PUT YOUR LIFE WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS #2

69 views
Skip to first unread message

Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 5, 2020, 7:13:14 PM10/5/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Don't know why I never thought of this before: an open challenge to Bible parrots, and other theists who somehow don't see that non-scriptural monotheism is right.

Cary



firech...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 26, 2021, 1:48:43 AM1/26/21
to BYS vs MH
I'll do you one better. I won't pray to a god as I don't believe in any. You pray to your god that good evidence for their existence is revealed to me. We'll see what happens.

Shane

Cary Cook

unread,
Jan 26, 2021, 8:59:34 PM1/26/21
to BYS vs MH

Shane,

The "Put Your Life Where Your Mouth Is" page is for Ctns.
The one for atheists is here:
http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/ptest.html

But still, I'll grant your request if I'm sure you want me to.  Neither of us has any reason to care if you believe a God exists, unless it would make a difference in your life quality.  All that hell stuff is shit, unless there is a God, and he's an Asshole, in which case, he is worthy of our hatred.  The Jesus stuff is only good for people who know they deserve punishment, and see no reason to get moral, unless they are promised a start-over.

In my experience, believing in a God appears to have made me unhappier than I would have been otherwise. (No way to know, of course) But acknowledging the possibility of afterlife has definitely made me more moral than I would have been otherwise.

If a God DOESN'T exist, I assume you don't want to believe one does, regardless of how it affects your happiness or morality.

So assuming a God exists, there are 2 relevant questions:
1. In your opinion, would believing a God exists make you more moral than you are now?
2. Do you want to believe a God exists, even if it would make you unhappier?

Cary

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Feb 7, 2021, 12:53:28 AM2/7/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cary,

"1. In your opinion, would believing a God exists make you more moral than you are now?"

No.
Actually I guess it depends on how you define morality. If morality is somehow connected to doing the wishes of a God that exists, then I guess it could. If it was absolutely immoral to eat shellfish, for example, then I never would eat shellfish again.

"2. Do you want to believe a God exists, even if it would make you unhappier?"

Yes.

Shane



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bys-vs-mh/b33iWQzdzM4/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/9c133d75-00a9-4281-b404-438b75dbd09fn%40googlegroups.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Feb 7, 2021, 5:21:34 AM2/7/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Shane,

If it's not likely to make you any more moral, I see no reason for him to care if you believe in him.  Nevertheless, I will begin asking my assumed God to whom humans are accountable to reveal sufficient evidence of his existence to you. I will ask it at least 6 days per week.

Any reason you don't join me on Facebook? -So we can leave this clunky format behind.

Cary


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 6:20:22 AM2/10/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
"If it's not likely to make you any more moral, I see no reason for him to care if you believe in him."

Well, it depends if he and I have the same definition of morality.

"Nevertheless, I will begin asking my assumed God to whom humans are accountable to reveal sufficient evidence of his existence to you. I will ask it at least 6 days per week."

And how much time goes by before you believe that my not changing my mind is evidence that the god you are asking, does not actually exist?

Which actually brings up another point, if you and another theist are both asking your gods to change the others minds, and neither of you do, isn't that also evidence that neither god exists?

If you had a Facebook page or group I would probably join it. But I'm already "friends" with 92 people, which is way more than I actually want to keep tabs on. I think I need to cull some of the ones I already have, rather than be adding new ones. It's nothing personal.

Shane

Cary Cook

unread,
Feb 10, 2021, 6:12:04 PM2/10/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Shane,

If your definition of morality is different from that of your creator, then your creator didn't do his job.
If you PRETEND your definition is different, then you're copping out.

//And how much time goes by before you believe that my not changing my mind is evidence that the god you are asking, does not actually exist?//
Unless by evidence you mean PROOF, it is already evidence.  Every bit of time that passes is evidence. But I won't know when my belief changes until it happens.  

//if you and another theist are both asking your gods to change the others minds, and neither of you do, isn't that also evidence that neither god exists?//
Yes. If any such God exists, it is much slower than I would prefer.  That much was proven to me soon after I decided to assume it exists.

Cary


Shane Fletcher

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 6:41:10 AM2/11/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
"If your definition of morality is different from that of your creator, then your creator didn't do his job."

There are plenty of people with a different definition of morality. Is that evidence that a creator doesn't exist?

