Free Will

[martinb59]

Ok, Very well put, Now that is what I am talking about. "Unbeliever" is like a kid who learned something new, he has a little knowledge, but he has no wisdom. One of the definitions of wisdom is "wisdom is the application of knowledge" Stats and arguments are boring, like I put it an earlier post with "Unbeliever" about the sky is not blue post. So I commend you for speaking from the heart.

Let's take your side first, if I didn't think there was a God, then I would feel the same way you do, you are young, you will have a lot of pain, stress, unhappiness, worry, plus many other things. Wait until your parents die, or your kid is sick, or your husband/wife has problems, you can't pay the bills, you get old and can't do the things you used to, go to a nursing home and volunteer and see what old age will do to you. If I thought that after all that, that when I die, and you will, the birth to death ratio is one to one, that I then just cease to exist, and they put me in the ground and I became worm food, I would be gray too.

I am still being an atheist, here is where you and I will disagree on a few points. There would be no moral codes that come from within, why? I am here by chance, I am a mutation, (Total side note here, but if I believe in evolution, where does my feeling of love come from, how about sex drive, how about appreciation of beauty, anyway back to the topic) there is no right or wrong, societies, countries, civilizations, have changed there morals many times. Hitler thought it was ok to kill Jews, abortion was illegal now legal, we had prohibition, genocide, Mormon's think it is ok to lie to protect the the image and belief in the Mormon religion, same sex marriage was wrong, now it might become a law. Morals don't come from within or I sure they would be the same in the short recorded history that we have been here on earth, compared to the 3,500 MILLION years of life on earth, the stuff I mentioned took place in the last 50 years.

Raping and stealing make you unhappy, but what if that made me happy? Being "happy" has nothing to with right and wrong. Laws have and will change, what is wrong today will be right tomorrow.

On the theist side, I think the guilty feelings, unhappiness, morals that you have, come from God. I have hope that this life is temporary and there is something better, because if there is nothing else, what a waste.

Here is the study on free will and cheating that I mentioned.

http://current.com/19rau4c

Here is the charity study
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/articl...christians

[Unbeliever]

(06-03-2010 11:22 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Ok, Very well put, Now that is what I am talking about. "Unbeliever" is like a kid who learned something new, he has a little knowledge, but he has no wisdom. One of the definitions of wisdom is "wisdom is the application of knowledge" Stats and arguments are boring, like I put it an earlier post with "Unbeliever" about the sky is not blue post. So I commend you for speaking from the heart.

Martin, if you're going to continue taking potshots at me, I suggest that you back them up with some actual examples of times that I have done what you claim. Your "the sky is not blue" bit is so moronic as to make my brain ache every time that I look at it, and only shows off how you cannot understand my arguments.
Either back up your accusations or stop making them.

[supermanlives1973]

(06-03-2010 11:22 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Ok, Very well put, Now that is what I am talking about. "Unbeliever" is like a kid who learned something new, he has a little knowledge, but he has no wisdom. One of the definitions of wisdom is "wisdom is the application of knowledge" Stats and arguments are boring, like I put it an earlier post with "Unbeliever" about the sky is not blue post. So I commend you for speaking from the heart.

Let's take your side first, if I didn't think there was a God, then I would feel the same way you do, you are young, you will have a lot of pain, stress, unhappiness, worry, plus many other things. Wait until your parents die, or your kid is sick, or your husband/wife has problems, you can't pay the bills, you get old and can't do the things you used to, go to a nursing home and volunteer and see what old age will do to you. If I thought that after all that, that when I die, and you will, the birth to death ratio is one to one, that I then just cease to exist, and they put me in the ground and I became worm food, I would be gray too.

