View Full Version : Your thoughts on religion/god/whatever you worship
What are your beliefs in religion and god (or whoever you worship)?
In my opinion, they are both marketing scams to get money and therefore I do not believe in either. There are also way to many holes in the Bible (and other religious books for example) that go against it. Also, seeing is believing sometimes. Short and to the point I know, but here are some videos of how I feel about religion and why I feel so strongly against it:
Video 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Video 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzEs2nj7iZM
Video 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E&feature=related
Video 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PiZSFIVFiU&feature=related
Video 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
Watch "The Divinci Code" and read the book too
By the way no offense or any of that stuff meant, I'm just offering my opinion and personal thoughts on religion/god etc. I don't care if you believe or don't believe ... I respect you just the same.
:D
As someone who started things like this back in the day, and participated for the sake of sheer argument, I can only say this: you're doing it wrong.
First off, never follow the opening post with your own personal feelings. The people who don't believe aren't a group you can depend on to agree with you, while it is a religious position in the sense that it is a position on religion, its not in my experience a great unifying concept. The people who do believe will in someways be put off before they even think to answer, and it can only go down hill from there.
You're poll selection is blindingly simple, but perhaps we don't need to distinguish deities. Simply how many take which position on which "spiritual" level.
Also, the educational bits are things you save for later, summarized into words with the videos being sources. And you're citations are based on a comedian...
Where do I stand? Well, I watch and read logical and emotional arguments on the existence of a supreme being, and all the neat little bits about morality, for fun. That should give you a hint. :) Oh, and rule of thumb, the moment this thread gets unruly, it'll be closed down. Behave, kids.
Yes I understand that the videos are of a comedian BUT ... I feel the exact same way and have felt the same way BEFORE I even seen the videos ... therefore I posted them since he explains them perfectly vs my explaination, because I explain things super crappy and he explains it best ... that's why I did it in that way.
Also, I didn't get your hint, but I got the idea. That's another way I also don't believe. All in all, it all comes down to logic and probably the law of physics ;)
Ah, but for the record, I don't find someone stating bullshit to be a compelling argument. Especially when it comes to an appeal to humor. Sure, you can take any concept and drag it down to a pedantic game of carrot and stick, but thats more along the lines of not tackling the issue. Just tripping it in the hallway and making a lot of noise. Like Glenn Beck, though more fear than mirth.
And as someone on a writing forum, I'd encourage you to try.
Also, any possibility needs to be explored seriously to the best of our ability... so this doesn't happen. (http://www.dead-philosophers.com/?p=397)
I'm a Catholic and I believe in God... :) And I believe that the bible and science can coexist, because I don't think the bible should be taken literally. But, bleh, can't really say anything to make people believe in what I do, since that's practically dead-end. I do get ticked off when people mock my religion. Since I don't care about their beliefs, why should they make fun of mine? There's nothing I can do about it though, since other people who believe in the same things I do are too extreme when telling others off, so it's just the same that those who don't believe come back with all these.
Jack Frost
02-11-11, 12:52 PM
I used to be atheist for the longest time, I felt that god was some sort of stupid lie that people came up with to force their beliefs down other peoples throat. Then I actually sat down and prayed so my friends would stop nagging me. The actual wave of relief that overcame me was staggering. I decided that whoever may be chillin up in heaven must be watching over us. Its like a safety blanket.
No. And I'm not one of those Neo atheists you can come chat to about your lack of belief. I don't give a shit and I don't respect or take a lot of stock in the juvenile and great lengths people take to counter convert each other to either side. Get over it. Sharing a lack of faith doesn't make any of us in league with each other at all, and it sickens me to listen to Dawkins and all these other hare-brained assholes bent on trying to slay God while simultaneously destroying any sort of clout the rest of us have with the public eye. Doesn't really apply to anybody here yet, but I'm making it known for reference sake because I know for a fact a lot of self-proclaimed nihilists and prophetic atheists roam these fucking boards like sharks.
Grow up.
No. And I'm not one of those Neo atheists you can come chat to about your lack of belief. I don't give a shit and I don't respect or take a lot of stock in the juvenile and great lengths people take to counter convert each other to either side. Get over it. Sharing a lack of faith doesn't make any of us in league with each other at all, and it sickens me to listen to Dawkins and all these other hare-brained assholes bent on trying to slay God while simultaneously destroying any sort of clout the rest of us have with the public eye. Doesn't really apply to anybody here yet, but I'm making it known for reference sake because I know for a fact a lot of self-proclaimed nihilists and prophetic atheists roam these fucking boards like sharks.
Grow up.
Why, Saxon, I thought you had gone.
In any case, you've made yourself clear for the most part. As far as Dawkins and his effect on our image, we never really have had a good one, and I'd sooner be considered in league with a villainous Englishman of threatening knowledge and rhetoric than some unthinking, selfish anti-ethicist.
I'm not sure how anyone can be prophetic, and as far as being self-proclaimed I don't think there is a test. Now nihilism is something that has my attention, and not in that "life is empty, and nothing now can come to be that would be meaningful, boo hoo, kill yourself, and sex your dog of a mother" sort of way, but that of morality as a human construct. Not as something to disregard, and probably more in line with the social contract theory. In ideas, where nothing is indeed a concept and ideas can be conceived to spring from or on it, I think the term used most often is "creative nothing."
And if that follows, then the social contract may fall under the term. I'm mainly looking into whether there are any less stupid and destructive facets to nihilism.
Your thoughts?
Everyone's right, and we should just try to get along. Just don't force opinions on each other.
Those are my thoughts at least, though my thoughts are usually muddled with nonsense~
And if that follows, then the social contract may fall under the term. I'm mainly looking into whether there are any less stupid and destructive facets to nihilism.
Your thoughts?
None. Nihilism doesn't interest me and I think you're overanalyzing what was supposed to be a passing comment. Rather then going down the rabbit hole over this, I'm going to let the cynical dog lie.
As far as Dawkins and his effect on our image, we never really have had a good one, and I'd sooner be considered in league with a villainous Englishman of threatening knowledge and rhetoric than some unthinking, selfish anti-ethicist.
