You mean according to the stupid religious superstition you espouse, or for real? Oh, of course you mean it according to the religion you believe, and you mean it as a threat. It's a simple recruiting gimmick used against college students. Wake up.

its the "just asking questions guy"

discern what is true

The above is an example of the Complex-Question Fallacy. Do you know what the Complex-Question Fallacy is? If you don't, I would be delighted to provide you with a link that will help to educate you on the subject.

Your choice whether to see it as a threat or see it as an opportunity.

1. It's actually a simple call for all folks (whether college students or high school dropouts) to think about an important question.

Eternity is too long to be wrong!

2. I'm awake. (Maybe a bit groggy still. )

A weary sojourner goes to a Muslim wise man, and asks what her fate as a Christian is? "The fires of hell, the same as for your whole infidel race," he says.

A weary sojourner goes to a Christian wise man, a Bible thumper probably, and asks what his fate as a Muslim is? "The fires of hell, the same as for your whole faithless tribe."

A weary Jewish sojourner goes to either wise man, so-called of course, and asks her fate. "The fires of hell," of course.

Wake up. It's a game of tribalism competing for religious market share. Exactly that, and nothing more.


*Credit to The Oblivion Seekers, by Isabelle Eberhardt.

Are you going to actually provide an argument for the above?

Because some invisible omniscient being revealed it to me. LOL. Are you going to provide an argument for drinking blood giving eternal life ... like with the vampires??

A good example of the False Analogy Fallacy. Do you know what the False Analogy Fallacy is? If not, I would be more than delighted to provide a link for you to become educated on the subject.

In my opinion, we could all benefit from you refraining from committing elementary logical fallacies.

Which I've already answered several times. There is no ultimate, unchanging, universal standard ... and the presumptuous insistence on finding one is much worse than a fallacy, it's a fairy tale. Instead, we have to think, learn, and apply human rights to the question. You don't get gifted ultimate answers from the supernatural, and the blind insistence that there is no other way is just, just .... ignorant superstition.

If "there is no ultimate, unchanging, universal standard", then nothing is "worse" or "better" than anything else. Such judgments could only be rationally evaluated if there actually is a universal, ultimate, knowable and unchanging standard.

Given your denial of any ultimate standard, we don't have to do anything. Who decides what we "have to do?" You? Me? President Biden? Oprah Winfrey? Lebron James? Richard Spencer? Kyle Rittenhouse? Majority vote? The Ministry of Truth?

I, of course, do not agree that my beliefs are a case of "ignorant superstition." But if they were, what's wrong with that? Don't forget that, according to you there is no ultimate standard of right and wrong. What if I could prove that people who have superstitious beliefs live longer, happier lives than atheists? Would that change your mind?

The only everlasting life we get is by being recycled here on earth- dust to dust and all that.

Your every post proves you have no mind on this subject, you exempt the fields of morality and origins from mind. "Please give it to me in perfect form from the supernatural" is not mind. What's the reason you don't use this standard for other subjects? We need the answers to medical questions, and if it isn't given to us perfectly from the supernatural, what use is it????? We need engineering answers and understanding so our bridges and buildings don't fall, and what good is our human knowledge that isn't perfect for it ... we need a perfect ultimate answer from the supernatural. You appear to be back to your position that you don't know the moral value of playing Beethoven's 5th versus slaughtering a child in your basement unless something supernatural informs you of its morality. That's good thinking. Actually, it's "no mind" on the subject ... the sacrificing of all agency to superstition and calling it moral. A pre-medieval trick.

"Give me everlasting, universal, ultimate, perfect, never changing medical knowledge ... or what good is it?" says the fine doctor in training. "Because I'm a supernaturalist. I'm religious. What? What's the problem?"

Weren't you guys arguing some theistic moral argument? I'm not following the medical (and engineering et al) statements.

TIA (late to the party, but looks interesting)

It's the epistemology of religion. His big argument is if you don't have ultimate, universal, omniscient source for morality you have nothing. So I applied this bizarre claim to other areas to show how absurd it is. Like medicine, mathematics, etc. His position for no reason demands omniscience from the supernatural for value, when that obviously is BS.