Shane

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1402396468.328169.1612998690380%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Feb 11, 2021, 6:48:05 PM2/11/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Shane,

Possibly.  Other possibilities:
1. True morality differs relative to culture, population density, survival needs, etc.
2. Those differences are copouts - deliberate deviations from the sense of morality programmed into people.
3. Morality is NOT programmed in. The creator wants people to figure out morality, and all minds are evolving toward it. 
4. The creator exists, but didn't care enough to do it as right as it could have.

I think all 4 possibilities happen in varying degrees.

Cary

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 6:53:56 AM2/16/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Cary,

1 & 2 seem to be contradictory. Either morality is different for people, or the differences are a cop out for the 1 true morality.
2 & 3 seem contradictory. Either morality is programmed into people, or it is not programmed into people.
4 seems to be self contradictory, because the creator was not moral enough to infuse us with proper morality.

In short, I don't see how they could all happen in varying degrees. To me that comment sounds like a Christian trying to make excuses for the parts of the Bible that contradict the other parts of the Bible.

Shane

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1096884275.693227.1613087279428%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 6:10:16 PM2/16/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Shane,

Good point.  I shouldn't have said all possibilities can happen in varying degrees, because it's ambiguous. I should have said each possibility can happen in some parts of a population sample without happening in other or all parts of the population sample.

#4 would be self contradictory only if I asserted a SB who always did only moral acts.

Cary

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Feb 17, 2021, 1:19:23 AM2/17/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Cary,

If the SB can behave immorally, then I'm not interested in their sense of morality. And so getting way back to your question 1, I state that it would not make me more moral than I am now, because I'd have no way of knowing if the "wants" of the SB would be moral or not.

And still, your belief that the SB wove morality haphazardly into humanity, so that 1, 2 & 3 of your statements could be true for different individuals, sounds like an apologist, making excuses, for contradictions that can be seen in human behaviour. The easiest answer is that there is no SB trying to mess with anything.

Shane

Shane

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/322208365.1960016.1613517011457%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Feb 17, 2021, 5:16:17 AM2/17/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Shane,

//your belief that the SB wove morality haphazardly into humanity//
Quit the shit.  You know better.
I'm just acknowledging the logical possibilities, not asserting that any of them is necessarily true.

//sounds like an apologist, making excuses, for contradictions//
I don't give a flat fuck what my stuff "sounds like".
I care if it is correct as stated.

//The easiest answer is that there is no SB trying to mess with anything.//
True.  Take your easy answer wherever you want to go with it.

I'll continue asking the [however unlikely] God who is in charge of the human species to give you sufficient evidence of its probable existence until you either tell me to quit, or drop out of sight long enough that I no longer care.

Cary

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 7:36:00 AM2/27/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cary,

"//your belief that the SB wove morality haphazardly into humanity//
Quit the shit.  You know better.
I'm just acknowledging the logical possibilities, not asserting that any of them is necessarily true."

You said:

"I think all 4 possibilities happen in varying degrees."

This is not an acknowledgement that these things are possibilities. This is an assertion that you believe that these things happen in varying degrees. So I stand by my statement that if you believe the SB wove the 4 logical possibilities into humanity, in varying degrees, you are believing in haphazard morality. Feel free to revise your statements, or point out where I am wrong.

Shane




To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1101699919.2041993.1613556965869%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Feb 27, 2021, 10:43:17 PM2/27/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Shane,

I covered that on Feb 16 when I said:
//Good point.  I shouldn't have said all possibilities can happen in varying degrees, because it's ambiguous. I should have said each possibility can happen in some parts of a population sample without happening in other or all parts of the population sample.//
---------------------------
But let's ignore that, and assume I said I think #4 happens to some degree.
//4. The creator exists, but didn't care enough to do it as right as it could have.//

"Weaving into" implies deliberate action.
#4 implies only imperfect action.
e.g. Joe creates X for a specific purpose.  Joe could have created X more perfectly, but he only needs to create X as perfectly as is necessary to achieve his purpose.  The fact that X has defects that Joe doesn't like doesn't mean Joe put the defects there deliberately.

Assuming a personal creator, I think it programmed a sense of morality into higher mammals, but probably not much more than is necessary to ensure species survival.
Morality can be overdone if its purpose is to ensure species survival.  e.g. Hunters will be less successful if they feel bad about killing other animals.
-------------------------------------------
But now I want to revise something I said on Feb 10.
//If your definition of morality is different from that of your creator, then your creator didn't do his job.//
should have been:
If your definition of morality is different from that of your creator, then your creator has no moral justification for punishing you for failing to act in accordance with a concept of morality that it never gave you.
-------------------------------

I think you already know my definition of morality.
Is it in conflict with yours?