Dawkins is a hack. And if he's going to lump me in with the rest of the atheists because we acknowledge our lack of faith under the same name, I feel no remorse kicking him into the group of assholes who concentrate and focus wholly on the aimless and pointless destruction of religion. Not to say atheism has a lot going for it, but I really detest what people like these have done in order to ruin a name and turn it into a label that can be applied with stigmatism and ostracism in the shadow of what Pagans were commonly referred to by full-bore Christians. We are not a box of cigars where everyone of us are alike.
What I got from atheism was that it was something practiced in solitude and people always had very different reasons for accepting it. But, I suppose if I believe so readily in the asceticism and solitude of atheism I shouldn't be too upset with whats been done by dragging the name through the mud in the name of progress, but I'm frustrated all the same.
Slayer of the Rot
02-11-11, 08:30 PM
For the record, this thread pops up periodically on Althanas through the years, and it is always a retarded idea to post it.
I'm not posting my beliefs or anything else to that end. I have no interest in the beliefs of others, since I don't really care if they believe in one or thirteen gods.
I've got an idea, let's make the next poll one about the individual details and lengths of our junk. Let's just share eveeerrryything with each other.
Elrundir
02-11-11, 08:58 PM
For the record, this thread pops up periodically on Althanas through the years, and it is always a retarded idea to post it.
I'm not posting my beliefs or anything else to that end. I have no interest in the beliefs of others, since I don't really care if they believe in one or thirteen gods.
I've got an idea, let's make the next poll one about the individual details and lengths of our junk. Let's just share eveeerrryything with each other.
lol, it's never a good idea to discuss religion anywhere. The internet especially, but not just Althanas.
I've got an idea, let's make the next poll one about the individual details and lengths of our junk. Let's just share eveeerrryything with each other.
I'll get the ruler.
Yari Rafanas
02-11-11, 11:13 PM
lol, it's never a good idea to discuss religion anywhere. The internet especially, but not just Althanas.
But discussing our junk on the other hand...
Elrundir
02-12-11, 07:40 AM
Is nice! </Borat>
*usual 'keep on topic' warning post with half-arsed effort.
Play nice boys, or no green tea for you!
Hahahahahahahahahahaha...
http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-vol-Paul-Tillich/dp/0226803376
http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-vol-Existence-Christ/dp/0226803384/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-vol-History-Kingdom/dp/0226803392/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c
Go read these and then when you do I'll entertain your argumentum ad da vinci codum.
EDIT: for the record, I just picked a random magisterial systematic theology. You might also try
http://www.amazon.com/Summa-Theologica-Thomas-Aquinas-Volumes/dp/0870610635
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Dogmatics-Set-Karl-Barth/dp/0567058093
And, to move outside of Christian realms, you might try
http://www.amazon.com/Mahabharata-Greatest-Spiritual-Epic-Time/dp/1887089179
http://www.amazon.com/Zohar-5-set-Maurice-Simon/dp/0900689390/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297711475&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Babylonian-Talmud-Isaac-Mayer-Wise/dp/0217261922/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297711494&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Golden-Bough-Study-Religion/dp/0684818507/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297711514&sr=1-3
All posted by way of saying that before you open a discussion with a series of comedians' rants about something he hasn't taken the time to understand apart from the superficial knowledge required to make jokes about it, you might yourself take the time to read something in the theory and/or theology of various religious traditions.
I find Carlin to be amusing, of course, but offering him as the core of an argument -- along with something as specious as the Da Vinci Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaccuracies_in_The_Da_Vinci_Code) -- is not a good way to get a fair hearing.
In all fairness, Petoux, it'd probably be in your best interest to ignore the links or avoid acknowledging you read them to avoid listening to this windbag preach until somebody shoves him off the soapbox. Seriously.
Trufax.
EDIT: As for the Da Vinci Code and Carlin. If you want to accept those as universal truths, that's fine. I listen to seemingly normal people tell me the absurd and borderline retarded things they fervently believe in every day. Doesn't mean shit. People are entitled to their crazy opinions so long as they don't try to kill me over them. 'Cause ladies, I will kill you back.
Personally, I sit comfortably on the fence where God is concerned. I don't know that he's up there, and I don't know that he's not up there. Not knowing is fine with me; frankly, that's probably the way it's meant to be.
The argument that religion or Christianity were designed expressly out of greed is absolutely fallacious. There's a difference between core religious truths and religious tradition. The fact that the Church has in the past been a money and power hungry institution has no bearing whatsoever on Catholic or Protestant Christian doctrine.
I'll assure you that Abraham, and then Moses after him, didn't found the religion to turn a profit. In fact, the Old Testament laws would have gotten them both scoffed at (and likely heavily persecuted) in the relatively lawless and violently hedonistic ancient Mesopotamia.
The argument that religion or Christianity were designed expressly out of greed is absolutely fallacious. There's a difference between core religious truths and religious tradition. The fact that the Church has in the past been a money and power hungry institution has no bearing whatsoever on Catholic or Protestant Christian doctrine.
I'll assure you that Abraham, and then Moses after him, didn't found the religion to turn a profit. In fact, the Old Testament laws would have gotten them both scoffed at (and likely heavily persecuted) in the relatively lawless and violently hedonistic ancient Mesopotamia.
Religious truths...
Either way, can we avoid throwing out words like fallacious? This is not an argument.
The only truth is that for several thousand years, society thrived without monotheism, and then collapsed in it's wake.
I suppose you could call steady technological and civil advancement a collapse...
Of course, after several centuries the ancients managed to go from toiling with sticks to toiling with rocks. So, yay! I suppose.
I'll take collapse, thank you.
I suppose you could call steady technological and civil advancement a collapse...
Of course, after several centuries the ancients managed to go from toiling with sticks to toiling with rocks. So, yay! I suppose.
I'll take collapse, thank you.
I always enjoy your biting remarks. Halfway to cynicism, never insulting and always alludes to you being a douchebag. No guesswork necessary, no questions asked.
I suppose you could call steady technological and civil advancement a collapse...
Of course, after several centuries the ancients managed to go from toiling with sticks to toiling with rocks. So, yay! I suppose.
I'll take collapse, thank you.
Civil advancement from the dark ages is more of a secular trend. The opposing ideologies serving as more of a retardant.
