American (?) Beheaded in retaliation for tortured prisoners

Belief in God using your ''you can''t prove that he doesn''t exist!'' is using a logical fallacy.Can you give me a real argument?

And reason is completely subjective. If I can get what I want by force, it is reasonable to do so. If I can steal without getting caught, it is reasonable to do so.

That is not so. In fact, that''s a common-sense definition of evil. If one values another person as themselves, stealing and the use of force are as unreasonable as they would be if they were used against you. Basically, you are making up a definition of reason that means ""whatever I think is reasonable, is"", when I''m using ""what follows logically from the Golden Rule is a good basis for morality"". Obviously, that''s the same reasoning used in cultures all over the world. The Golden Rule is not ""Might Makes Right"", and twisting reason into unreason does not make it so.

I''m really surprised that someone as smart as you are cannot grasp that a rational system of morals is not only possible, but has been understood and used for thousands of years. Why make such fun of it, when it''s been simply explained to you over and over? Are you so tied to the concept of God''s way or the highway that you can''t even acknowledge other sincere ways to impose order on life? That''s pretty harsh. Should I suddenly start to take literally the Old Testament as the basis for *your* morality, and say you *must* support baby-killing, rape and other brutalities against those who are not the Children of Abraham? I don''t think that would be accurate, and your interpretations are equally demeaning, whether you intend them that way or not.

Robear

Someone need to take a look at Can We Be Good Without God? by Dr. Robert Buckman.

Why should I behave decently? Because it will be a better world for the human race if we all do.

Why should I behave decently? Because it will be a better world for the human race if we all do.

Yes, but being good is hard to do. And being good when others aren''t is even harder. One of the great things that religions do is personalize the future benefit/costs of your actions.

Plus, there are lots of things that are good for the human race that aren''t good for the individual. Just economically, you have free trade, globalization of jobs, removals of tariffs and subsidies, and innumerable other things that will make a better world for the human race. You''re saying you support all of those things as well?

Basically, you are making up a definition of reason that means ""whatever I think is reasonable, is"",

That is exactly every person''s definition of ""reasonable,"" so I''m hardly making it up.

I''m really surprised that someone as smart as you are cannot grasp that a rational system of morals is not only possible

Of course it''s possible, but it is nothing more than secular brainwashing - much less effective than religious teachings.

Quote:
Basically, you are making up a definition of reason that means ""whatever I think is reasonable, is"",

That is exactly every person''s definition of ""reasonable,"" so I''m hardly making it up.

""Reason"", that is, rationality, is not the same as ""reasonable"", that is, what appeals to a person based on their personal tastes. You have misconstrued my usage and my meaning.

Of course it''s possible, but it is nothing more than secular brainwashing - much less effective than religious teachings.

Logical systems are brainwashing? Heh...You are yanking my chain here.

Robear

Minase, why do you insist on reading me incorrectly?

You said faith is unreasonable, I''ve merely proved it is not.

I am NOT offering you an argument for the existance of God.
I am saying that to be unreasonable you must believe in something you KNOW to be false or self contradictory. (That wall is blue but I don''t think its blue.)

The possibility of God infers only that faith is not inherently irrational and therefore that your comment is false.
It is also logically possible that the sun will not set in the west tomorrow.

If you want a proof for God other than the faith that so affronts your sensibilities.
I ask you read St Anselm''s Ontological argument, the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, the arguments of Liebniz and Spinoza and a-posteriori arguments from design and Theism.

If you want to prove me wrong you MUST unprove God.
Again I reinterate, many things that you believe are unfounded and may or may not be true. Does this mean you are an irrational being? No. It means you are factually WRONG.

Please don''t bother with more links, I''m not in need of instruction in first semester Philosophy thank you very much.

I am saying that to be unreasonable you must believe in something you KNOW to be false or self contradictory.

Why is it my obligation to disprove God as a skeptic rather than yours to prove him as a believer? I''m the one arguing to keep religion private and out of the government, not banning religion altogether or forcing prisoners to go to the Presidents church if they want special favors.

It sounds like you are arguing that logic (I''m sure you know the definition, so I won''t link it) != rational thought. How could belief in God be considered rational if the only proof you have is that you can''t disprove it? I could be reading you incorrectly, though. And I was doing the links as a public service to everyone, not just you. I know I prefer it when I can read the exact source of what a person is talking about. (Yes, I am that skeptical)

I have to get back to work now, so I''ll have to rebut the Saints and your German/Dutch friends later tonight.

Minase, please re-read my posts carefully and don''t mistake them as being politically motivated or contrary to your politics. They are not.

Sticking to my attack on your statement on faith, some points:

1) Logic is the work horse of human reason. They are indistinguishable. This is undeniable and has been throughout the history of the humanities.

2) Again We''re not talking proofs we are talking about possibility! It is not unreasonable to accept a possibility is it? What is it about God that is unreasonable?
His properties? No, we can imagine them as existing without contradiction.
His existence? To quote Einstein on Quantum mechanics ""God doesn''t play dice with the universe"" , the laws of nature are perfectly consistant with the existence of God, there is order (coincidentally for the atheist).
That is not proof merely potential. You can have an opinion about whether it is true or false, but can you say it is unreasonable. No.

3) The arguments I have cited are the best known and written about... they are old philosophical arguments, hundreds of books have been written on them, if you think you can rebuff them in a few forum posts I''d advise you to take up a professorship at a prestigious university immedietly.

4) You are obviously bent on stating that to be reasonable one needs full sufficient reason to believe anything. Believe me when I tell you, this is highly unadvisable for reasons already given. (See Evil Genius or Brain-in-the-vat.) You''ll end up an epistemic cripple.

You can lead a horse to water it seems but you can''t make it drink.

Edit: I think I''m done with this topic here, if you want a serious discussion of what I''ve raised gimme a PM.

OK, we''ll take it to PM.

Mano a mano?

"ralcydan" wrote:

Of course it''s possible, but it is nothing more than secular brainwashing - much less effective than religious teachings.

You really have a hard time typing a sentence without some kind of dig at the ""opposite"" side, don''t you? Whether it''s a sweeping generalization about the ""immoral left"" or claiming that people that do not have the same belief system as you apparently have been actively ""secularly brainwashed,"" you just have the compulsion to interject ridiculous little jabs at every turn. Does this please you somehow? Are you just trying to be repellant?

This has been an interesting discussion -- I like to see the philisophical points discussed and argued. I''m not educated enough in all of the different philosophical regimes to participate, but it''s interesting to learn. From memory, aside from the equally repellant ""dead guy on a stick"" comment, nobody is dissing the people who do hold these beliefs. So why do you do it? Do you hold those of us who do not share your belief system in such contempt that you couldn''t care about our feelings?

And more on topic, the whole beheading disgusts and infuriates me. The prison thing sucks because we shot ourselves in the dong even more in terms of how we''re perceived by the people we''re trying to help, but there''s no comparison to the utter fury this poor man''s murder causes in me.

Well, this one is crappy, but is it any different from the 500 or so other kids out there that have died so far in the war?
Not to mention all the others on the ""opposite"" side...

Well, I guess this one is being used as propaganda...