I was sent a copy of a new book by Francisco Garcia-Julve who is a Catholic philosopher and polymath – Sense Nonsense: Fundamental Propositions Not too Good to Be True, Just too Hard to Accept
Not the type of book that you would just sit down and read from end to end, but more like one to dip into meditatively from time to time. Though I did find myself returning to it each day for a week as I quite enjoyed his snippets of thought.
It is like reading a twitter feed from a very wise person as each thought is quite compact. In fact the author really should start a Twitter feed and tweet much of the book. Of course when you have a book composed in this way not every thought is engaging, but there is a high ration of those that make you stop, think, and evaluate. The wordplay, paradox, and inversion can be jarring at times, but that is mainly when you respond to it the most.
To better illustrate this here is just a very small sample of some of the thoughts that struck me specifically. This also gives you an idea about the formatting of the book.
If Laplace’s dictum—in Carl Sagan’s version—that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs should apply to anything, it would be abortion.
* * *
We would believe some supernatural truths, such as the Eucharistic presence, if they were empirical; and we would not believe some empirical truths, such as particle-wave duality, if they were supernatural.
* * *
To think of oneself as incapable of being a saint is not humility but cowardice.
* * *
We don’t think that we can’t be saints because we know ourselves but because we do not know God.
* * *
It’s of little use trying to be a theologian without trying to be a saint first.It’s of little use trying to be a theologian without trying to be a saint first.
* * *
You are not the exception in having tortured and killed Jesus, but you can be in atoning for it.
* * *
Conversion to God is like a marriage in reverse, where they are two until death makes them one.
* * *
We only try right when wrong fails.
* * *
You must, by all means, seek happiness—but only provided it is not your own.
* * *
We cannot understand God, but we can understand that we cannot understand God.
* * *
There are two kinds of faults: the inexcusable and our own.
* * *
We must behave so that people who know us outside the church will not be surprised to see us in church.
* * *
The attention we give to ourselves, we don’t give to the others.
Unlike so many movie trailers – this is just a small sampling of the good bits.
The website for the book.
34 comments
“It’s of little use trying to be a theologian without trying to be a saint first.It’s of little use trying to be a theologian without trying to be a saint first.”
This seems to be the same thing twice. Typo?
Rjak,
No the emphasis is on the priority of being a saint first.
If Laplace’s dictum—in Carl Sagan’s version—that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs should apply to anything, it would be abortion.
Huh? Apply in what way? Abortion doesn’t exist? That a woman has no rights to her own body?
>We would believe some supernatural truths, such as the Eucharistic presence, if they were empirical; and we would not believe some empirical truths, such as particle-wave duality, if they were supernatural.
Particle-wave duality has been proven beyond any doubt, it’s the mechanics that remain elusive. Whereas crackers do not turn into dead/living people. It’s ridiculous to even begin to compare a theory of quantum mechanics and a primitive Neolithic ritual.
>We cannot understand God, but we can understand that we cannot understand God.
That’s because your god makes no sense and rather than accepting that reality and realizing that the unreal isn’t real you just pretend that it makes perfect sense. Bizarre.
I now have a “quote of the day” for several days. For the first one, Atheism would also be an example of an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof.
salvage,
For the 1st one, I think you need extraordinary proof to say an unborn baby is a “non-person”. Where is the scientific method for this extraordinardy claim?
> Atheism would also be an example of an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof.
No, that’s not even close to accurate. Atheism says there are no such things as gods, that’s not a claim it’s a refutation of a claim that there are such things as gods.
Let me demonstrate; I claim that humanity was created by Prometheus because some 6,000 years ago it was written down and many people believed it.
Do you think you need extraordinary proof to refute my claim?
>I think you need extraordinary proof to say an unborn baby is a “non-person”.
A fetus is a fetus a person is a person, it’s not an error that we have two separate words for two different things. A fetus of course is a precursor to a person but so are sperm and eggs.
There is nothing extraordinary about claiming a non-person is a non-person and the unborn are not born and thus not people.
The woman who has the fetus inside of her has the final say as to what it is, if they think it’s a person and don’t want to get an abortion, great, that’s the way it will be, if they think it’s a fetus and want to get an abortion, great, that’s the way it will be.
It’s great because it’s none of anyone’s business, our opinions don’t mater, the mother is the only one with the only say. The End.
>Where is the scientific method for this extraordinardy claim?
There is none needed, we know what a fetus is, we know what a person is and so do you.
Let’s say you’re walking by a clinic, it’s on fire, on one side of the burning building is a nursery with new born, on the other side are incubating fetuses about to be implanted for gestation in infertile women.