So while we have our collapse, we can all be glad for the rise. :)
I always enjoy your biting remarks. Halfway to cynicism, never insulting and always alludes to you being a douchebag. No guesswork necessary, no questions asked.
Oh, the simple joys of anonymity.
Civil advancement from the dark ages is more of a secular trend. The opposing ideologies serving as more of a retardant.
So while we have our collapse, we can all be glad for the rise. :)
It's really impossible for you to verify - or even support - that claim, given the circumstances. You can point to specific events where religion has perhaps contributed to some delay, and I can point to others where they were fundamentally necessary. However, being as pervasive as the world religions are, you can't possibly view secularism apart from them on any grand or meaningful scale.
No, but I can lay the claim that religious motivations curtail methods of reasoning and observation to suit a priori dogma, disregarding evidence to suit not simply any one religions core tenets, but all of them. The points where they coincide are increasingly points of concession, such as the Pope acknowledging the possibility of aliens...and suggesting that they might be baptized should they ask.
There are many specific events which I could point to, you acknowledge this, but what I refer to is the general attitude which religions impose by claiming knowledge and relying on ignorance to attain a position of strength and avoid being proven wrong.
Further more, I used the word "trend," as I am unfamiliar with many nations who manage to actually be in their total sum a secular example of a nation. I recognize that a shift away from religion/superstition in a nation usually appears alongside technological and social advancement, whereas the inverse is true and nations who depend heavily on religion/superstition do not show the same rate of growth. Retardant. :) The grand scale has now been recognized, a meaningful scale however I'll leave undone, as I do not know of any way to prove causation.
Rather than condemn religion, I'd simply consider it a part of that break between philosophy and science. Its not that they have always been opposed to one another, they have even coincided, but as a models of the universe they are less and less compatible.
All hail the Objective Science Lords!
Heralds of the Enlightened Dawn!
Cast aside your illusions!
Kneel before Logic!
Beg for your lives!
No, but I can lay the claim that religious motivations curtail methods of reasoning and observation to suit a priori dogma, disregarding evidence to suit not simply any one religions core tenets, but all of them. The points where they coincide are increasingly points of concession, such as the Pope acknowledging the possibility of aliens...and suggesting that they might be baptized should they ask.
There are many specific events which I could point to, you acknowledge this, but what I refer to is the general attitude which religions impose by claiming knowledge and relying on ignorance to attain a position of strength and avoid being proven wrong.
And we're back to my initial post.
You can claim that about the traditional use or human interpretation of religion but not of "religious motivations" in their purest and 'objective' form. Again, Christianity, and Judaism before it, were not originated with any intent on power. To be clear, it is my belief that the Pope is a tool shed, and that the institution of the Catholic Church is corrupt. The mere thought that any man can weigh so heavily on religious doctrine is absurd and entirely contradictory to the scripture he claims to interpret. Regardless though, the fact is that Biblical scripture can and should exist in harmony with scientific discovery and the scientific method. They are two entirely seperate fields, dedicated to entirely different spheres of understanding. They are not mutually exclusive.
Jesus Himself stated that the most important commandment is to, "Love the Lord your God with all your...mind." A most difficult task when you're curtailing rational thought and "relying on ignorance".
Further more, I used the word "trend," as I am unfamiliar with many nations who manage to actually be in their total sum a secular example of a nation. I recognize that a shift away from religion/superstition in a nation usually appears alongside technological and social advancement, whereas the inverse is true and nations who depend heavily on religion/superstition do not show the same rate of growth. Retardant. :)
Except that you fail to qualify any of your presuppositions. How is this shift measured? How is the resulting advancement measured? Are we in a state of flux, or do we constantly shift in proportion to our advance? At some point wouldn't we have "shifted" entirely away from religion? If so, can you possibly justify that in a world where the vast majority still claim to follow one religious tenet or another?
The grand scale has now been recognized.
Indeed.
Rather than condemn religion, I'd simply consider it a part of that break between philosophy and science. Its not that they have always been opposed to one another, they have even coincided, but as a models of the universe they are less and less compatible.
Well, at least we agree on something. Though you seem to ignore this simple truth...
All hail the Objective Science Lords!
Heralds of the Enlightened Dawn!
Cast aside your illusions!
Kneel before Logic!
Beg for your lives!
We could discuss the 'objectivity' of the scientific method next, if you'd like.
The Piper
02-17-11, 10:26 AM
I'm going to be all individual now, and say I have my own method, which I do believe in, but like most religons, have no actual evidence that it is the true way of things.
I believe that our lives are led by us. There is no god to love us. There is science, or our view of science, and there is life. And finally there is death. This is where the intervention of divinity enters our 'lives' (although technically we're dead.) Our souls leave the body, and see Death in whatever form attracts to us most; be that in Greed, Longing, Lusting, Hunger, whatever. It then leads you through multiple dimensions to a judging area, where 3 of the longest living souls decide on the life the soul will take next, according to good or bad actions the person has done in the past life. S/he is then reincarnated in whatever dimension, world, and body the souls see fit, and he or she lives out the next life.
Very similar to Hinduism, I am told.
Sighter Tnailog
02-17-11, 11:45 AM
I'm going to be all individual now, and say I have my own method, which I do believe in, but like most religons, have no actual evidence that it is the true way of things.
Saxon's earlier post, effectively enough, shoved me off my soapbox. As such, I deleted my earlier comment. Not to whitewash my record -- it is reserved for posterity in Saxon's quotation -- but by way of retraction of its tone, if not its essential message, namely, that people from across the world have been discussing and pondering religion for centuries -- for as long as there has been humanity, there have been people struggling to "know" in the religious mode. And skepticism, atheism, and agnosticism are all equally valuable and substantive traditions in their own right, each with a body of thinkers -- Spinoza, Hume, etc. -- worth engaging. My initial concern, expressed with all the pretension of a windbag, was rooted in the worry that these significant bodies of knowledge, both built within and without religious traditions, were being ignored in favor of a stand-up comedian and a popular fiction novel. However, my expression of that point was in a tone of voice and manner of speech that were beneath the standards of decency, especially when Petoux so charitably inaugurated our discussion with a clear expression of respect for all opinions and all those who opine.
I would also like to push back a bit on the term "Dark Age." I don't quite know how anyone here is using it, as I don't know which of you are history majors and which are educated laypeople and which are academic historians, but it *seems* to me as though it is being used in the traditional way, that is, to denote a period of relatively regressive culture. But most modern academic historians, if they choose to use the term at all, use it only to refer to the fact that we actually know very little about it...the term is used to denote a period where intense conflict and/or civilizational unrest produced a period where primary source documents are difficult or impossible to obtain. For instance, I have studied the Byzantine Empire in various classes and foreign travel opportunities, and during the time normally conceived as the "Dark Ages" -- from about 500-1200, Justinian I becomes a pioneer in managing urban water supplies, with the development of the massive cisterns that still supply Istanbul with water, 600-800 (a true "Dark Age" in that few records were produced, owing to the Muslim conquest of Anatolia) saw innovations in coinage and government finance, and the massive orthodox church, Hagia Sophia was constructed. While one might respond that the construction of a church does not constitute advancement of humanity, I would respond that the skills needed to construct such a monumental structure, and the skills developed as a result of Byzantine perfection of Roman brickwork technique, stands as a prime example of the continued development of human culture within the context of a religious state (which is not to say that the Byzantine empire was theocratic, merely that its state functionaries claimed Greek Christianity as their religious affiliation).
But that's an aside on terminology, along with a measured and incomplete defense of the progress of civilization within a religious culture. What I really wanted to say is that I quote Piper's comment above by way of applauding it. It is perhaps the best and most humble way of stating things -- and, for anyone who comports with a Christian worldview, at least, it is in substantive following the words of the Apostle Paul in Philippians, that you are to work out your faith with "fear and trembling." From this point out, I can really only speak as a Christian, about Christianity, I leave the meditation on other robust traditions to those whose traditions they belong to.
I just finished writing a lengthy paper on differing conceptions of happiness, touching on Epicurus, Epictetus, and several early Christian writers. While the discussion of what brought us out of the "dark ages" certainly impinges on questions of science -- and I absolutely do not deny that scientific thinking has resulted in staggering progress with regard to producing tools for the advancement of society and the provision of goods and services necessary for living comfortably -- it is important to note how central the question of "happiness" was for the world of thought that produces the Christian tradition. On everyone's mind was a very simple question: how are humans to live happily? How is an individual to find happiness in a world filled with pain? For the Epicurean, it was avoiding pain. For the Stoic, it was perfecting the mind's opinions so as to bear pain with tranquility, and thus not feel pain. For Augustine, it was in following after that which was the chief good for humanity.
I would propose that the development I see in this thread -- that is, posing notions of "progress and advancement of civilization" opposite a supposed "retardant affect of religion" -- gets what religion, or Christianity, at least, is about partially wrong. Christianity partly develops in the world of late antiquity as a response to the simple question: what makes a human happy? And while I hesitate to say that science can't answer that question -- I'm sure an empirical account of what tends to make humans happiest over generations could be devised, and I'm sure one could do enough brain scans to figure out happiness over time -- I'm also equally sure that, at this moment in time, science hasn't answered the question of what makes us happy any more satisfactorily than Christianity has.
But, for some, Christianity has answered that question in their lives. And for others, it has not -- they have found their sources of happiness elsewhere. I would not presume to forestall anyone's happiness, or say that what makes me happiest must be also what makes you happiest. But I would ask a question to the materialists in the room: if it is only this, and only us, what can you do within your lifetime to be happy? What is it that makes a happy life?
I think it's a good question. It might not be exactly the point of the thread, but it impinges on your notions of religion and God(s)(ess)(esses), so I thought it would be worth posing.
I just brought up the dark ages to be snide and sarcastic...;)
The Piper
02-17-11, 12:14 PM
Only been here a day and I'm being praised for my thoughts.
I am going to enjoy Althanas.
Slow your roll, and slap yourself, you’re proceeding from the get go without caution against my mad reasonable, logic bombing attack! I never meant power in the sense of control, but as a matter of authority, this is the second time you’ve blown your load over my use of language: I should try to be more concise. :)
Now, whether I refer to the pope or to your mother, it’s all the same in this line of thought. I am referring to any person who modifies a new apprehension of the universe to suit previously held ones rather than the other way round, this is one of the reasons why the scientific method (i.e. the way things work: predictive models changing in relation to variables) is at odds with religion. The position of strength in this point comes with the positive claim, as opposed to simply stating that it is not known. The religious points put forward don’t allow for a retreat or reinterpretation without self-contradiction, if it is not understood and proven to be true, then it is not an answer. To clarify, no, saying a truthful statement is a metaphor does not make it acceptable.
Now, I have not named any religion, but you have, and I’d contest the idea that anyone is right when none of you can provide any evidence that renders your opinion factually superior. The pope is no more right or wrong than any pastor, chief, divine king or indeed anyone’s mother.
You say that the bible can meet biblical scripture, and I’ll leave you the possibility that it might…but the fact remains that it is not a cohesive document and passages contained within are at odds with each other. Outside of that, I can agree with you, but only under the previous assertion that Religion make a concession and modify itself to more predictive models of reality.
Jesus himself stated that the most important commandment is to, "Love the Lord your God with all your...mind." A most difficult task when you're curtailing rational thought and "relying on ignorance".
Pfft, no, Sir, it is all the easier for lack of any visible contradiction. Ignorance allows for the objective to remain subjective. If we did not understand how lightning formed and caused buildings to burn when they reached too high without proper protection, we’d still suspect the wrath of God. Advances in medical understanding have taught that the plague and all illnesses of lesser varieties were not divine will or born of some innate sin, but bacteria. God is much more prevalent in the gaps where knowledge lies. Likewise, simply because people are wealthy does not mean that they are blessed anymore. Because gods of any sort make for poor doctors, scientists, and economists.
You want me to qualify my business, and clue you in to all that noise I was talking, son? Aright, then. Recently, years…decades…whatever, the pope instructed his denomination in Africa that condoms were not a suitable method to prevent aides, because unsown seed is still a sin. This statement was not simply made, but endorsed by that group, the harm it’s done can’t be distinguished from any other, but that it certainly didn’t help. It is based on a superstition, and impedes beneficial statements. Retardant.