Cary


Cary Cook

unread,
Mar 14, 2021, 8:14:43 PM3/14/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Shane,

Regular praying about a particular subject accomplishes 2 things even if the request is never granted. It makes you:
1. think about what you prayed.
2. see how you feel about it.
i.e. Some prayers feel smart; some feel dumb. Some prayers feel safe; some feel dangerous. Some (but not all) feel like a waste of time.

I've been thinking about praying for an assumed God to whom we are accountable to convince you of his probable existence.  If, as you said, believing in such a God would not make you any more moral than you are now, why would such a God care if you believe he exists?  The prayer felt useless, so I beefed it up.  I added, "because he asked for it, and he said he wanted to be convinced even if it makes him less happy."  But after thinking about it, I had to admit that all you asked for was for me to pray.  So the prayer still feels useless.

You said you can't do my prayer test:



because you don't believe in the thing you're supposedly talking to.  I thought it was a copout then, and I still think it now.

But I'll continue praying as you asked until further notice.

Cary

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Mar 17, 2021, 3:10:20 AM3/17/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cary,

"I covered that on Feb 16 when I said:
//Good point.  I shouldn't have said all possibilities can happen in varying degrees, because it's ambiguous. I should have said each possibility can happen in some parts of a population sample without happening in other or all parts of the population sample.//"

That doesn't change the fact that the first 2 points you listed.

"1. True morality differs relative to culture, population density, survival needs, etc.
2. Those differences are copouts - deliberate deviations from the sense of morality programmed into people."

are mutually exclusive. If they can both happen in different parts of the population, it is the definition of haphazard.

"But let's ignore that, and assume I said I think #4 happens to some degree."

You said that it can happen, so in a world of 8 billion, it is happening to some degree.

""Weaving into" implies deliberate action.
#4 implies only imperfect action."

Sure. But #2 definitely implies a deliberate action.

"Assuming a personal creator, I think it programmed a sense of morality into higher mammals, but probably not much more than is necessary to ensure species survival."

What does "not much more morality than is necessary to ensure species survival" mean? Can your definition of morality be applied in a "not much more than is necessary, etc" way?

- Shane

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1614467717.481850.1614483746609%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Mar 17, 2021, 9:54:31 PM3/17/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Shane,

It doesn't matter if POSSIBILITIES are mutually exclusive, because only one of the total of all possibilities must be true.  And I didn't even assert that the 4 I listed are ALL the possibilities.  So NONE of them have to be true.

//2. Those differences are copouts//
i.e. the differences between people's definitions of morality is because at least some of those people are not even trying to define morality, but copping out, and asserting bogus definitions.
#2 implies deliberate action BY THE PEOPLE, not by the supposed creator.

//Can your definition of morality be applied in a "not much more than is necessary, etc" way?//
I don't even know WTF this question means.  And it appears irrelevant.

This has already gotten so convoluted that even YOU can't keep it straight.  So quit wasting my time straightening out what you should have gotten straight before posting.

You didn't even address my most recent post.  If you're trying to piss me off so I'll quit praying as you requested, just tell me to quit praying for you.

Cary

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Mar 30, 2021, 7:45:39 AM3/30/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cary,

"It doesn't matter if POSSIBILITIES are mutually exclusive, because only one of the total of all possibilities must be true."

"I should have said each possibility can happen in some parts of a population sample without happening in other or all parts of the population sample."

You've agreed that some of the possibilities are mutually exclusive AND said that each possibility can happen in parts of the population AND said that only one of the possibilities must be true. The middle part can't be true if the first part is true, and the middle part can't be true if the last part is true.

"And I didn't even assert that the 4 I listed are ALL the possibilities.  So NONE of them have to be true."

By definition, only the true possibilities can happen in any part of the population. So if none of the 4 of them are true, then none of them can happen in parts of the population. False things can't happen anywhere.

"#2 implies deliberate action BY THE PEOPLE, not by the supposed creator."

It implies the deliberate action of the supposed creator in programming morality into people. Which is why it is contradictory to 1, which has no such implication.

"//Can your definition of morality be applied in a "not much more than is necessary, etc" way?//
I don't even know WTF this question means.  And it appears irrelevant."