Ok, I still need further clarification. Are you saying religious belief has some unique epistemology?

I'd have to scroll back to critique his argument, but that sounds like a fail -- at least in the way you describe it. The moral arguments that I find interesting are CS Lewis' version as well as the following syllogism:

1) Sans an objective moral law giver, objective morals cannot exist.
2) Objective morals do exist.
3) Therefore, an objective moral law giver exists.

and then... God is the best explanation for an objective moral law giver.

And so Lewis was an atheist badgered at Oxford by The Inklings into exercising the proper religion or else. He then became quite the trickster at phonied up "this or that" options, which of course hoodwink believers. It's a funny usage of "Objective" that means "comes from the supernatural by revelation." Okay, we need some objective medical facts, some objective engineering facts, so obviously, we need them from a supernatural omniscient god, right?

^ agreed


^ don't agree -- but I thought the thread was addressing belief. Are you moving those goal posts into knowledge? (epistemology)

What's wrong with presupposing supernatural?


How did you get this from what I said in premise 1?


I'm still not following this line. Why do you think we need these facts? In what sense do we need them? Why is this relevant to the topic?

Best wishes. AJU

"It comes from one of the thousands of supernatural gods made up by man" seems, hardly objective, but about as subjective as you can get.

Obviously I meant we "need" certain things (medical knowledge, engineering knowledge), for the wellbeing of the human race. That's a rational presupposition: that wellbeing is an asset, instead of say, "my god is the right one to be presupposed." If you are fishing for why do we need anything if god, my version of god of course, doesn't command it ... just go fish.

Yahweh commands it:

An unruly, rebellious offspring: stone it to death.
An adulteress: stone her to death.
A blasphemer: stone them to death.
A homosexual: kill him.
A witch: stone them to death.

1. Is this a god of love?
2. Is this okay with you, that this is the god allegedly behind the religion?
3. Is it more likely that these instructions were actually devised by man than by an omniscient, loving god?

Are only these 'numerology' verses important? Isn't Hebrews 9:28 important? Or 9:26? If Hebrews had been written with an extra verse at the start, would what would previously have been Hebrews 9:26 become important? Are every book's verse 9:27 the most important biblical verses?

Wouldn't the number '14' need to be important then?

Why aren't you summing all the prime numbers between 3-squared and 3-cubed?

I think 318 "all added together" is actually 3, or are you just stopping where it's convenient? Are there any numbers that are not important?

If 12 is important, supposedly:
Would 12 divided by 12 make 1 important?
Would 12 hours occurring twice make 2 important?
Would 12 "added together" make 3 important?
Would 12 divided by this 3 make 4 important?
Would 1-squared plus 2-squared make 5 important?
etc etc.

I'm not sure I believe you're being serious with this numerology, since it's such blatant confirmation bias. But....well, let's not forget about Poe's Law - someone believes it.

This doesn't answer the question, though. (to repeat: Where is a supernatural god mentioned in premise #1?)


Ok, so your thinking is something like this...

1) If God were real, she would give us perfect medical knowledge and perfect engineering knowledge for the wellbeing of the human race.
2) God hasn't given us perfect medical knowledge and perfect engineering knowledge for the wellbeing of the human race.
3) Therefore, God isn't real.

yes?

No, it's pretty much you don't get to claim there is no valid morality without a perfect pre-wrapped morality from a supernatural god, unless you also stipulate that there is no valid medicine or engineering or anything else unless it's pre-wrapped from a supernatural god ... this latter obviously being ridiculous so so is the former.

That's not what I've claimed.

Lagtight claimed that and you came in asking what I meant in my reply to him. I used "you" as in "one" ... not you specifically. That is, HIS claim, not yours, that morality needs to be perfectly gift wrapped from a supernatural god or it has no value, is pure bullshyt.

"Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there ... and finding it." -- Oscar Wilde.

And the certainty of the find is proportional to the actual profound uncertainty. Most every religion does this, it's the motus operandi of belief, and of course by comparison they are all false ... or all but one are necessarily false. Unless that is, one is willing to respect Huxley's "perennial philosophy," that they are all attempts to explain the mystery, most having some aspects of truth along with the myth and superstition they contain.