My main method to actually gauge change would be to compare gross domestic product, life-expectancy, mortality rates, infant mortality, and see if there is any sizable difference on average. This is work I’m not getting paid for so I’m hesitant, however, ask and you shall receive. As far as flux, absolutely, but I think it’s a fair statement without qualification to note that the rate of change has increased exponentially over the course of a few centuries as compared to…40,000 years, to be broad.
Well, at least we agree on something. Though you seem to ignore this simple truth...
See that, that’s what Saxon was talking about. :) Save that snide, barely audible comment stuff for someone with time for much more nonsense.
Also, in debating objectivity, I hope you won’t go so far as to point to a few of the hoaxes presented with the typical “AAAAAAAAAHAAA!!!!” because that would be silly. =P The system allows for reviews, and my understanding of the scientific community is that it is less like a band of brothers and more like a tank of sharks. Always watching each other, ready to rip an offender apart. What is more, the discovery of fraud was made by review, not revelation.
If you’ve got greater game to spit, which might contradict my swag without making yours look celibate, then by all means. Of course, I'm still considering it your interest, as I only made it as a glowing joke.
If it is only this, and only us, what can you do within your lifetime to be happy? What is it that makes a happy life.
Drugs. Baring that, I don’t value happiness as something that should be the primary value of anything. The main reason is that the emotion is elusive, and declines with time requiring greater stimulation to achieve the same state, really no different from drugs in the sense that is still a search for pleasure which cannot be permanently fulfilled without chemicals or actual adjustment of the way in which a brain functions.
With happiness as something absolutely fleeting, I’d settle on contentment, but never so much as the immediate search. Personal and social growth, the reduction of negative influences over life, minor pleasures for the living, consolations for the dead, and to meet physical and emotional needs.
I'd never perscribe any single method to go about any of this, meet your needs, amuse yourself, find something worth getting excited about. Pretty simple.
Yo, other long text brother, Sighter, I have a question. While happiness might have been a subject for discussion, wasn't the higher issue one in which people aspired to grasp not life, but death. As a search for happiness, or reduction of pain, I've always considered the Christian faith to be one toward transcendence of the human condition... which had less to do with living as a goal but a means to another state.
orphans
02-17-11, 02:05 PM
...But, for some, Christianity has answered that question in their lives. And for others, it has not -- they have found their sources of happiness elsewhere. I would not presume to forestall anyone's happiness, or say that what makes me happiest must be also what makes you happiest. But I would ask a question to the materialists in the room: if it is only this, and only us, what can you do within your lifetime to be happy? What is it that makes a happy life?
I'm not exactly sure what would qualify as a materialist but for me, life is what you make it, and happiness is what the individual holds dear to them. Some find comfort in creating things, some working and accomplishing goals, and others turn to faith. There are other things of course...but in the end I think I'll just stick to the fact that everyone is right, and we should just get along.
A naive point of view I guess...
I think we only have to look to Iran to see the extreme of theocracy and the glaring support for the separation of church and state.
What people do in their own heads and lives to find happiness, what path they walk, is entirely up to them and I don't think anyone on earth sane and reasonable would dispute that.
What is an issue, is when a 'faith' or in this case a church system (the same could be said for fundamentalist sects of any description) is that they demand gentile obedience to their way of life. Secular does not mean lack of faith, it simply means faith is personal, and does not impede on others, in much the same way that sexuality and racial discrimination laws seek to prevent the enforcement of belief on another, secularism is about the 'privatisation' of faith so that it can be enjoyed by the person, free of constraint, and each person is free to air and view their belief is they deem fit within the framework of any given state.
I never meant power in the sense of control, but as a matter of authority.
You understand how closely related the two are...
In either case though, my point is the same. The original intent and purpose of religion (read: Christianity) was never to grant control, authority, or any other synonym for power to any being other than our God and Creator.
I am referring to any person who modifies a new apprehension of the universe to suit previously held ones rather than the other way round, this is one of the reasons why the scientific method (i.e. the way things work: predictive models changing in relation to variables) is at odds with religion.
Because most atheists have never read the Bible and have a fundamental misunderstanding of religion as compared to myth? You do realize that the Bible isn't a science book, correct? You understand that it dedicates a mere 37 out of ~32,000 verses to the creation of our 13.7 billion year old universe and then the millions of years worth of evolution that followed the formation of the Earth?
Science can't possibly be at odds with religion for the reason you've given because the two make few substantial claims about one another.
The position of strength in this point comes with the positive claim, as opposed to simply stating that it is not known. The religious points put forward don't allow for a retreat or reinterpretation without self-contradiction, if it is not understood and proven to be true, then it is not an answer. To clarify, no, saying a truthful statement is a metaphor does not make it acceptable.
I would obviously disagree that "retreat" leads to necessary contradiction. Again, I believe in an old universe as well as evolution, and I maintain that both exist in concert with the Creation as detailed in Genesis. We could go through it step by step if you'd like, though most of it is borrowed from Gerald Schroeder who himself borrowed from Maimonides and Nachmanides.
Now, I have not named any religion, but you have
Christian apologetics is kind of a hobby of mine. I'm most familiar with Christian theology, so I'll let other defend their particular beliefs.
You say that the bible can meet biblical scripture, and I'll leave you the possibility that it might but the fact remains that it is not a cohesive document and passages contained within are at odds with each other.
Again, I would obviously disagree. I've debated this many times in the past, so if you're going to site sources please be more original than a simple cut and paste from the skeptic's bible or evilbible.com.
God is much more prevalent in the gaps where knowledge lies.
And yet the Bible attributes no natural occurrences to God, save for in song or poem which are by definition metaphoric. Again, the Bible does not read like a Greek Epic.
You want me to qualify my business, and clue you in to all that noise I was talking, son? Aright, then. Recently, years…decades…whatever, the pope instructed his denomination in Africa that condoms were not a suitable method to prevent aides, because unsown seed is still a sin. This statement was not simply made, but endorsed by that group, the harm it’s done can’t be distinguished from any other, but that it certainly didn’t help. It is based on a superstition, and impedes beneficial statements. Retardant.
And I'll tell you again that the Pope has no divine authority to make such statements, and no scriptural reference to substantiate his claims. I continue to denounce the pope, and you continue to tell me it doesn't matter. It could be my mother, I believe you said. Yet, here's another reference relying solely on the authority of the pope. Relying on Catholic tradition rather than Biblical doctrine. You find me the verse that references unsown seeds or any other such nonsense. This thought comes form the command to "Be fruitful and multiply". A command issued twice in the Bible, both times to very specific people under very specific circumstances. It has no relevance to anyone other than Adam, Eve, Noah, Noah's sons, and their wives.
My main method to actually gauge change would be to compare gross domestic product, life-expectancy, mortality rates, infant mortality, and see if there is any sizable difference on average.
That's all well and good, and I wish you the best of luck because I'm interested in your results. Keep in mind though, that we're looking to track these things as a function of religious zeal.
See that, that’s what Saxon was talking about. :) Save that snide, barely audible comment stuff for someone with time for much more nonsense.
Says the man on a play-by-post RPG forum. ;) No nonsense. Got it.
Sarcasm is kinda my thing, and I've found that it helps to liven up a debate a little. I'm writing this between managing projects at work, so I don't have time to be formal. My apologies. However, I debate largely for the entertainment of it in addition to whatever knowledge or experience is to be gained. Which, is often very little on the internet.
The system allows for reviews, and my understanding of the scientific community is that it is less like a band of brothers and more like a tank of sharks. Always watching each other, ready to rip an offender apart. What is more, the discovery of fraud was made by review, not revelation.
Human bias is only one portion of the problems inherent in the scientific method. On the same line of thinking are social and cultural paradigms, and the fact that our processes and tools for measurement are built largely under the assumption that a particular hypothesis or theory is accurate.
Hume's problem of induction poses another, more absolute hurdle, as do Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. However, more relevant to the current thread, is the fact that science can not by definition approach the topics or concepts considered by the world religions. It can not define purpose, and can not even discuss the origin of our universe.
While happiness might have been a subject for discussion, wasn't the higher issue one in which people aspired to grasp not life, but death. As a search for happiness, or reduction of pain, I've always considered the Christian faith to be one toward transcendence of the human condition... which had less to do with living.
That's only a small, yet important, portion of it. The bulk of Biblical scriptures deal with establishing purpose for life as well as guidelines for achieving it. Our eternal fate gives those concepts their proper context.
Peabody Polk
02-17-11, 04:23 PM
Wynken, I hate to say it, but I can show you the verse that references unsown seed. Genesis 38:8-10, the story of Onan. Does it mean what Catholic tradition (dating at least to Clement of Alexandria and St. Jerome, early thinkers in the genre you claim interest, apologetics) has said it means, namely, that semen is instituted divinely for procreation, and therefore should not be treated in a way that denies its final cause? I have my doubts. But the verse and the tradition of interpretation is there, it's strange to reject it outright.
If sarcasm is your modus operandi, might I suggest Augustine's On The Morals of the Catholic Church? He has some one-liners directed towards the Manicheans that are well worth perusing if you're up for a laugh. Yet he also says this: "For I like to imitate, as far as I can, the gentleness of my Lord Jesus Christ, who took on Himself the evil of death itself, wishing to free us from it." I will admit, in reading that document, that I find myself longing for this gentle version of Augustine more than I do laughing at the sarcastic version of Augustine; and what is more, I find myself more convinced to his cause when he operates in kind words than when he acts in polemic and assault.
There's a lesson there someone, I'm sure.
EDIT: This is Sighter's alt, btw, forgot to quick account switch.
EDIT 2: "Advances in medical understanding have taught that the plague and all illnesses of lesser varieties were not divine will or born of some innate sin, but bacteria."
Knave, this is only partially true. One might just as easily respond that bacteria cause illnesses, but are still ensconced within the general realm of Creation and Providence, and so the cause of illness does not cease to be a reflection of divine will, but rather we are simply capable of understanding the mechanisms of creation more clearly. While I appreciate the robust back-and-forth, I would counsel you that you sometimes sound like the people you claim to oppose; that is, asserting a statement without seeing how it might appear through the eyes of one who holds a different conception regarding the structure of ultimate reality.
In either case though, my point is the same. The original intent and purpose of religion (read: Christianity) was never to grant control, authority, or any other synonym for power to any being other than our God and Creator.
Your point is the same and still missing mine, I don’t concern it with power, I concern it with being RIGHT, I’m sorry for the caps, but I can’t be more clear and simple than that. It’s a matter of creating ultimate answers to incredibly vague questions. I extend this to all religions, I don’t need to contain my answers here.
Oy, don’t use the word “most” like it means anything more than your opinion. My opinion is that you lack a fundamental understanding of what the atheistic community is; primarily not something you can generalize to suit your argument. Pushing forward I can say the same of most Christians, and while based on experience, I can say I’ve met far more Christians lacking in knowledge of their own bible than Atheists who went out of their way to read something people haven’t stopped talking about since Moses was old enough to start talking to bushes. Ultimately, this is a sign that you don’t respect my position enough to not to tell me so.
I’m going to assume that your hasty defense by suggesting what I don’t understand to be the creation of the universe in regards to your book is some assumption that I am talking about Genesis alone. No, son. I’m also referring to passages that speak of floods and carrying all animals two by two, talking bushes, pillars of moving still flames, death personified still needing to ride a horse, commands to rape and kill, surviving in the belly of a whale, summoning bears to maul forty-two youths for mocking your male-pattern baldness, the proper method of treating your slaves, and so on. I don’t just take issue with the unlikely; I take issue with the stupid and cruel, I question its truth when its own verses suffer terrible editing, and more than all of that, there is the simple recognition that anything written to convey a message by a being whose definition is essentially perfect would contain none of these things in any form that wasn’t acceptable and could be tested.
I’m going to say it again because you have clearly allowed this one to go over your heard, what is more, I shall do it the long and hard way! +W+
Scientific Method:
1. Define the question.
2. Gather information and resources. (Observe!)
3. Form hypothesis.
4. Perform experiment and collect data.
5. Analyze data.
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis.