I am still being an atheist, here is where you and I will disagree on a few points. There would be no moral codes that come from within, why? I am here by chance, I am a mutation, (Total side note here, but if I believe in evolution, where does my feeling of love come from, how about sex drive, how about appreciation of beauty, anyway back to the topic) there is no right or wrong, societies, countries, civilizations, have changed there morals many times. Hitler thought it was ok to kill Jews, abortion was illegal now legal, we had prohibition, genocide, Mormon's think it is ok to lie to protect the the image and belief in the Mormon religion, same sex marriage was wrong, now it might become a law. Morals don't come from within or I sure they would be the same in the short recorded history that we have been here on earth, compared to the 3,500 MILLION years of life on earth, the stuff I mentioned took place in the last 50 years.

Raping and stealing make you unhappy, but what if that made me happy? Being "happy" has nothing to with right and wrong. Laws have and will change, what is wrong today will be right tomorrow.

On the theist side, I think the guilty feelings, unhappiness, morals that you have, come from God. I have hope that this life is temporary and there is something better, because if there is nothing else, what a waste.

Here is the study on free will and cheating that I mentioned.

http://current.com/19rau4c

Here is the charity study
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/articl...christians

martinb59, next time you quote a source, please ensure it is from a non-biased source...

"What is the history and structure of the Barna Group?
Barna Research Group was founded by George and Nancy Barna in 1984. As a marketing research firm, it primarily served Christian ministries, non-profit organizations and various media and financial corporations. During its quarter century of service, TBG has carefully and strategically tracked the role of faith in America, developing the nation’s most comprehensive database on spiritual indicators."

It is a Christian reporting site, OF COURSE it will say that church based charities donated more than atheists...what did you THINK it would say?

As for your quote "On the theist side, I think the guilty feelings, unhappiness, morals that you have, come from God. I have hope that this life is temporary and there is something better, because if there is nothing else, what a waste."...

If your only source for understanding human morality is from god, then obviously you have NOT read the bible. In the Old Testament, if he's not smiting people, he's getting his 'prophets' or 'angels' doing it for him. He is the most vile person next to Hitler (who, yes, WAS a Christian...just google it...you'll find LOTS of quotes from Mein Kampf or any of his public speeches where he professes his faith).

My morality, in essence, comes from two places:

1. My upbringing (which has a looooong string of evolutionary morality that has led up to this point).
2. Doing exactly the OPPOSITE of what the bible says.

I could add that my worldview has a humanist influence on my morality as well (doing good for the good of humanity).

In response to they article about 'free will':

I'm not sure if you even read through the entire article. Here's an interesting excerpt from it:

"Presumably the experiment didn’t also lead to a rash of criminal activity among those who read the anti-free will passage. Our moral revulsion at killing and hurting others is likely too strong to be dismantled by reflections about determinism."

What does this say about free will and morality? Well, if you take the psychology test identified in the article seriously, I would say that you shouldn't base your decision about free will on one simple test.

I'm not an expert on free will or determinism, etc. But, to add a point (hope it is relevant)...

I also stand by the notion that there is no such thing as free will. Based on what I HAVE researched, it is our past experiences which influence our future actions. For example, I believe that religious folks act in the way they do (abhor abortion, limit/remove rights of homosexuals, etc.) because of their collective group think. If you agree with your pastor and the rest of the congregation, then you too will take the same stance as them. This statement reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

On the flip side, I believe non-believers (atheists, agnostics) act the way they do based on understanding that morality comes from within, with determinism coming from what they deem immoral and basing their decision structure on that framework. You only need to look at prison stats in the U.S. to see that this may in fact be true:

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_...ndings.htm

BTW, in case you don't want to read it, Atheists make up only 0.4% of the prison population in the U.S. Why they are in prison, we can only guess. However, if your concern is that absence of free will causes people to go nuts (killing, raping, molesting, etc.), proof is in the stats.

[supermanlives1973]

Oh, and to add more to your comment:

"On the theist side, I think the guilty feelings, unhappiness, morals that you have, come from God. I have hope that this life is temporary and there is something better, because if there is nothing else, what a waste."