You can only save one side, do you even hesitate?
salvage,
I teach a course in logic, so I know a thing or two about it. Every claim requires a premise (axiom). For the atheist, a premise needs to be that the universe comes from nothing for the purpose of nothing. More specifically, it comes from nothing intelligent for no intended purpose. Making something from nothing actually defies the laws of physics and we must be careful not to redefine “nothing” to be some scientific “something”. Also, something unintelligent or non-rational making or becoming something rational under its own power and direction contradicts our ordinary experience. It is truly an extraordinary claim.
“A fetus is a fetus, a person is a person”. Is this an opinion or a fact? If fact, there should be clear data to show us when you magically change from fetus to person. A fetus is simply an early stage of a person just like a teen is in a later stage.
>For the atheist, a premise needs to be that the universe comes from nothing
No, no and no. You are not listening or understanding. Atheism says NOTHING about the universe, its origins or content save that is has no gods.
That’s it. No premise, nothing about astronomy, biology, morality or anything else.
No gods, that’s it that’s all.
You try and attach creation of the cosmos to atheism because it “begs the question” as a teacher of logic I’m sure you understand that.
>“A fetus is a fetus, a person is a person”. Is this an opinion or a fact?
Fact.
> If fact, there should be clear data to show us when you magically change from fetus to person.
Why should there be? There is no magic, a human fetus develops into a human baby but until it leaves the woman’s body it is nothing to you, me or anyone else, it is hers’ and hers’ alone.
Again as a logic teacher you should understand that. How can you logically decide what a woman should do with her own body? Do you even think outside of a police state that it would be enforceable?
> A fetus is simply an early stage of a person just like a teen is in a later stage.
While teens can certainly try and emulate a fetus by sleeping all day and being dependent on the mother unit for its sustenance we know this to be artificial no matter how typical.
We also know that a fetus is not a teen and a teen not a fetus. They are two separate and distinct things and thus are treated differently. Once again we have different names for them, logical no?
So I notice you skipped over my questions, as a logic teacher what do you think I should infer from such a glaring absence?
I find it fascinating that a logic teacher thinks it rational to believe in 6,000 year old mythology laced with Roman superstitions and paganism. Can you explain to me why you do?
Hey no Christian ever answers this but you might be equipped being a logic teacher and all, why did your god sacrifice itself to itself so it wouldn’t be angry with its creation for behaving exactly as it knew it was going to behave?
That doesn’t seem very logical to me but since you’re the teacher I’m sure I’m about to be enlightened.
No God or Gods is a premise. You are stating it as an objective truth. I recommend a book by Fr. Spitzer called New Proofs for the Existence of God (if you have the guts).
As for the Fetus… A fetus is a type of person; a baby is a type of person; a teen is type, a senior citizen is a type of person. Scientifically, all human life begins at conception as an objective fact. To say the first stage of one’s life or one’s personhood begins at some other threshold of consciousness or viability is subjective; a matter of opinion. To declare something as important as this on something subjective is irrational, especially when something objective is available.
“I find it fascinating that a logic teacher thinks it rational to believe in 6,000 year old mythology laced with Roman superstitions and paganism. Can you explain to me why you do?”
I don’t. That would be unreasonable. Just so we are clear, I’m technical manager certified to teach a course in logic (troubleshooting/decision-making) for a global 500 company. It strongly relates to pure process logic and helped to grow in my Catholic faith.
“why did your god sacrifice itself to itself so it wouldn’t be angry with its creation for behaving exactly as it knew it was going to behave?”
All for you and with no anger; only love.
You ask questions with many premises and assumptions. Not good for the discipline of logic or life.
>No God or Gods is a premise.
No, it is not, it is a refusal of a premise.
>You are stating it as an objective truth.
Because it is, there is absolutely no evidence for gods anywhere, there’s plenty of evidence that suggests gods are the products of myths however.
You’re not going to answer my question about Prometheus?
> I recommend a book by Fr. Spitzer called New Proofs for the Existence of God (if you have the guts).
Yes, theists going on about how their god is real is quite the scary thing!
> A fetus is a type of person;
No it is not. I don’t understand why you can’t understand that a fetus is a fetus, people don’t live inside their mothers.
>Scientifically, all human life begins at conception as an objective fact.
Sure. It also starts at a sperm and an egg, so what?
>To say the first stage of one’s life or one’s personhood begins at some other threshold of consciousness or viability is subjective; a matter of opinion.
Sure. Doesn’t change the fact that a woman’s body is her own.
That’s a point you just seem to be ignoring, why is that?
>To declare something as important as this on something subjective is irrational, especially when something objective is available.
What important? The only important fetus would be mine, everyone else’s is their own problem.
>I don’t. That would be unreasonable. Just so we are clear, I’m technical manager certified to teach a course in logic (troubleshooting/decision-making) for a global 500 company. It strongly relates to pure process logic and helped to grow in my Catholic faith.
I didn’t ask that, I asked how is it logical to have faith in a religion that was founded on myth and legend but I guess that you’re not going to answer the question.
>“why did your god sacrifice itself to itself so it wouldn’t be angry with its creation for behaving exactly as it knew it was going to behave?”
All for you and with no anger; only love.
I didn’t ask why I asked if it made sense so that would be you’re not going to answer that question either. It’s okay, Christians never do.
>You ask questions with many premises and assumptions. Not good for the discipline of logic or life.
Yes and you didn’t answer them confirming that you are as confused about your faith as I am.
But at least I’m honest about it.
You’re so sure that zygotes are people why don’t you say that you’d rescues those from the fire rather than the new borns? They’re the exact same thing right?
Ben: don’t waste your time! Salvage is one of those people who claim all kinds of things and are utterly uninterested in analyzing their claims critically. When one does not even understand the difference between a premise and a fact, or when one predicates his conclusions on non-existent premises, one needs prayers, not explanations.
How could anyone explain centuries of clear & careful thinking from thousands of towering Catholic intellects in this com box? I need to log-off now. No hard feelings I hope.
To All,
Visit our blog for more on the harmony between Faith & Reason if interested. Just click my name. Peace.
Jeffrey,
For the sake of objectivity–so badly needed–I feel obliged to state here that there is no repetition in the original. But I am glad this miscue gives me the opportunity to complement the point with this other: Neither is it very effective to try to be a saint without being a theologian too”. Both are reconciled by these other one: There is the simple faith of plain souls and the profound faith of theologians, but simple faith can and must be profound, and profound faith can and must be simpleI is him and.
>Ben: don’t waste your time!
Ah yes, the theist’s basic dodge, like teenage girls stomping up to their room yelling “YOU JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND!!!” then slamming the door and ignoring everything listening to the iPod.
> Salvage is one of those people who claim all kinds of things and are utterly uninterested in analyzing their claims critically.
Yes, my claim of no such things as gods and my example of Prometheus contains nothing analytical at all!
>When one does not even understand the difference between a premise and a fact,
I do, the premise is that your god is real, the fact is that gods do not exist. The fact is I could list literally 4,000 gods and you would agree that they were never real.
Then we get to your god and all the reasons for those other gods not being real suddenly don’t apply.
Why is that?
> one needs prayers, not explanations.
That does sum up theism nicely.
>”Huh? Apply in what way? Abortion doesn’t exist? That a woman has no rights to her own body?”
First, my apologies because–as I explained in the introduction to this book–I cannot elaborate on each point to make it clearer. In this case, the point is not, of course, the existence of abortion, but what is predicated on it, namely that it is right. So, the extraordinary claim is that it is legitimate to kill an unborn human life. There is no extraordinary or ordinary proof whatsoever, but only the lame excuse that it is not certain to be a human life. Even assuming that it wasn’t, the principle is that in doubt, as applies to our legal system, uncertainty of wrong is not enough, but security of right is necessary. That is what presumed innocence is based on. Likewise, for a drug to be approved is not enough that it is not proved to be harmful, but it has to be proved to be safe. Here, we would need to know positively that a human fetus is not human.
>How could anyone explain centuries of clear & careful thinking from thousands of towering Catholic intellects in this com box?
Uh huh. Say how did Christianity come to be the Empire’s official religion? My history books say it was more war than “clear & careful thinking”. When the church was burning men alive for saying that the sun was fixed and the Earth went around it was that “clear & careful thinking”? The various massacres during the Reformation and Crusader Wars, were those the result of “clear & careful thinking”? How about aiding and abetting the rape of countless children on every continent? The genocides of various North and South American peoples? Allying with the Nazis in WWII? More “clear & careful thinking”?
Oh and my other questions, the ones about how the whole Jesus thing doesn’t make a lick of sense? I’m not sure if there much “clear & careful thinking” going on there.
But yes, you could answer my question but gosh darn it, there just isn’t room! That must be it, no other possible explanation.
>I need to log-off now. No hard feelings I hope.
None at all, you’re a theist, you can’t face reality, to be upset with your intellectual cowardice would be like yelling at kid in a wheelchair for not walking.
>but what is predicated on it, namely that it is right.
It is right if that’s what the woman wants to do with her own body, it’s bizarre that you think you know what a woman should do with her own natural functions or that you even have the right to an opinion.
You don’t.
The unborn are not people, it’s pretty simple, if they were they wouldn’t be called the unborn.
Salvage-Troll:
You’re not particularly intellectual. Same talking points, and repeated insistence that “there are no gods”. That last statement requires a kind of faith, as there is no way to disprove that there is a God, either. Agnosticism is more honest in that respect. And a Deist will acknowledge a First Cause, but not tie that Being/Force to a particular belief system or anything outside of the laws of nature as they normally operate. But strong atheism (which is what you seem to profess) requires that you believe in the nonexistence of deity as an irrefutable fact, with no need to assume the same burden of proof that you lay upon theists.
