figured out that elephants communicate by infrasound--it came as quite a shock, and we know about sound!

If I was in a community of deaf people who didn't believe in sound, I'd first define it.
I would then law out the predictions one would make if this phenomenon existed and then demonstrate these phenomenon.

Sorry. One CAN use logic to figure out belief systems once a few assumptions are made...but for the basic premises, like 'does deity exist?" Not a chance.

Which is why I'll only accept scientific evidence there. Why don't you think it's possible?

Your choice, of course. Works for me, though. I get the best of both worlds.

I can't think of an appropriate joke for this, but having made this statement I've little doubt that your mind did it for me.

How DOES one prove that it is love that causes a man to do things for his wife?

By demonstrating it and looking into the cause.

How does one prove that Matisse is a better artist than Van Goghe, or vice versa?

Define artist and define objective standards by which a good artist can be quantifiably measured.

How do you prove that you love your children equally, even if one of them needs more...attention/care/stuff...than another one?

How do you know you do to begin with?

If I had kids, I know for a fact that I would have a favourite.

How in the world does one prove that the Flower Duet from Lakme is more beautiful than Claire de Lune?

Ask 1 million men?

How does one prove the Sublime, anyway?

By defining and quantifying it such that it is not sublime.

[dianaiad]

Careful, your Calvinism is beginning to show...

Well, to preface, if you pull the 'free-will' one, I'll require you to prove free will.

Nope, I only have to prove that I believe in it.

I believe in it.

There. Proven.

Regardless, it's quite evident that somebody raised to do the wrong thing, then they'll go and do that.

True. However, they believe that it's the right thing, and in my own world view that counts until they discover that it isn't.

Even modern law recognizes intent in terms of assigning consequences to criminal activity, y'know.

You are at such a disadvantage--after all, the theist already knows your position, but in order to combat theism, you have to understand exactly what sort of theist you are debating.

What makes you think that I don't?

Because you are making arguments regarding religion to me, specifically, that simply don't work with my belief system.

Yep, your Calvinism is showing. See, there is a huge problem when an atheist begins to argue theism with a theist.

That I don't take free will as given?

No, that you are arguing against the truth of the existance of God because YOU don't take free will as a given. What in the world do you expect me to do, agree with you that God doesn't exist because a good God wouldn't punish people for doing what He created them to do?

The thing is, m'friend, I happen to agree with you that the God that would punish people for things He created them to do doesn't exist. Now what?

]For instance--for the above argument to work, you need to be arguing WITH a Calvinist, who indeed believes that God is the grand Puppet Master of the Universe. Since I'm very much of the opinion that God is our Father, not our puppet carver, and that we do indeed have free will and the ability to excercise it, then of course

Well, then I guess I am requesting that you either provide evidence that humans have the power to override the laws of physics and do what would not have otherwise been done.

Where do the laws of physics come in here? Free will does not equal omnipotence. It simply means that when there is more than one option available, we are free to choose among them; I believe this is true no matter how constrained our physical circumstances might be. For instance, the man bound, gagged and blindfolded, about to be shot, STILL has options he can choose between: does he pray? What does he think about? Does he lock his knees? There is always a choice--until one is unconscious or dead, there is always a choice, no matter how limited the selection.

[ Also, if you accept the cosmological argument there is an inherent contradiction.

Indeed?

]Well, you see the problem, I'm sure.

I see many. Do you?

evasion is counterproductive, sir.

Though you are correct: if I WERE Calvinist and a believer in predestination, your argument is a pretty good one.

Well, I can only hope that an inability to prove free will should cause you to reflect on the nature of your beliefs.

Why should I be forced to prove free will? I simply say that I believe in it. You seem to be convinced that we don't have it...which is rather strange given your argument against God by using that belief...so you prove that we don't have free will.

You are, after all, the one who insists upon scientific evidence for these things.

]it's not a good idea to eat your children, for instance.

I'll have you know that my children taste fine, thank you very much.

That's a lot of trouble to go through for this particular diet addition. Expensive, too.