Well it was the second half of a 2 part question. What does "not much more morality than is necessary to ensure species survival" mean?

"This has already gotten so convoluted that even YOU can't keep it straight.  So quit wasting my time straightening out what you should have gotten straight before posting."

I'm sorry that you don't see the contradiction I do. I hope I have made it clear enough above.

"You didn't even address my most recent post.  If you're trying to piss me off so I'll quit praying as you requested, just tell me to quit praying for you."

Sorry about that. There wasn't a question asked for me to respond to. It just seemed like you were checking in with your thoughts. I'm not trying to piss you off, and certainly not to "trick" you into stopping praying for me. It doesn't bother me at all that you are praying for me.

Shane

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/972277134.1795630.1616032460807%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Mar 31, 2021, 7:06:33 PM3/31/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Shane,

//You've agreed that some of the possibilities are mutually exclusive AND said that each possibility can happen in parts of the population AND said that only one of the possibilities must be true. The middle part can't be true if the first part is true, and the middle part can't be true if the last part is true.//

WRONG!  You didn't even quote me right.
I've agreed that some of the possibilities are mutually exclusive AND said that each possibility CAN happen in parts of the population AND said that only one of of the TOTAL OF ALL POSSIBILITIES must be true.  And I didn't even assert that the 4 I listed are ALL the possibilities.

But even if I had said that those 4 ARE all the possibilities, AND each possibility MUST happen in AT LEAST ONE part of the population, each possibility could still be mutually exclusive with those possibilities that happen only in ANOTHER part of the population.

And though I know that you can use this last statement to protract the fucking GAME out further, I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, because it's all irrelevant!  I already admitted up front that the possibility YOU asserted may be right. I'm not here to play games. I'm here to help truth seekers.  So if you are one, AND you want to continue, START OVER.

You either disagree with something I've said, and need to clarify your disagreement, or you're lumping me together with the Christians (game players), and figure (maybe righteously) that such people deserve to be out-played.

OR... (and this appears most likely) you have other problems with this exasperating GOD BUSINESS, that you haven't articulated.  You appeared to say so on Feb 16:
//If the SB can behave immorally, then I'm not interested in their sense of morality.// 
THAT is something a legitimate truth seeker would say.  We can go from there if you want.

I admit that don't even LIKE this God that I've chosen to assume exists.  I admit that if there is a God in charge of the human species, he appears to be unjust and immoral.  Even if he is ABSOLUTELY moral by definition, he still appears to be IMMORAL relative to his creation. The ONLY way he could possibly be moral relative to his creation is if he creates at least as much happiness as unhappiness overall. The ONLY way he could possibly be just is if that happiness is accessible to creatures who deserve it - and anyone can deserve it by doing enough good stuff to outweigh the bad stuff.

I've chosen to serve (bet on) a God who is JUST (sufficiently if not perfectly), and MORAL relative to his creation.  If either of those 2 criteria is false, I HATE the Fucker for creating ANY sentient creature in the first place, and request termination of existence ASAP.

So... what do you want to talk?

Cary


Shane Fletcher

unread,
Apr 10, 2021, 5:56:18 PM4/10/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cary,

"You didn't even quote me right.
I've agreed that some of the possibilities are mutually exclusive AND said that each possibility CAN happen in parts of the population AND said that only one of of the TOTAL OF ALL POSSIBILITIES must be true.  And I didn't even assert that the 4 I listed are ALL the possibilities."

If something is not true, then it is impossible for it to happen. There is simply no-way that a non true thing "CAN happen". If you list possibilities that are mutually exclusive, then at least one of them must not be true. And as I said above, it is impossible that the non true thing "CAN happen". Therefore it is impossible that each of them "CAN happen". Therefore the middle statement, that each possibility CAN happen in parts of the population, is false.

"You either disagree with something I've said, and need to clarify your disagreement, or you're lumping me together with the Christians (game players), and figure (maybe righteously) that such people deserve to be out-played.

OR... (and this appears most likely) you have other problems with this exasperating GOD BUSINESS, that you haven't articulated. "

It's the first thing. I disagree with something you said. I hope this has clarified my disagreement.

- Shane


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/194785204.2808793.1617231938964%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Apr 10, 2021, 6:32:23 PM4/10/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
You flip a coin.
1. It CAN possibly land heads.
2. It CAN possibly land tails.
1 & 2 are mutually exclusive.
Both are true.