Once you're dead, you're dead. There is NO afterlife. What you are arguing right now is Substance Dualism. Here's a fantastic video by user QualiaSoup on YouTube, where he explains it in great detail (warning, contains philosophical content):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA

One final thought: what use is hoping for an afterlife that is 'better' than this one if there is no proof the afterlife you seek for actually exists? Be a good person, martinb59. Love your family, love your friends, love the world. It is the only life all of us will EVER have.

[ashley.hunt60]

(06-03-2010 11:22 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Ok, Very well put, Now that is what I am talking about. "Unbeliever" is like a kid who learned something new, he has a little knowledge, but he has no wisdom. One of the definitions of wisdom is "wisdom is the application of knowledge" Stats and arguments are boring, like I put it an earlier post with "Unbeliever" about the sky is not blue post. So I commend you for speaking from the heart.

Let's take your side first, if I didn't think there was a God, then I would feel the same way you do, you are young, you will have a lot of pain, stress, unhappiness, worry, plus many other things. Wait until your parents die, or your kid is sick, or your husband/wife has problems, you can't pay the bills, you get old and can't do the things you used to, go to a nursing home and volunteer and see what old age will do to you. If I thought that after all that, that when I die, and you will, the birth to death ratio is one to one, that I then just cease to exist, and they put me in the ground and I became worm food, I would be gray too.

I am still being an atheist, here is where you and I will disagree on a few points. There would be no moral codes that come from within, why? I am here by chance, I am a mutation, (Total side note here, but if I believe in evolution, where does my feeling of love come from, how about sex drive, how about appreciation of beauty, anyway back to the topic) there is no right or wrong, societies, countries, civilizations, have changed there morals many times. Hitler thought it was ok to kill Jews, abortion was illegal now legal, we had prohibition, genocide, Mormon's think it is ok to lie to protect the the image and belief in the Mormon religion, same sex marriage was wrong, now it might become a law. Morals don't come from within or I sure they would be the same in the short recorded history that we have been here on earth, compared to the 3,500 MILLION years of life on earth, the stuff I mentioned took place in the last 50 years.

Raping and stealing make you unhappy, but what if that made me happy? Being "happy" has nothing to with right and wrong. Laws have and will change, what is wrong today will be right tomorrow.

On the theist side, I think the guilty feelings, unhappiness, morals that you have, come from God. I have hope that this life is temporary and there is something better, because if there is nothing else, what a waste.

Here is the study on free will and cheating that I mentioned.

http://current.com/19rau4c

Here is the charity study
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/articl...christians

Well I'm going to skip your first paragraph again. That is between you and Unbeliever.

Your second paragraph talks about the harshness of life, and I'm going to make the jump that your point is that religion would make it easier. Well, I can't deny that a lot people find the idea calming. I can't blame those people, and I don't feel that religion needs to be abolished, just that it can't be used in Government systems. A personal belief is a personal matter, and should stay personal. Although many people fear death, and like the idea of eternal life. I can't take that away from them. When I'm old and wrinkly, and starring death in the eyes, if I can't find relief from the fear of death within atheism, then I'd convert. Again, I'm not into the idea of suffering for my pride. However, there are older people who don't need religion to die peacefully. I'm not sure of Dawkin's age, but his hair is gray and he is still an atheist. My grandmother is also an agnostic. So People don't always need religion, and it is possible to be content with the life you have lived.

Your third paragraph talks about morality. You are right, morals are always changing within a society. I was speaking more of the basic morals, such as stealing and murder. A quick side note, Hitler was able to come into power but the server troubles in Germany, and when you can't buy a loaf of bread with a wheelbarrow of money, you get pretty desperate, and our need to protect ourselves comes before our need to protect others. And of course, the heavy anti semitic feelings is Germany played a big role. Then you asked about the evolution of morals, and that is a good place to start. Well, there is safety in numbers, and that is really where societies began. A tiger versus a money is a no brainier, but a tiger versus a dozen monkey gets a little bit more tricky. There is a shift from survival of the fittest organism, to survival of the fittest society. For more information on this, there is a talkorigins page (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html) So the basic things that are harmful to a society as a whole, get weeded out by natural selection. That is why a monkey who likes killing other monkeys causes its society as a whole to crash and die. As I mentioned before, for a strong society to form, strong bonds between the individuals in the society must form. This is why we like to talk to other humans and why we even fall in love, although that one has a bit more history to it. As for sex drives, it's very simple. If a lion is able to live a hundred years unchallenged by any other beast, that's great, it's the fittest. But without a sex drive, it can't carry on it's fittest genes.