7. Publish results.
8. Retest. (Frequently done by other scientists)
Religious Method:
1. Define the question. (Vagaries are allowed.)
2. Entertain notions which appeal to previous held ideals.
3. Form conclusion.
4. Observe and collect data.
5. Analyze data.
6. Interpret data to suit conclusion.
7. Publish (Read: preach) results.
8. Ignore new data, or reinterpret it to meet previous standards.
Now that I have gone the extra mile, I can now be frank and say that while similar in the fact that both attempt to answer questions, they conflict in obvious places, and in some instances are ass-backwards. As to which one is right, we need only see results. Science…or witchcraft/revelation (same thing, really).
You may lead to how you can suggest complete creation and gradual evolution at your leisure; I’ve not heard too much of anything like that and it should prove original in my eyes. As far as retreat, of course not, as far as changing goal posts and shifting ground. Retreat is actually a terrible word in retrospect, guerilla warfare is better. What I mean to say is that the position does not allow for any means to be wrong, it demands to be right.
“Christian apologetics is kind of a hobby of mine. I'm most familiar with Christian theology, so I'll let other defend their particular beliefs.”
So long as you think you’re doing a good job. =P I do have one bible verse from that site which I’ve never gotten a suitable answer over, but it’s a bit off topic, and far from the PG-13 of this site. Even went through the trouble of bring my bible to school to show a friend after he called BS.
I maintain that any answer given as a metaphor fails to be a sufficient one; this is the greatest failing of any piece which prescribes conduct or factual happenings. If it is written to convey meaning, it does so in the best possible way, if passed down from an omnipotent being, it should accomplish this and remain irrefutable, undoubtable in its perfect. Then again, that is a free will argument.
I realize that you are dead set on making this a Christian thing, but I don’t care, and yes, I will continue to tell you that because its not about whether you agree with him or not, I could say the same for you pastor whichever side of the abortion deal he falls on, it is the fact that an unqualified human being influenced by superstition and myth has an effect on public policy, the big figures are more obvious so I use them. The pope, the illuminati (buff and shine their souls!), or any individual who makes a decision based on “Faith.”
“But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also. ‘ Genesis 38: 9-10.
You see this? This was an allusion, a turn of the phrase, a joke in its original context, and now I have to pull it out and explain it to you. Are you happy? You’ve essentially wasted a portion of my life on something that wasn’t a talking point, and you’ve wasted a portion of your life on making me do that, I want to say that we are even, but I’m laughing and that is usually a sign that I’m overjoyed and annoyed at the same time. Four minutes down.
As far as a function of religious zeal, we are simply comparing the growth between nations who have different attitudes toward religious zeal, correlation has already been ceded, like how waking up in a tub full of ice doesn’t necessarily mean someone has stolen your kidney.
Liven up? Cool, but you’ve got to work on your jokes more than anything else, otherwise it’s like walking in the dry wind. Whatever, I’ve worked my way through two classes and work on this thing, it’s officially been the highlight of my day, and I’m supposed to be helping a friend write a paper right now and you are managing to compete with him. Is this a debate? I don’t think this really counts; I’m entertained, but really just replying to comments. Then again, your right, it’s probably the internet.
Social and cultural paradigms are considered, and I’d still consider that the review process allows for the exposure of all mistakes and errors in thought and isn’t confined to any one nation or area. All challengers are welcome in the shark tank. While the tools are built on the hypotheses, this is still in keeping with the idea that the current hypothesis can’t be discarded or changed, and that the hypothesis can’t be contradicted by the result, one of the distinctions that separate out theories which have been tested and confirmed enough to be considered predictive.
Hume's problem of induction poses another, more absolute hurdle, as do Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. However, more relevant to the current thread, is the fact that science can not by definition approach the topics or concepts considered by the world religions. It can not define purpose, and can not even discuss the origin of our universe.
Oooh! Fancy reading! I really need to get off this Max Stirner and business, but what has been started… should be finished or added to the pile of things I’m going to look at two years later. If you’re going to state that the scientific method has no claim to purpose or meaning, that is totally fine, because I said as much before. What I will say is that it has more of a right than any single individual working out the back of their head, or any large group which deems a popular idea good enough to be “true.”
Unfounded, the bulk of biblical scriptures deal with establishing a purpose for life it can’t confirm as well as guidelines for achieving something it asserts without proof exists. An eternal fate which fails to confirm itself gives those concepts their proper context.
Edit:
Yo, Sighter, I asked you a question in my last post, you read it?
As far as bacteria being divine providence, I still feel that this is goal moving. In this instance, I was refering to the concept that human sin lead to illness, no I didn't go farther than that. I suppose I should look at every possible way a statement might be turned though. I thought I set the parameters, but now I have to adjust for a divine providence which is untestable and unseen, which while unlikely still remains "possible".
*profound shrug*
Rayse Valentino
02-17-11, 05:36 PM
But, for some, Christianity has answered that question in their lives. And for others, it has not -- they have found their sources of happiness elsewhere. I would not presume to forestall anyone's happiness, or say that what makes me happiest must be also what makes you happiest. But I would ask a question to the materialists in the room: if it is only this, and only us, what can you do within your lifetime to be happy? What is it that makes a happy life?
Hey wutup Sighter, how U DOIN? You know how it is.
Anyway, the replies you're likely getting are agreeing with you, but putting emphasis on the idea that your happiness does not detriment the happiness of others. There are a lot of times, in America for example, where people detriment the happiness of others citing religion as their primary motivator. The materialists would do it in the name of greed, envy, or due to righteousness. The difference is the latter usually doesn't have a cadre of supporters from coast to coast. People who find solace with other like-minded people and employ a bandwagon mentality do not seem as mentally healthy to me as skeptics focused on free inquiry and no desire for some sort of confirmation bias.
Like many have said: Faith is fine, believe what you want, but organized religion is a scourge upon this planet.
Sighter Tnailog
02-17-11, 06:43 PM
May I just state that in the middle of this dialogue, I have been busily (albeit slowly) translating Exodus 3-4, and have taken more than a few graduate-level courses in biblical studies, theology, and interpretation at the University of Chicago Divinity School, which you can look up if you wish to see that it is composed of a diverse faculty and student body of believer and non-believer alike; it is hardly a sectarian religious institution.