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Apr 10, 2021, 9:38:02 PM4/10/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
"You flip a coin.
1. It CAN possibly land heads.
2. It CAN possibly land tails.
1 & 2 are mutually exclusive.
Both are true."

That's a future prediction, not something that has happened, or is happening, like the ongoing morality in the population. If a coin has been flipped and one of those things has happened, the second one has not happened, not even in another part of the population. And only one of those outcomes is true. Because they are mutually exclusive.


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1482296683.468981.1618093941034%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Apr 11, 2021, 5:18:48 AM4/11/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
A coin has been flipped and landed.
1. It CAN possibly have landed heads.
2. It CAN possibly have landed tails.
1 & 2 are mutually exclusive.
Both are true.

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Apr 11, 2021, 7:27:30 AM4/11/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Yeah I was thinking about rephrasing my reply earlier, but we can work with this.

"A coin has been flipped and landed.
1. It CAN possibly have landed heads.
2. It CAN possibly have landed tails.
1 & 2 are mutually exclusive.
Both are true."

No. If it landed on heads, it can not possibly have landed on tails. And if it landed on tails, it cannot possibly have landed on heads. Because 1 & 2 are mutually exclusive. And therefore both cannot be true. Going back to your correction.

"I should have said each possibility can happen in some parts of a population sample without happening in other or all parts of the population sample."

If the coin landed on heads, it is impossible for it to land on tails anywhere else. Because it landed on heads. 1 is true, which precludes 2 from being true, because they are mutually exclusive. And vice versa if it landed on tails.

I will add my additional thought because it eliminates the possibilities. Any tossing of a coin has a predetermined outcome because of the laws of physics. It is going to land on heads or tails, because of the way matter operates in the macro world. We don't know what the outcome will be, but the coin can only land on one side. There is no possibility that the outcome would be different, so the 1 & 2 statements are wrong. It doesn't have a possibility of being either or. It will definitely be 100% chance of a specific side, and 0% chance of the other.

- Shane

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/473117845.517566.1618132726852%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Apr 11, 2021, 7:37:52 PM4/11/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
//No. If it landed on heads, it can not possibly have landed on tails. And if it landed on tails, it cannot possibly have landed on heads. Because 1 & 2 are mutually exclusive. And therefore both cannot be true. Going back to your correction.//
Except for the "No", your paragraph does not contradict what I said.

It CAN be said different ways:
1. It CAN have landed heads.
2. It CAN have landed tails.
1. Possibly it landed heads.
2. Possibly it landed tails.
All are true.

YOU CAN'T EVEN DEFINE POSSIBILITY from your position.
Most of the online definitions are stupidly circular.  Some do a decent job:
Google: a thing that may happen or be the case.
Cambridge: a chance that something may happen or be true
Cambridge: something that might or might not happen or exist

I did a better job of it in my Concept Clarifier:




Cary

Shane Fletcher

unread,
Apr 12, 2021, 3:07:03 AM4/12/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
I'm much more interested in the definition of True.

true e.b.c.   (adj.)   (denotatively indistinguishable from factual, right, correct1A )   (see truth)
that which is

If it landed heads than there is no possibility of it landing tails. And therefore the statement "Possibly it landed tails." is not true. Because it is not "that which is". There is no possibility of it landing anything but heads, if it landed heads.

You are trying to conflate something unknown, as something which has 2 truths until we know what the truth actually is. That is simply not the case. The truth is the truth, no matter who knows it.



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/57891153.624691.1618184266583%40mail.yahoo.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Apr 17, 2021, 4:39:23 PM4/17/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
I'm done with you.  I'm here for truth seekers. You're not one.  A truth seeker would have capitulated at least 2 posts ago.  You looked like a truth seeker when you asked me to pray for God to convince you of his existence.  I can see now that you only asked so that you could practice the same bullshit games on him as you have on me.  I have stopped praying for you. Go away.

Cary


Shane Fletcher

unread,
Apr 18, 2021, 12:43:55 AM4/18/21
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Practice the same bullshit games on God? I don't follow how that works. If he exists, he convinces me of that or he doesn't. It seems that it's all on him.

You think I should have agreed with you when I think you're wrong? Because that's what a truth seeker would do?

Be well.

Shane

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1487689912.2239202.1618691933913%40mail.yahoo.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages