Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Theists cannot prove there is a god by anything more than personal revelation; atheists cannot prove there isn’t a god, and cannot falsify personal revelation claims. Personal revelation may be sufficient for any one person, it is not sufficient as a basis for compelling anyone else to endorse any belief. So I propose as a nonbeliever a deal for theists:
1. I’ll not argue your personal revelation is false for you, you’ll not argue that it should be sufficient for me.
2. Furthermore, you conduct your life as is possible and you see fit, I’ll do the same for my life.
3. Neither of us will seek to change how the other conducts their life, as long as that conduct does not directly impact the other person.
4. Whatever moral prescriptions any of us might have will be based on the objective impact those prescriptions have on ourselves and others, and not argued that they should be followed because of any external authorities’ demands.
5. You are free to believe in whatever god you chose, I am free to not share any belief in any god, but neither of us is free to seek to compel each other to subscribe to our beliefs and neither of us is free to promote our own positions to the other or anyone else absent specific invitation to do so by anyone wishing to listen.
This is intended as a very rough draft of a probably futile proposal to reduce some of the endless argument and bickering over “god/no god,” and has nothing to do with science or technology, politics nor philosophy. Fully expect it’ll be thoroughly rejected by some of those on both sides of the “God/no god"issue, as it seems an itch or wound just too annoying to leave alone.
So this is an appeal, such as it is, for folks here to consider as much as they can the merits of occupying so much of our time and energy to lambaste theists, or the reverse, except perhaps as just something with which to amuse ourselves. Personally, I’ve no great interest in what anyone’s theistic beliefs may be, unless that theist seeks to ram their beliefs down my throat. And there are no “Atheist” beliefs, if one bothers to respect the English language, as “atheist” simply means a person so declared does not share in a belief in a god. Period. There are no implications for any other set of beliefs an atheist may have. We have atheists here who’re rabid socialists, capitalists, somewhere in between, or believers in FTL communications with little green people.
For some theists, and BM comes to mind as a current example, any atheist is deserving of contempt, but JayD, Samy73, the Champion and a host of others have graced us as well with their verbal vomit absent nurturance or substance. Those folks are trolls, sex-deprived angry people seeking some sense of satisfaction if anyone ever responds to them; maybe in a few cases psychotic people trying to make some contact, or developmental adolescents seeking some identity otherwise denied them in actual life.
I will try and take my own advice, and not attack theists simply because they’re theists; unless and until they seek to force their beliefs onto others. If I’m able, most of the time, I’ll leave them to ejaculate all by themselves. The off-spring is not viable anyway.
We, as nonbelievers, cannot prove that any one individuals personal experience or revelation is not God, we can only offer plausible explanations as to it being a natural phenomenon, and thus a higher parsimonious probability of not being a supernatural (whatever that even is) phenomenon.
It is the same with the origins of our universe, and the origins of life on earth. We can only, through science, offer plausible natural explanations with varying levels of probability, which through skepticism and critical thinking cast high levels on doubt on those explanations that offer no plausible natural explanation.
Basically, through scientific inquiry and Occams Razor, we can infer with greater probability, that everything in the universe has a natural explanation. That is not an absolute certainty, just a much more likely description.
Theists cannot prove there is a god by anything more than personal revelation; atheists cannot prove there isn’t a god, and cannot falsify personal revelation claims. Personal revelation may be sufficient for any one person, it is not sufficient as a basis for compelling anyone else to endorse any belief. So I propose as a nonbeliever a deal for theists:
1. I’ll not argue your personal revelation is false for you, you’ll not argue that it should be sufficient for me.
2. Furthermore, you conduct your life as is possible and you see fit, I’ll do the same for my life.
3. Neither of us will seek to change how the other conducts their life, as long as that conduct does not directly impact the other person.
4. Whatever moral prescriptions any of us might have will be based on the objective impact those prescriptions have on ourselves and others, and not argued that they should be followed because of any external authorities’ demands.
5. You are free to believe in whatever god you chose, I am free to not share any belief in any god, but neither of us is free to seek to compel each other to subscribe to our beliefs and neither of us is free to promote our own positions to the other or anyone else absent specific invitation to do so by anyone wishing to listen.
In other word, “live and let live.” I’ve never had any problem with this approach for anybody - atheist, Muslim, etc. My problem with you, Dennis, is that you are always trying to get out of paying the bar tab. That’s a much greater issue than religion or morality.
In other word, “live and let live.” I’ve never had any problem with this approach for anybody - atheist, Muslim, etc. My problem with you, Dennis, is that you are always trying to get out of paying the bar tab. That’s a much greater issue than religion or morality.
In other word, “live and let live.” I’ve never had any problem with this approach for anybody - atheist, Muslim, etc.
So if supreme being of the universe tells you to save people, lives the world etc your reply to him is “live and let live”? LOL! Besides being a dismal endorsement of a god whose last stand is personal revelation it undermines personal revelation by making it indistinguishable from personal opinion, desire or delusion.