That is a long paragraph, so I'm going to start another one about morals from society. These morals have a higher tendency to change, because evolution couldn't act on them as strongly. Monkey abortions are not too common in nature as it is. So it is basically upbringing and society that effects it. Within the past, this has been heavily dictated by the dominate religion within the society. That is why we are seeing rapid moral change in out society today. Government is isolating itself more and more from religion. I'll add your next paragraph here too. Well, if everyone believed rape was okay, and law said nothing about, then rape would happen. I used happiness in a more personal sense. There are people that are happy with rape and theft. That is why we have laws. These people lack a moral that most people have. But because a lot woman wouldn't like the legalization of rape, I don't think the government could do that anytime soon. If you have too many people too unhappy about their government, there tends to be an uprising, and the government is overthrown.

It would be nice if there is a big brother looking after us, making the world a good place, and giving us eternal happiness for being good. But sadly, want doesn't make things so. Again, If you want to believe that, I will not stop you. I would have an issue if you wanted everyone else to believe that, but you can have whatever personal belief you want.

I have to cut this sort (I know, it's a scary thought that I can go on even longer), but I have to write an essay that's a fifth the size of this.

[martinb59]

(06-03-2010 11:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  

(06-03-2010 11:22 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Ok, Very well put, Now that is what I am talking about. "Unbeliever" is like a kid who learned something new, he has a little knowledge, but he has no wisdom. One of the definitions of wisdom is "wisdom is the application of knowledge" Stats and arguments are boring, like I put it an earlier post with "Unbeliever" about the sky is not blue post. So I commend you for speaking from the heart.

Martin, if you're going to continue taking potshots at me, I suggest that you back them up with some actual examples of times that I have done what you claim. Your "the sky is not blue" bit is so moronic as to make my brain ache every time that I look at it, and only shows off how you cannot understand my arguments.
Either back up your accusations or stop making them.

The following is only a partial list of what you have incorrectly applied. Plus numerous instances of not following the point.

Appeal to Authority- There is no fallacy involved in simply saying that a statement made by an authority is true. The fallacy occurs when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible and can be exempted from criticism. I gave a quote from the Smithsonian about the Bible being historically accurate, they either said it or they didn’t. Your problem is with them saying it, but there was no appeal to authority. You are in school, for the most part everything you are learning or have learned is coming from an authority.
Argument ad populum- I said the Gregorian calendar marks its time based on the birth of Jesus. Is that true or false? It’s true, let me thank you ahead of time for agreeing. If I said that the Gregorian calendar is the best calendar system because it has the most widespread usage, then I would have committed Argument ad populum
Burden of proof fallacy- In law In the US you are innocent until proven guilty, so the burden of proof always falls on the prosecution. There is no law when it comes to what we are talking about.
The burden of proof is , for the most part, on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.
Ujcook wrote about free will, he/she said “IF” free will exists, didn’t say it did exist. You said “As I don't believe in free will anyway” You made the claim you don’t believe in free will. You made the claim I asked you for proof you shifted the burden of proof to me.
In most arguments it is usually the side that supports altering or rejecting the status quo which has most of the burden of proof. The more controversial the claim, generally speaking, the more evenly is the burden of proof shared by all sides; and the more extreme or unusual one side of an argument is, the greater its burden of proof. Seeing that there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world and 1.1 billion non-religious people in the world, the status quo would be that we have free will. The proof is on you to prove that.

---

If you were to read the Barna Group polls you find that what he reports is not Pro Christian in a number of cases so to say that his findings are incorrect because he is Christian is wrong. The following is from John Stossel from ABC news not exactly a Christian site.

The Church Connection

Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.


Hitler being a Christian is false Here are some quotes from The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)"

Plus many more.

I read that part, so what? the point was people cheated more on their test.

Saying "Doing exactly the OPPOSITE of what the bible says" is a ridiculous statement. Lets just take the 10 commandments for instance, you do the opposite of them?

[Unbeliever]

(07-03-2010 04:01 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  

(06-03-2010 11:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  

(06-03-2010 11:22 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Ok, Very well put, Now that is what I am talking about. "Unbeliever" is like a kid who learned something new, he has a little knowledge, but he has no wisdom. One of the definitions of wisdom is "wisdom is the application of knowledge" Stats and arguments are boring, like I put it an earlier post with "Unbeliever" about the sky is not blue post. So I commend you for speaking from the heart.

Martin, if you're going to continue taking potshots at me, I suggest that you back them up with some actual examples of times that I have done what you claim. Your "the sky is not blue" bit is so moronic as to make my brain ache every time that I look at it, and only shows off how you cannot understand my arguments.
Either back up your accusations or stop making them.

The following is only a partial list of what you have incorrectly applied. Plus numerous instances of not following the point.

Appeal to Authority- There is no fallacy involved in simply saying that a statement made by an authority is true. The fallacy occurs when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible and can be exempted from criticism. I gave a quote from the Smithsonian about the Bible being historically accurate, they either said it or they didn’t. Your problem is with them saying it, but there was no appeal to authority. You are in school, for the most part everything you are learning or have learned is coming from an authority.

Guess what? You just strawmanned.
You stated that "even the Smithsonian thinks that the Bible is accurate". This is, indeed, the appeal to authority fallacy. You cited this as evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible. All it is is a statement by a famous institution. Congratulations. It has no supporting evidence. It is the appeal to authority fallacy. I didn't say that my problem was with them saying it, and you are lying when you say that it was.

Quote:Argument ad populum- I said the Gregorian calendar marks its time based on the birth of Jesus. Is that true or false? It’s true, let me thank you ahead of time for agreeing. If I said that the Gregorian calendar is the best calendar system because it has the most widespread usage, then I would have committed Argument ad populum

No, you committed argument ad populum when you tried to use the Gregorian calendar as evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible. You are strawmanning - again - when you say that I denied that it was based on the birth of Jesus. What I said is that the fact that the calendar is based on that event does not mean that the event actually occurred, only that those who established the calendar believed that it had.

Quote:Burden of proof fallacy- In law In the US you are innocent until proven guilty, so the burden of proof always falls on the prosecution. There is no law when it comes to what we are talking about.
The burden of proof is , for the most part, on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.
Ujcook wrote about free will, he/she said “IF” free will exists, didn’t say it did exist. You said “As I don't believe in free will anyway” You made the claim you don’t believe in free will. You made the claim I asked you for proof you shifted the burden of proof to me.
In most arguments it is usually the side that supports altering or rejecting the status quo which has most of the burden of proof. The more controversial the claim, generally speaking, the more evenly is the burden of proof shared by all sides; and the more extreme or unusual one side of an argument is, the greater its burden of proof. Seeing that there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world and 1.1 billion non-religious people in the world, the status quo would be that we have free will. The proof is on you to prove that.

---

Again, you have to do some research on the burden of proof. The controversiality of the claim does not factor into it, nor does the person who first made a claim. As I have told you before, it is not the first person who makes a claim - it is the first person who makes a positive claim. The burden of proof is always on those making the positive claim.
I stated that I do not believe in free will because there is no evidence for it. You stated that free will exists. My claim was negative, as it involved no unproven assertions. Yours was positive, as the existence of free will has not been proven. The burden of proof is on you, and nothing you or I can do will change that. It's like math. It's simply the way things work.

Seriously, martinb59. Try actually reading what I say and doing some basic research on logic.

[martinb59]

(07-03-2010 08:58 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  

(07-03-2010 04:01 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  

(06-03-2010 11:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  

(06-03-2010 11:22 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Ok, Very well put, Now that is what I am talking about. "Unbeliever" is like a kid who learned something new, he has a little knowledge, but he has no wisdom. One of the definitions of wisdom is "wisdom is the application of knowledge" Stats and arguments are boring, like I put it an earlier post with "Unbeliever" about the sky is not blue post. So I commend you for speaking from the heart.

Martin, if you're going to continue taking potshots at me, I suggest that you back them up with some actual examples of times that I have done what you claim. Your "the sky is not blue" bit is so moronic as to make my brain ache every time that I look at it, and only shows off how you cannot understand my arguments.
Either back up your accusations or stop making them.

The following is only a partial list of what you have incorrectly applied. Plus numerous instances of not following the point.

Appeal to Authority- There is no fallacy involved in simply saying that a statement made by an authority is true. The fallacy occurs when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible and can be exempted from criticism. I gave a quote from the Smithsonian about the Bible being historically accurate, they either said it or they didn’t. Your problem is with them saying it, but there was no appeal to authority. You are in school, for the most part everything you are learning or have learned is coming from an authority.

Guess what? You just strawmanned.
You stated that "even the Smithsonian thinks that the Bible is accurate". This is, indeed, the appeal to authority fallacy. You cited this as evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible. All it is is a statement by a famous institution. Congratulations. It has no supporting evidence. It is the appeal to authority fallacy. I didn't say that my problem was with them saying it, and you are lying when you say that it was.

Quote:Argument ad populum- I said the Gregorian calendar marks its time based on the birth of Jesus. Is that true or false? It’s true, let me thank you ahead of time for agreeing. If I said that the Gregorian calendar is the best calendar system because it has the most widespread usage, then I would have committed Argument ad populum

No, you committed argument ad populum when you tried to use the Gregorian calendar as evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible. You are strawmanning - again - when you say that I denied that it was based on the birth of Jesus. What I said is that the fact that the calendar is based on that event does not mean that the event actually occurred, only that those who established the calendar believed that it had.

Quote:Burden of proof fallacy- In law In the US you are innocent until proven guilty, so the burden of proof always falls on the prosecution. There is no law when it comes to what we are talking about.
The burden of proof is , for the most part, on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.
Ujcook wrote about free will, he/she said “IF” free will exists, didn’t say it did exist. You said “As I don't believe in free will anyway” You made the claim you don’t believe in free will. You made the claim I asked you for proof you shifted the burden of proof to me.
In most arguments it is usually the side that supports altering or rejecting the status quo which has most of the burden of proof. The more controversial the claim, generally speaking, the more evenly is the burden of proof shared by all sides; and the more extreme or unusual one side of an argument is, the greater its burden of proof. Seeing that there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world and 1.1 billion non-religious people in the world, the status quo would be that we have free will. The proof is on you to prove that.

---

Again, you have to do some research on the burden of proof. The controversiality of the claim does not factor into it, nor does the person who first made a claim. As I have told you before, it is not the first person who makes a claim - it is the first person who makes a positive claim. The burden of proof is always on those making the positive claim.
I stated that I do not believe in free will because there is no evidence for it. You stated that free will exists. My claim was negative, as it involved no unproven assertions. Yours was positive, as the existence of free will has not been proven. The burden of proof is on you, and nothing you or I can do will change that. It's like math. It's simply the way things work.

Seriously, martinb59. Try actually reading what I say and doing some basic research on logic.

OK. I give up! You have far superior knowledge to me and the Smithsonian, and the sources I sited, I bow to you and your unending knowledge, how someone your age can think so clearly, so logically is beyond my comprehension, surely you are the reason that God exists as how can anyone deny that you would come from evolution, you are a divine creation.

[supermanlives1973]

1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

My notes: :
: commandments 1-4 - I'm an atheist, so I do NOT conform to those rules. BTW, I would love a day off as much as the next guy but, having a family, you are ALWAYS working.
: commandment 5 - I honor my parents, but not because a god has told me to do so. And, when my parents are wrong, I call them on it. They expect it of me.
: commandment 6 & 8 - my own instincts tell me that these are wrong to do, it doesn't take a religion to teach you that it's wrong to kill and steal.
: commandment 7 - If it means actually sleeping with another woman, then 'no' I would not do it. If it means having fantasies about another woman, tell me which man (or woman) doesn't have those thoughts?
: commandment 9 - Tell me one person in the world who hasn't told a lie (children, in all their innocence, do it). Religion, in my perspective (and I'd assume many other atheists as well) is a HUGE lie.
: commandment 10 - Never. I applaud people when they achieve in life what they so desire. Coveting, in the case of the commandment, is being jealous of your fellow man for what they have. If I don't have a 60" plasma in my house that my neighbor has, I don't really care to have it. I will not become less of a person if I don't have the luxuries of life that some do.

Also, I said nothing about the ten commandments...I said "Doing exactly the OPPOSITE of what the bible says."...in its ENTIRETY. The ten commandments are not for today's world. In fact, Christopher Hitchens says it best and offers up a wonderful revision of the commandments for today's world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_lM61aDyPg

As for Hitler, please follow this link:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

Wikipedia also speaks to the biased translation of Hitler's conversation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk

Under the section Hitler's Table Talk (first link above), you'll find the following analysis by Jim Walker, the author of the article:

"The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on! (More on this below).

Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity."

So, basically what I get from the 6 points above is that Hitler's Table Talk cannot be used as an argument for Hitler's apostasy towards Christianity...All you need to do is look at quotes from his PUBLIC speeches, which were video and tape recorded, to hear is praise of god, etc. Hitler was a Christian, not an atheist. If he wasn't a 'mainstream' Christian, then he was trying to devise his own brand of Christianity...no different than starting up the Baptist, Protestant, Evangelical movements.

Finally, on your points about charity. I can only make a bold assumption as to why there would be a difference between the charity of church goers to those who aren't religious. The assumption is that the church goers donate more to 'redeem' themselves from any sin they may have committed. Any charity is a welcome charity (especially for catastrophe's like Haiti), but it is what motivates the charity that I would love to see the stats on (probably would be hard to get seeing how one would probably not want to admit to charity as a 'sin' cleanser).
[/quote][/font]

[Unbeliever]

(07-03-2010 09:15 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  OK. I give up! You have far superior knowledge to me and the Smithsonian

Appeal to authority again. It doesn't matter what the Smithsonian says unless the Smithsonian has the evidence to back it up.

Quote:and the sources I sited

Which were flawed, and I demonstrated why.

Quote:I bow to you and your unending knowledge, how someone your age can think so clearly, so logically is beyond my comprehension, surely you are the reason that God exists as how can anyone deny that you would come from evolution, you are a divine creation.

No, no, you're too kind, really.

martin, I have no problem with you trying to prove that there is a god. But to continue on like this doesn't help your case. Your arguments were flawed. If you are truly interested in proving your case, you would, instead of saying "nuh-uh, you're stupid" over and over, reformulate them without the fallacies.
I really don't mind debating you. But your constant personal attacks on me and your assertions that my arguments are flawed are wearing thin. You can claim that I am incorrect for reasons a, b, and c, but when I show you why a, b, and c are incorrect, straw men or inapplicable you should drop them. Doing otherwise just makes you look foolish, and the comments on my age are a very transparent attempt at the debate equivalent of a ninja smoke bomb. Stop committing horrible fallacies and then denying that you have. Instead, try some honesty and come up with some new arguments.