>Salvage-Troll:
Ha! Ha! Yes! I am a troll, I have not made any on topic comments and I’ve been extremely uncivil!
See another way theists like to avoid the questions I ask (and answering them) is by calling me a troll, that way they feel like they can ignore the substance of my points.
>You’re not particularly intellectual.
Two passive-aggressive insults in a row! Remember later on to say you’re going to stop responding to me because I’m rude.
>Same talking points, and repeated insistence that “there are no gods”. That last statement requires a kind of faith, as there is no way to disprove that there is a God, either.
No it does not. Does it take any faith to say there are no dragons running around the New York subway system? Well I’ve been there and I heard a roaring sounds and a rush of hot air, it must have been a dragon! Never mind no one has seen one, never mind there is no physical evidence, never mind dragons living in a subway makes no sense you need a kind of faith to disbelieve in the dragons of New York!
Once again, and if I’m wrong I do wish one of you would say so, I can list 4,000 gods (a rough estimate of how many there have been in the last 10,000 years around the world) and you would say none of them exist right?
Again, if I am wrong please say so.
And why wouldn’t you believe in them?
Well those reasons, those EXACT SAME reasons apply to your god. Either they’re all real or they’re all unreal.
Don’t tell me you’ve felt or experienced your god, so have many of the people who believe in gods you know not to be real.
>Agnosticism is more honest in that respect.
No it is not, it is the position of someone who has not given the concept enough thought. You can’t believe in a “little bit of magic”. Either there are gods or there are not, there are no “sorta gods” quasi-Jesuss or Allah-lite.
>And a Deist will acknowledge a First Cause,
And what caused that First Cause if everything needs a First Cause? I know I am no intellectual but I do know that in math when your answer is infinity going backwards you don’t have an answer. The first cause argument has been completely debunked as self-defeating some 4,000 years ago by Greeks and probably even before.
>but not tie that Being/Force to a particular belief system or anything outside of the laws of nature as they normally operate.
The laws of nature only operate normally, that’s why they are called laws. They never change. If there is anything that could be called a creator god it’s those laws, at least that’s what Einstein said.
>But strong atheism (which is what you seem to profess)
There are no levels of atheism, are you not reading the words I am putting on your screen? No gods, that’s it, it’s not a scale of 1 god to 10 gods, it’s binary, one and zero and in this case it’s zero, none, nadda. If someone is an atheist can in no way be more atheist than any other atheist.
>requires that you believe in the nonexistence of deity as an irrefutable fact,
Refute it! Show me evidence of your god! Is it the Christian one? The one from the Bible that says it made the Cosmos in 6 days when in fact it too a few billion years more? The one that says it made all the animals at the exact same time as they are now but for some weird reason made it look like they evolved from single celled creatures?
Right there I can prove your god not real for if it is it’s either an idiot or an insane liar.
Not too likely a condition for an omnipotent god huh?
But of course you won’t refute, theists won’t talk about that sort of thing for some reason! Gosh, wonder why?
>with no need to assume the same burden of proof that you lay upon theists.
Because I’m not claiming a crazy god made the world that made it really angry for being like it made it so it sacrificed itself to itself, took a three day nap and now we should all stop having sex before marriage because that makes it even angrier. Or something.
There you go, I’ve been rude to your sacred beliefs now you have license to take offense and not answer any of my points because I JUST DON’T GET IT! Then you can storm and stamp off to your room and listen to Justine Beiber really loud and text your god that you can’t wait until I die and see the look on my face when that loving god roasts me forever for not believing along with billions of Hindus, Muslims, Jews, miscellaneous and Christians that are not in your sect.
Because I have a brain that your god made that makes it impossible for me to believe in it.
Yup, pretty logical that and clearly I am not intellectual enough to understand it!
salvage,
One more book recommendation for you, Theology & Sanity by Theologian Frank Sheed. It’s all about reality.
>”Particle-wave duality has been proven beyond any doubt, it’s the mechanics that remain elusive. Whereas crackers do not turn into dead/living people. It’s ridiculous to even begin to compare a theory of quantum mechanics and a primitive Neolithic ritual.”
Of course, quantum duality has been proven. But that’s precisely the point, that so have been miracles, say –as empirically as any lab experiment may be–and yet they are rejected. So would be the trinity of God even if it were proven like the duality of particles; conversely, the simultaneous presence of a particle in separate points is accepted but not the simultaneous presence of the Eucharistic sacrament, simply because it is supernatural. The message in my statement is that, contrary to the claims of materialistic rationalism, supernatural realities are not rejected for the sake of objective logic but personal prejudice, pure and simple.
Incidentally, there is no ‘mechanics’ in the physics of particles. The notion of internal structures and mechanism has long been abandoned.