4. Whatever moral prescriptions any of us might have will be based on the objective impact those prescriptions have on ourselves and others, and not argued that they should be followed because of any external authorities’ demands.
4. Whatever moral prescriptions any of us might have will be based on the objective impact those prescriptions have on ourselves and others, and not argued that they should be followed because of any external authorities’ demands.
I think that’ll be a sticking point.
Expect you’re right, but put it in to elicit replies. Also subscribe to it myself as much as I can.
I’m in favor of all efforts to broker peace. And your strategy is similar to mine in its general aversion to pointless confrontation. But it asks something unethical of the mono-theist.
If I sincerely believe that the nature of reality includes eternal incentives and also have the situational awareness to see just how effective evangelism is: I don’t think I morally justify leaving well enough alone. If I, as an atheist, see a person drowning I have a felt moral obligation to help them. This is compounded if its possible to drown, or burn eternally. Preserving some social order simply isn’t a competitive value with the opportunity to save souls.
Certainly there are a host of post-hoc rationalizations for the fact that many religious traditions simply don’t want to do this. Regardless of how strongly the admonition is reinforced in their own scriptures. But the true believer in the words of jesus knows that he must spread the gospel over the face of the earth. Helping the widows and orphans as he goes.
Similarly, I find I can’t justify leaving well enough alone either. There are individual believers that I respect. But the whole enterprise… its rotten. Pure exploitation. I can’t absolve myself from the responsibility of challenging it in public. Its nice to get along but not nice enough.
In other word, “live and let live.” I’ve never had any problem with this approach for anybody - atheist, Muslim, etc.
So if supreme being of the universe tells you to save people, lives the world etc your reply to him is “live and let live”? LOL!
No, that’s my reply to guys like you and Dennis who have indicated you don’t appreciate efforts to save you. Your perspective is faulty. I can share my views with others, and if they reject them, live and let live.
In other word, “live and let live.” I’ve never had any problem with this approach for anybody - atheist, Muslim, etc.
So if supreme being of the universe tells you to save people, lives the world etc your reply to him is “live and let live”? LOL!
No, that’s my reply to guys like you and Dennis who have indicated you don’t appreciate efforts to save you. Your perspective is faulty. I can share my views with others, and if they reject them, live and let live.
So if god told you had to save people, lives the world etc no matter the cost, your reply is they don’t appreciate it so let them burn. Nice!
In other word, “live and let live.” I’ve never had any problem with this approach for anybody - atheist, Muslim, etc.
So if supreme being of the universe tells you to save people, lives the world etc your reply to him is “live and let live”? LOL!
No, that’s my reply to guys like you and Dennis who have indicated you don’t appreciate efforts to save you. Your perspective is faulty. I can share my views with others, and if they reject them, live and let live.
That’s not the only fault I have, but have managed to live with it for all of my life, so it is not evidently critical. Besides, you fail to prosecute your theism all that much, except maybe as it applies to you; and as I remember, you’re not much on subscribing to some massive set of directions as with the RCC.
So if god told you had to save people, lives the world etc no matter the cost, your reply is they don’t appreciate it so let them burn. Nice!
No reason to beat a dead horse. If you ever get interested in Jesus, you know where to find me. I’m patient. Besides, I’ve said many times I don’t believe in a literal, eternal burning hell.
So if god told you had to save people, lives the world etc no matter the cost, your reply is they don’t appreciate it so let them burn. Nice!
No reason to beat a dead horse. If you ever get interested in Jesus, you know where to find me. I’m patient. Besides, I’ve said many times I don’t believe in a literal, eternal burning hell.
It’s not about me. It’s about you not having the courage of your convictions with regard to personal revelations from god.
1. I’ll not argue your personal revelation is false for you, you’ll not argue that it should be sufficient for me.
2. Furthermore, you conduct your life as is possible and you see fit, I’ll do the same for my life.
3. Neither of us will seek to change how the other conducts their life, as long as that conduct does not directly impact the other person.
4. Whatever moral prescriptions any of us might have will be based on the objective impact those prescriptions have on ourselves and others, and not argued that they should be followed because of any external authorities’ demands.
5. You are free to believe in whatever god you chose, I am free to not share any belief in any god, but neither of us is free to seek to compel each other to subscribe to our beliefs and neither of us is free to promote our own positions to the other or anyone else absent specific invitation to do so by anyone wishing to listen.
This is intended as a very rough draft of a probably futile proposal to reduce some of the endless argument and bickering over “god/no god,” and has nothing to do with science or technology, politics nor philosophy. Fully expect it’ll be thoroughly rejected by some of those on both sides of the “God/no god"issue, as it seems an itch or wound just too annoying to leave alone.
Sort of a Confucian code of conduct Dennis (so it does have political overtones). It’s excellent and we should try and find some way to incorporate it into the U.S. Constitution.