]What would you describe these actions as? "Right" or "productive/positive' vs. 'wrong' or 'unproductive/negative'? Such perceptions do change according to culture, but there are some things that all cultures I know about agree on: it's not a good idea to eat your children, for instance. It's generally problematic to go around killing everybody you don't like. It's probably a good idea to tell the truth most of the time. People who work hard get more rewards than people who don't, as a rule. Families...however the culture defines them (whether by blood kin or formal groupings) ...are generally more successful in most cultures than single folk. Basic stuff like that.

These things are good things--and true things--no matter what misinformation might surround them. This is not 'everything is relative,' either. It's...some things seem to be foundational to human society. You might ascribe it to evolutionary adaptation and socialization. I call it Gods' rules. Whatever, they seem to be fairly standard.

You have still not shown that anything is good or bad and/or why.

Oddly enough, I think I did. "Good" = acts that produce positive results for others and oneself; "bad" = acts that result in harm to others or to oneself, either physically or culturally. I'm attempting to leave eternal consequences out of the mix, here.

]I know. One does have to go back to the basics. Like "hello, God, are you there?"

I did this quite a bit in my early teens when I really began to doubt Catholicism.
And here I am.

Yep, here you are, absolutely convinced that asking such a question results in no answer. Please forgive me, but given my own experiences, I tend to think that this might be the result of...not knowing what you were listening for, or not trusting the answer; rather like that old joke about the minister who was shipwrecked, and prayed to God for rescue?

I'm sure you've heard this one; a rowboat comes by and the minister refuses the ride, saying that God was going to rescue him. Then a submarine comes by, and the minister says 'no thanks' to the captain there, too--and finally a helicopter comes out, and the minister refuses that ride, as well. He then, of course, dies. When he gets to the pearly gates, he's a little irritated; he demands of God "I prayed to you to rescue me, and you didn't!" God says: "I sent you a boat, a submarine and a helicopter; what more did you want?"

In other words, perhaps you got your answer, but didn't trust the form of it. You certainly do not seem to trust anything but strict empirical data. That's a problem, in religious comminication with deity, I"ve found. Of course, I could be wrong, too. It wouldn't be the first time.

]However, there is no real way of knowing if all those circumstances hold at any one particular instance. Just ask the folks in Bridgeport, Con a few years ago, who had their bridge drop out from under them when a car hit a truck containing 8000 gallons of fuel. Who expected that one? Or the folks in Minneapolis in 2007. People had to do some very fancy back tracking to figure out that problem--who expected that one? Just last year the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge failed; not the main bridge, but the repair that was supposed to FIX the bridge. Hmmn....

If you knew that a truck was going to explode, you could work it out.

That's rather the point. How do you know when a truck is going to explode?

It is possible to know how a system will behave to arbitrary precision with the physics of 100 years ago.

The point is, knowledge is absolute; anything less than absolute isn't knowledge. It's belief--and acting upon that belief is faith. The difference between belief in religion and belief in scientific evidence is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. The evidence can be rock solid and scientifically sound--but you can bet that someone is going to say...sorry, don't believe it. Evolution is a pretty good example of that one.

If one can define what they consider to be evidence and justify it, then you're set.
I don't accept vague, personal experience because I cannot justify that.

I'm not asking you to, y'know. I'm not asking you to convert, after all. I am simply telling you that you can't ask me to ignore evidence that I find convincing because YOU don't like it.

]I never justify wild assumptions. Of course, you are going to have to define 'wild,' and 'assumption' for me.

In this context, an assumption is a belief one takes for which there is no available evidence.

There is never NO evidence. There is only evidence that one person might accept...where another does not. Nobody ever comes to believe something out of thin air.

[ The assumption is usually taken such that it is self-consistent and has no apparent contradictions.

No assumption can reach that level of certainty, Aki. That's why it's an assumption..at least in the realm of religious thought. An assumption is an idea set forth in order to begin/justify a discussion which wouldn't be logical in the absence of the acceptance of the assumed idea.

[Wild would imply that logical clarity and consistency are not necessarily a part of that particular assumption.

It's also a value judgment on the part of someone who doesn't like the reasons for making that assumption, and is thus rather a subjective descriptor.

Hmn. Tell that to the over 100 people killed when the Hyatt REgency walk way collapsed in Kansas City.

Gladly.

lly helpful answer...