>”That’s because your god makes no sense and rather than accepting that reality and realizing that the unreal isn’t real you just pretend that it makes perfect sense. Bizarre.”
The point here was that believers–who don’t have natural evidence of God, or they would not be believers–can rest assured that their position, if not certain, is at least consistent. Someone not understanding why they didn’t understand quantum mechanics would have reason for concern, for there is no reason for quantum mechanics being impossible to understand whereas, of course, you should expect natural beings, that cannot account for their own essence and existence, to be unable to understand the supernatural being who does.
Naturally, you would also expect the contrary position to be inconsistent and indeed it is, for it implies that you can understand that you cannot understand.
This is important because usually this kind of controversies is deadlocked by external references the parties involved have no way to confirm. Therefore, we need to consider inconsistencies that are inherently wrong, like the one we are dealing with here. Indeed, it is completely arbitrary to say that God does not make sense for there has never been proved empirically, and is therefore completely subjective, not to mention that that would imply that all the believers in history have been nuts. If anything doesn’t make sense, it is atheism. But it does make sense–and that’s the difference–that whereas atheism can’t account for theism, which would be pathological nonsense in the world without God, theism can account for atheism, which makes sense as a prediction of theist “theory” (which means, that atheists are not nuts, but simply wrong).
>One more book recommendation for you, Theology & Sanity by Theologian Frank Sheed. It’s all about reality.
Then it must no be about gods because they are not real.
Why don’t you answer my questions or points?
>Of course, quantum duality has been proven. But that’s precisely the point, that so have been miracles,
No. Miracles are what superstitious people like to call things like coincidence sometimes coupled with natural phenomenon.
>say –as empirically as any lab experiment may be–and yet they are rejected.
They are rejected because they are not lab experiments. Show your work, show us peer reviewed papers on these “miracles” and they won’t be rejected because they’ll no longer be called miracles but rather facts.
> So would be the trinity of God even if it were proven like the duality of particles; conversely,
But you still have the roadblock of your god being the product of mythology and legend; it’s no more real than Zeus is.
>the simultaneous presence of a particle in separate points is accepted but not the simultaneous presence of the Eucharistic sacrament, simply because it is supernatural.
Yeah, except the whole eating gods thing comes from Roman and older pagan religions, again, right back to the Neolithic. So if you insist that you eating your god is some sort of quantum event and real then you have to agree that when the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians and countless other cultures did it they too were eating their real gods.
Oh and it’s goofy, what the hell? You eat your god? Why? What does it do? What puerile nonsense! Yes, your god made the cosmos 13.7 billion years big / ago just so that you could eat it. How can you possibly think that any of it makes the slightest bit of sense?
>supernatural realities are not rejected for the sake of objective logic but personal prejudice, pure and simple.
Absolute nonsense. What a damned silly thing to say. Supernatural doesn’t exist that’s why it’s rejected, there is no logic, I’ve been asking for anyone of you to show me the logic and you just whitles past it.
See this is how I know you’re delusional, when rational people are asked skeptical questions, they answer them until a mutual understanding is achieved.
You refuse to even start this process because you know where it leads.
Another example for you to completely ignore:
Dragons aren’t real.
Ogres aren’t real.
Fairies aren’t real.
The gods of the Aztecs aren’t real.
Do you agree? Yes? The skies are full of gods? No, I assume that’s what you’d say, (You won’t answer so I guess I have to) YOUR god is the only One True God and you’re certainly not letting your “personal prejudice” get in the way!
My “prejudice” BTW is REALITY. I know it’s terrible; I’m such a slave to the stuff! And so are you in all ways save one. The one that keeps your god in its heaven and all the comfort that brings.
You have children? Let’s say you take it to the doctor because it’s vomiting blood, doctors say hmm, I’m going to have a pray to your god, do some rituals see if that can’t fix the problem.
Do you stay or do you go to another doctor? Or maybe one that uses science to save your kid’s life? I guess you’d have to be all prejudice huh? Not giving the supernatural a chance?
>Incidentally, there is no ‘mechanics’ in the physics of particles. The notion of internal structures and mechanism has long been abandoned.
…
Yes. Do you know that sometimes a word can be meant figuratively? That is the literal meaning is superseded by a more abstract concept?
If you could just maybe answer my questions and points rather than trying to score points we both might learn something.
Here’s another question for you to pretend doesn’t have a point or you could answer if there was only space:
Which side did your god cheer on in the St Bartholomew Day Massacre?
>The point here was that believers–who don’t have natural evidence of God, or they would not be believers–
Yeah, there’s more of that logic and sense, because there’s no proof of your god you have to believe!
> for it implies that you can understand that you cannot understand.
I understand your god, it’s a typical god, I can trace its origins.
