Are You A Good Man....

[seer]

If you think they are not, you need to explain how animals such as us can override the causal unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Can you? Waiting!

Then back to my point, Communists, totalitarians, ISIS etc, are only doing what the natural processes determined them to do. Religious tendencies are the result of how nature created us. So when you rail against religion you are railing against nature herself... Rather silly in my opinion.

[Tassman]

Then back to my point, Communists, totalitarians, ISIS etc, are only doing what the natural processes determined them to do. Religious tendencies are the result of how nature created us. So when you rail against religion you are railing against nature herself... Rather silly in my opinion.

[seer]

But Tass, whether I can demonstrate any of this is immaterial to my point. That when you rail against religion you are, at bottom, railing against nature. It is like getting upset when the big fish eats the little fish. Or when a bear craps in the woods. You attack religion as a problem but in your worldview it was the evolutionary processes that created us with these religious tendencies. Rationally your ire is misplaced, the real culprit is evolution itself.

[Sparko]

But Tass, whether I can demonstrate any of this is immaterial to my point. That when you rail against religion you are, at bottom, railing against nature. It is like getting upset when the big fish eats the little fish. Or when a bear craps in the woods. You attack religion as a problem but in your worldview it was the evolutionary processes that created us with these religious tendencies. Rationally your ire is misplaced, the real culprit is evolution itself.

not to mention, if Tassy is correct, then we have no choice but to believe in God because "antecedent events" make us.

[seer]

not to mention, if Tassy is correct, then we have no choice but to believe in God because "antecedent events" make us.

Right and that would be the case with all beliefs or ideas. Tass isn't an atheist because it is true, he is an atheist because the laws of nature determined him to be so. Now it may be the case that atheism is true, but the truth of the matter is not what cause his belief.

[Sparko]

Right and that would be the case with all beliefs or ideas. Tass isn't an atheist because it is true, he is an atheist because the laws of nature determined him to be so. Now it may be the case that atheism is true, but the truth of the matter is not what cause his belief.

right. the same with everything else in science or philosophy. Nobody believes anything because it is true, but because they were made to believe or not believe it by the universe.

[MaxVel]

Right and that would be the case with all beliefs or ideas. Tass isn't an atheist because it is true, he is an atheist because the laws of nature determined him to be so. Now it may be the case that atheism is true, but the truth of the matter is not what cause his belief.

I would like to thank Tasman for a clear and effective presentation of Plantinga's EAAN

[seer]

I would like to thank Tasman for a clear and effective presentation of Plantinga's EAAN

And it will never dawn on him that he cut off the branch he was sitting on...

[Sparko]

And it will never dawn on him that he cut off the branch he was sitting on...

Tassman consistently puts his foot in his mouth, but never realizes it. It's a given.

[seer]

Tassman consistently puts his foot in his mouth, but never realizes it. It's a given.

It is called foot in mouth determinism.

[Sparko]

Theologyweb: Powered by fatalistic determinism.

[stfoskey15]

Of course, but that is the point isn't it.

But just because something is based on belief and opinion doesn't mean it is invalid or not arguable.

[seer]

But just because something is based on belief and opinion doesn't mean it is invalid or not arguable.

I didn't say that. But since you mentioned it. All moral ideals are subjective, which means that no ethical opinion is more valid than its opposite. Now there may be objectively better ways to reach certain moral goals, but here again the goals are subjective.

[Tassman]

But Tass, whether I can demonstrate any of this is immaterial to my point. That when you rail against religion you are, at bottom, railing against nature. It is like getting upset when the big fish eats the little fish. Or when a bear craps in the woods. You attack religion as a problem but in your worldview it was the evolutionary processes that created us with these religious tendencies. Rationally your ire is misplaced, the real culprit is evolution itself.

This does not necessarily mean that we have no influence on the future and its events (this is Fatalism, which you always confuse with Determinism), but that the level to which humans have influence over their future itself is itself very largely dependent on present and past.

If you think our behaviour is not determined by antecedent events, you need to explain how animals such as us can override the causal unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Until you can explain this neither you nor your henchmen have a valid argument.

[Tassman]

I didn't say that. But since you mentioned it. All moral ideals are subjective, which means that no ethical opinion is more valid than its opposite. Now there may be objectively better ways to reach certain moral goals,

but here again the goals are subjective.