Y'know, almost fifteen years ago now there was an earthquake 'round my way that collapsed a couple of freeway interchanges...killing a few people and pretty much isolating my not-so-little valley from greater LA. It was, of course, repaired and rebuilt; looks GREAT, all those arches swooping gracefully over the roadways. We have all been assured that it has been engineered to withstand earthquakes of the size that leveled the first set...

I take the dirt bound truck route most of the time, when I have to go 'down below' (to Los Angeles). Don't have any problem with bridges as a rule, though.

I get what you're saying, but it is possible to know.
It isn't practically possible yet, but it's possible.

....yes, I'd say that it's possible in the way that it's possible to prove God exists.

]I believe that they recieved perfectly valid confirmation of truth. The problem is all the stuff that they surrounded those truths WITH, that might not be quite so. Of course, that's my opinion.

How do you explain those whom God apparently told to slaughter people? Simple interpretation can't really account for the exact opposite meaning.

I believe that I wrote that sometimes people get fooled. I also believe that I wrote that it isn't easy.

Really?

First, you have to convince someone that there really is such a thing as sound, and then find an experiment that would accurately measure something you have no idea how to measure...and hope like the dickens that you aren't attempting to measure temperature with a yardstick.

The thing is, if one has no way of recieving sound, or any reason to use it, then how would one go about testing for it, nor knowing what it is you had when you did?

Shoot, it's only been very recently that we have figured out that elephants communicate by infrasound--it came as quite a shock, and we know about sound!

If I was in a community of deaf people who didn't believe in sound, I'd first define it.

(grin) Good luck with that. It would be like me attempting to define flerdlegoops.

I would then law out the predictions one would make if this phenomenon existed and then demonstrate these phenomenon.

And if, because the people involved had no way to sense the phenomenon caused by sound, there was no way to find, much less demonstrate, them?

.........where IS all the dark matter of the universe, anyway?

]Sorry. One CAN use logic to figure out belief systems once a few assumptions are made...but for the basic premises, like 'does deity exist?" Not a chance.

Which is why I'll only accept scientific evidence there. Why don't you think it's possible?

Oh, I think it may be possible, eventually, but we aren't there yet. However, the reason I don't think anybody WILL anytime soon is because the answer "God did it" is considered to be the ultimate in unacceptable answers for anything. If there is found another explanation, no matter how improbable, it will be considered to be the better answer--even if it is the wrong one.

As well, there is the problem of God being the Creator of all things; taking, as a temporary assumption, that He DID create the universe with all the laws that run it, how reasonable is it that He would have to do things that screw with the laws He invented in order to get anything at all done? It seems to me, at least, that even the most spectacular of miracles would have to abide by the laws of physics...because of course He IS the 'laws of physics." The question isn't how miracles break them, but rather how they demonstrate them.

At least, that's what I think. When I see what science discovers, my constant thought is; oh, wow, so THAT'S how He did this!

]Your choice, of course. Works for me, though. I get the best of both worlds.

I can't think of an appropriate joke for this, but having made this statement I've little doubt that your mind did it for me.

I choose to accept that as a compliment to the agility and intelligence of my thinking, Aki.

Please do not disabuse me of my illusions regarding this. My ego is fragile.

;]How DOES one prove that it is love that causes a man to do things for his wife?

By demonstrating it and looking into the cause.

Really? And the cause HAS to be 'love,' rather than self aggrandizement, 'honor,' simple friendship, greed...or any number of other things that might prompt the same actions?

]How does one prove that Matisse is a better artist than Van Goghe, or vice versa?

Define artist and define objective standards by which a good artist can be quantifiably measured.

Good luck. How does one find objective standards for this? The whole idea behind human art is not mechanical skill...you realize that, right? The fact that we still have artists after the invention of the camera proves that one.

How do you prove that you love your children equally, even if one of them needs more...attention/care/stuff...than another one?

How do you know you do to begin with?

I"m asking the question, m'friend. Asking it back to me simply indicates that you are beginning to see the point.

[If I had kids, I know for a fact that I would have a favourite.

Truly? How do you know that for a fact?

]How in the world does one prove that the Flower Duet from Lakme is more beautiful than Claire de Lune?

Ask 1 million men?

What, women don't get a vote?

Not to mention that argumentum ad numerum is a fallacy....

]How does one prove the Sublime, anyway?

By defining and quantifying it such that it is not sublime.

Ah, and that takes the wonder out of the world.