Oh and this it’s weird that this supernatural quantum like being you’re trying to make your god out to be is so obsessed with sex. See no matter how far away from our experience and how nebulous you try and make your god out to be with your pseudo-scientific arglebargle I can always grab it by the scruff of the neck and drag it back down to the Bible and your god’s behavior in it which ranged from stupid (doesn’t seem to understand that the sun is a star) to genocidal maniac (he’s angry so he kills everyone).
>This is important because usually this kind of controversies is deadlocked by external references the parties involved have no way to confirm.
Ah, a lovely bit of theist boilerplate right there (no one knows!), and it’s wrong I can confirm that your god came from Neolithic pagan, Babylonian myths and Roman superstitions. I can also confirm that you reject 99% of it as false save for the bits you practice.
It’d be nice if you’d confirm it or do you think Juno the two faced god is real? Because his followers had this ritual where they would splash water on themselves and be reborn? Sound familiar?
>Indeed, it is completely arbitrary to say that God does not make sense
Sigh. No it’s not, I’ve made a few specific points about your god not making sense, like the whole Jesus thing? You just ignore them that way you can say stuff like the above.
>for there has never been proved empirically,
It has never been proven empirically that there are not dragons in the New York subways system.
Do really not get how useless that argument is? How you can use it to “prove anything”?
> If anything doesn’t make sense, it is atheism.
And back to square one. Do you think the Mongolian gods are real? Would it make sense to believe in them?
Why do you keep on repeating the same points? I’ve answered this again and again! Do you genuinely not understand that or are you just lie to yourself?
>that whereas atheism can’t account for theism,
Atheism can’t account for golf! Atheism can’t account for carrots! Atheism can’t account for the color red! Because that’s not what it does nor does it claim to.
Once again do you choose not to understand that you don’t understand this fact or do you genuinely not understand that all atheism says is there are no such things as gods.
> which would be pathological nonsense in the world without God, theism can account for atheism, which makes sense as a prediction of theist “theory” (which means, that atheists are not nuts, but simply wrong).
Wow. Your god must be real because there are people who don’t believe in it! That makes so much sense! And that’s why Jews are all going to Hell to be tortured forever and ever!
Next post please answer my points and questions or don’t bother, you’re not helping your cause any with such inanity.
>but what is predicated on it, namely that it is right.
“It is right if that’s what the woman wants to do with her own body, it’s bizarre that you think you know what a woman should do with her own natural functions or that you even have the right to an opinion.”
”You don’t.”
In my previous comment I ignored this own-body-right argument because it is so untenable that those who believe it are going to believe it no matter what arguments to the contrary, or they would have already dropped it. But just in case here are the main ones:
The fetus results from the conjunction of two procreative agents. If only for that reason, it is not the mother’s property anymore than the born child.
Like life in general, if we can say something for sure is that that it is not ours, the only moot point being whose it is. The error at the root of the abortionist position is–but not only–to think that we are separate entities, accidentally related like blocks in a Lego construction, when we are rather like cells in an organism, in a synergic relationship that transcends the individual. That’s why I say in “Sense Nonsense” that:
[…] , I must also tell you that I am trying to negotiate the same human quest as you are and cannot instruct you on what to do with your life or how to do it. But I can give you inspiration and direction—for starters, the realization that your life, or your body for that matter, is yours but not only yours. You are responsible for it as its user, not entitled to it as its owner.
>”… her own natural functions or that you even have the right to an opinion.”
>”You don’t.”
Now I understand why you reject God. It’s because you think that you are a god.
I myself, as a simple human person, would never dare say categorically to anyone on any grounds –be it logical, moral, or whatever–that they don’t have the right to an opinion. In this respect I must thank you for attesting to the relevance of what I say in that book:
We have no right to expect other people to listen to our opinions if we are not prepared to listen to other people’s opinions.
We shouldn’t be sure of our opinions without listening to the contrary ones.
We shouldn’t opine if we are not prepared to change our opinions.
>”The unborn are not people, it’s pretty simple, if they were they wouldn’t be called the unborn.”
I want to think that if you took a second critical look at this assertion you would see its unbelievable vacuity. First, it is not simple, it is simplistic: it’s like saying that the atom can’t be divisible or it would not be called the atom. Things are what they are, period.
Not only that, but as it happens, it IS not called the unborn: it is called the fetus. Furthermore, ‘unborn’ is an adjectival noun that refers to the unborn child–who else–like the ‘unforgiving’, the ‘undocumented’ refer to the unforgiving, undocumented PERSON, what else? So, not only the fact that it is called the unborn is no indication–let alone demonstration–that the fetus is not a person, but on the contrary, it is proof that, at least subliminally, it is considered a human being. And for good reason, too, for we know scientifically that the ovum is an autonomous–albeit not independent, like all of us–living entity with a c0mplete genome that only needs nourishment to develop, again, like any of us.
Salvage sounds like a broken record.
>”Of course, quantum duality has been proven. But that’s precisely the point, that so have been miracles,”
>”No. Miracles are what superstitious people like to call things like coincidence sometimes coupled with natural phenomenon.”
You are calling superstitious people, for example, all the doctors in the panels that have confirmed all the miracles in Lourdes, defined as “UNEXPLAINABLE, complete, immediate and permanent healings.” The best the incredulous can do is insist obstinately that the association with the actions of the believers that cause them is mere coincidence. Along these lines, if even from the materialistic point of view to say that our dreams–which follow a pattern that is illogic but perfectly coherent and consistent with the psychology of the dreamer–are the result of RANDOM neuron firing is in blatant contradiction with the scientific method, to say that all miraculous events–which not only are unexplainable, but INCOMPATIBLE with natural laws–are just coincidences coupled with NATURAL phenomena, verges on the delirious! When a wise person runs into such fanaticism, the best they can do is ignore it as hopeless.
>”The point here was that believers–who don’t have natural evidence of God, or they would not be believers–“
>”Yeah, there’s more of that logic and sense, because there’s no proof of your god you have to believe!”
You can’t be serious. Do you really mean to say that you do think that’s what I said? What I meant–obviously, I should think–is that if they are believers it’s precisely because what they believe cannot be demonstrated empirically (note I’m not saying it cannot be demonstrated at all), or they would not believe by definition.
This inability to grasp even the most simple propositions and yet feel competent to dispute them reminds me of those inept students that can’t seem to be able to understand the subject but argue with the teachers no end. I’m also familiar enough with the hogwash of misapplied logic arrogant nonbelievers regard as crushingly final, to know that to confront it is a lost battle. To keep arguing would be an inexcusable waste of time I can put to better and helpful use.
So well do I know this situation that I can anticipate the reaction, something like, aha, he knows he’s beaten, that’s typical, to refuse to argue when then don’t have arguments, dah, dah, dah. Whatever! Maybe others do, but I don’t accept being taken advantage of to satisfy anyone’s contentious ego. Make no mistake: being understanding and tolerant does not make people of good will stupid.
After having posted my previous comment I thought I’d do well review the rest by others in this thread before I logged out, and I am relieved to see that I’m not the only one to have got Salvage’s number too (nothing remarkable, really, for it’s so easy). It’s always like that, those who have the personal problem are the only ones that fail to see it. I would pass an invitation to pray for him, but it would only exacerbate him, so let’s just hope he will eventually come to his senses. Some lucky–and honest–ones do. But they had to be humble first.
>In my previous comment I ignored this own-body-right argument because it is so untenable
So women are not their own? You view opposition to that as “untenable”?
>The fetus results from the conjunction of two procreative agents. If only for that reason, it is not the mother’s property anymore than the born child.
And it sits inside the woman’s body, kind of an important point. So when a woman gets pregnant she is no longer free? She no longer has any say over her body? Well then you must be for making it illegal for women to smoke and drink or engage in any activity that could endanger the fetus.
>Like life in general, if we can say something for sure is that that it is not ours,
Yes it is, of course it is, whose is it? Yours? Your god’s?
> in a synergic relationship that transcends the individual.
The only relationship is between the mother and the fetus, that’s it and it is so self-evident you’d have to be delusional to think otherwise.
>You are responsible for it as its user, not entitled to it as its owner.
And to that I say nonsense. You want to your life or part of it to be owned your insane god that’s your business but just because you’re a slave doesn’t mean others are and that you have any rights to try and make them.
>Now I understand why you reject God. It’s because you think that you are a god.
Ha! Ha! Yes! That’s it! Nothing to do with a complete rejection of superstition and the supernatural or just sense and mental faculty! I think I am a god because I think women should have the final say about what happens with their bodies!
You wrote a whole book of this stuff? Wow.
>that they don’t have the right to an opinion.
Ah, look at you getting clever with the semantics! Of course you have a right to an opinion, what you don’t have a right to is using that opinion to deny other people’s basic rights.
Doubly so if that opinion comes from a pile of theistic nonsense.
>We have no right to expect other people to listen to our opinions if we are not prepared to listen to other people’s opinions.
Sure and I’ve listened to your opinion that you think you can tell women what to do with their bodies and lives and it’s rubbish. You don’t, even if you have a god on your side.
>We shouldn’t be sure of our opinions without listening to the contrary ones.
I guess irony is another thing you don’t get.
>We shouldn’t opine if we are not prepared to change our opinions.
Sure, but not when we know we are right and when it comes to abortion it’s a woman’s choice, there is no other possible answer without declaring women to be less than human with limited rights.
You may feel that way, your church certainly does but then again all that business in the Garden of Eden with the magic fruit, women have so much to answer for!
>First, it is not simple, it is simplistic: it’s like saying that the atom can’t be divisible or it would not be called the atom.
No, it’s not like that at all it’s a fetus is a fetus, a person is a person. One becomes the other but until it does it isn’t. Why can’t you understand that?
Like you know how a caterpillar isn’t a butterfly? Or a lump of dough isn’t a loaf of bread? Or how a forest isn’t a village of log cabins? Different things are different!
And once again, the clinic, the fire, you can choose to save the unimplemented cells or the new born WHICH DO YOU CHOOSE?
>You are calling superstitious people, for example, all the doctors in the panels that have confirmed all the miracles in Lourdes, defined as “UNEXPLAINABLE, complete, immediate and permanent healings.”
Yes, they could also be liars, who knows, with theists it’s hard to tell.
I feel weird telling this to what I assume is a grown-up but there is no such things as magic.
I do love the MY GOD HEALED ME! scam though, makes your god out to be sort of a mafia don, if you “respect” it enough it’ll help you out, cross it and your kneecaps are busted.
Tell me, if your god randomly heals people why doesn’t it do it all the time? Why not open a clinic? Nah, it’s better that every once in a while it pops up, heals a few people and then vanishes in the exact same way that things that don’t exist do.
Tell me, your god ever cure a cut off limb?
>is that if they are believers it’s precisely because what they believe cannot be demonstrated empirically (note I’m not saying it cannot be demonstrated at all),
Note: Yes you are, if it isn’t empirical it’s nothing.
I get it, believers believe because they have faith and they don’t need evidence to sully it.
And you can slice it as thin as like, still baloney.
> To keep arguing would be an inexcusable waste of time I can put to better and helpful use.
So that would be you’re not going to answer my points? You address a few here but have ignored so many. I know, I know, gosh darn it there are perfectly sensible answers but pearls before swine! But don’t worry when I die your god is really going to let me have it. I wonder if it’ll let you watch? You can sit on its shoulder while I scream in agony and you can sadly think “If only salvage had believed all that unbelievable stuff!”
Gosh, didn’t even get to Noah’s Ark and Revelations and oh the latest Vatican scandals. This one has a dead teenage girl and a mafia don! Tell me when Jesus was setting his church up did he know all that was going to happen? Was that part of his plan?
And in a 1,000 years of European history you had Christian nations constantly attacking each other, killing countless millions, which side was Jesus on? I know he finds war useful, I mean without it he couldn’t have spread his message of peace and love.
Weird isn’t it that your religion of peace needed war to grow? I know, I know, it’s only bad when the Muslims did it.
> Make no mistake: being understanding and tolerant does not make people of good will stupid.
True, that would be believing the myths of a tribe of Bronze Age desert savages has any basis in reality.
But please do run away, I knew you would, theists always do, predictable that way.
> I’m not the only one to have got Salvage’s number too
Ha! Ha! Yes! You got my number and… what?
Do you notice you say a lot of stuff that doesn’t mean much?
> It’s always like that, those who have the personal problem are the only ones that fail to see it.
Yes! That’s it! I haven’t stated any facts, made any points or anything like that! This is all crazy ranting, an expression of my personal problems! All atheist of course are like that, all are unhappy miserable people and that’s why they think there’ s no way a universe creating god sacrificed itself to itself so it wouldn’t be angry at its creation for behaving exactly how it knew it would behave.
There is no other possible explanation!
>I would pass an invitation to pray for him,
And that’s something else that doesn’t make sense, why pray? If it’s the right thing to do isn’t your god already going to do it? Does it need you to tell it what to do? Or does it keep count of the prayers and if it gets enough it acts?
Tell me does your god prefer its prayers in Latin or English?
> so let’s just hope he will eventually come to his senses. Some lucky–and honest–ones do.
Yes, believe in gods is quite sensible as long as it’s the god you believe in right? I can’t help but notice you completely ignored my points about the other gods. Let me guess, you’ve convinced yourself that no one ever really believed in Zeus or Odin or Jupiter, they were just filling in the empty space left by your god, the real one.
Yes, I bet that’s how you deal with that dichotomy.
>But they had to be humble first.
Yes! I need to be humble, like you, you who thinks that everyone else who has a different god is wrong and that your god made you special and cares what you do. Yup, pretty modest fellow right there.
Salvage,
have you considered presenting your arguments to people who are physically present, rather than to what may, in fact, just be one person writing under different handles?
You have some very strong arguments that are probably wasted on whoever writes here, as we seem to not share or accept them. Maybe you would be more successful with someone who can see you and understand you better.
After all, if you are as convinced of what you say as you seem to be, you should be successful with many people. Why don’t you try that?
Yes Roberto, that is an excellent example of passive-aggressive non-response and from that I assume you, like Amy P can’t answer my questions or points either.