I am not saying this to make an argument from authority; I absolutely would not want anyone to take a word I say on faith merely because I am about to have some fancy letters after my name. Indeed, I find that the longer I actually study religion, the less capable I am of making any firm pronouncements on the subject; I think you would find much the same attitude from any competent economist or physician or mathematician or biologist. As Albert Einstein is reported to have said, "As a circle of light increases, so does the circumference of darkness around it."
But I DO come at this from a place of rather intense and prolonged formal academic study. So while I am more intensely aware of what I don't know, I do know what I know, and I hope that counts for something. It also maybe helps explain where I come from in this discussion; as a religious person, yes, but also as a gay person acutely aware of the shortcomings of my own Holy Scriptures with regards to those who share my sexual orientation, as a rich person* acutely aware that my Holy Scriptures are more often than not written in support and defense of the poor and an attempt to wrest justice from the wealthy, and as an educated person who cannot help but approach my texts and my religious tradition with an acute knowledge of the many and varied critiques leveled against it.
Knave, I want to pivot to two points you made. First, I don't mean to critique directly your bacterial point; it's a good point, and it shows why "God of the Gaps" thinking is problematic. If God, to a believer, is merely an explanation for what one doesn't know, then God is a pretty damn terrible idea, because God is always getting crowded out. Which is why my response to the bacteria question you raise is not, in my mind, moving the goal posts; instead, it is actually taking your criticism seriously, and trying to respond not by telling you YOU'RE wrong about bacteria, but rather to explain to Christians why "sin causes illness" thinking is misguided within robust Christian thought.
While I think historically you're on somewhat shakier ground than you think -- many religious thinkers, even in the "Dark Ages," didn't necessarily think that illnesses were caused directly by sin,**--your criticism is still significantly pertinent to specific types of religious thinking, types of thinking which did get displaced by the rise of germ theory. That said -- you act as if divine providence was merely something religious thinkers made up when confronted with germ theory. It was not. It's been around longer than germ theory. That is not an argument that something older is necessarily better, it is merely to point out that it's not really goal-moving to point out that a storied a robust part of one's tradition can be used to show how the conflict is not readily apparent.
To my second point: You have what appears to be a very well-developed conception of a religious person; your formulation of the religious method is, for instance, highly indicative of what you think religion is. Yet the method you postulate bears little to no resemblance to the form of religious thinking with which I am acquainted; Paul Tillich, for instance, the theologian whom I have read the most about, did not define a question and then offer a conclusion and then observe data to support the conclusion. Rather, his method was to observe data first, and formulate a question out of that data; then he tried to establish how symbols present in religion could pose, not hard answers, but rather a framework whereby a human being could situate themselves within reality.***
What we should be avoiding, at base, is essentialism, that is to say, reducing diverse, complicated phenomena to "one" way of doing things. Many of my friends in Ph.D. and post-doc chemistry programs, for instance, would point out ways in which the scientific method as you describe it is used to teach science at an early age, but is significantly revised and reoriented as one develops advanced knowledge within scientific endeavors. To reduce "science" to one specific method is an abuse of the term science; similarly, reducing "religion" to one specific method denies the vast diversity and texture of religious traditions and the ways in which religious people of different perspectives approach living in the world. There are Christians who think as you describe, and Muslims, and Hindus, and Scientologists; who formulate questions, devise answers, and then force the data into those answers like putting a puzzle piece together with scissors and a mallet.
But that is not everyone. Just as Saxon doesn't want to be lumped in with Richard Dawkins, I don't want to be lumped in with Jerry Falwell. I've said enough in this thread that I'm pretty sure he'd think I'm going to hell just as surely as he'd say you are. And, in my estimation, he'd be wrong on both counts.
This is all to say that yes, your point is cogent, and for a religious person who has spent a lifetime swearing that sin causes illness, suddenly pivoting to a new way of thinking DOES appear to be moving the goalposts. But for many other religious thinkers -- the type that appear to be written out of your analysis of religion, which seems to be rooted in an understanding only of fundamentalist forms of it -- "sin causes illness" was never a central claim. At least, as I understand the deposit of formalized Christian teaching, this is the case.****
As to your question, Knave, I take your point to be that a large deposit of Christian thinking revolves around the promise of eternal life. I would not disagree, but I would also say this: first, while many Christians have believed fervently in eternal life, a dedicated minority, especially those operating out of theological developments in the twentieth century, would argue that eternal life are symbols meant to help unite humanity with its potential. I am ambivalent on this point.
For my own part, I believe at the very least that one should exercise the Christian requirements of love without regard for reward or punishment. It has been mentioned in this thread already what Christ said was the first commandment. But the second he said, taken directly from the Pentateuch, is that you should "love your neighbor as yourself." There is no word in these two commandments inveighing upon intellectually believing in the literal existence of the afterlife. For some, I think, such belief assists them in acting out the commandment to love their neighbor. For others, I fear, such belief is a detriment. My goal, as a Christian involved in Christian education, has always been to try to teach more of them how they might let their belief system enable love rather than hate.*****
*(I may be a poor graduate student, but living in America counts for something!)
**(The Book of Job, for instance, dating to c. 350 BCE, is one of a myriad of examples of very ancient literature which is already complicating and pushing back on "bad things happen to bad people" thinking.)
***(This is vastly oversimplified, but Tillich is hard to explain in forty pages let alone one paragraph.)
****(I recognize that the religion I espouse is an especially academic form of Christianity, one that is not practiced by a great many. There are always distinctions in any tradition between its "official" meaning and its "practical" meaning.)
*****(Goddammit this board needs a footnoting code.)
Jasmine
02-17-11, 08:11 PM
Wynken, I hate to say it, but I can show you the verse that references unsown seed. Genesis 38:8-10, the story of Onan.
just a note, you need to take the whole story into account before you go claiming it says that unsown seed is sinful. The sin was not in that he pulled out, but that he refused to give his late brother a child. The sin was in not fulfilling his duty as a brother. That doesn't mean that the Catholic church isn't using that for the basis of condemning contraceptive/birth control tactics, but that it is misguided.
and that's as far as I'm getting involved in this. those that have known me for awhile know where I stand on this issue (and if you don't and you've just go to know... IM me).
Sighter Tnailog
02-17-11, 09:09 PM
just a note, you need to take the whole story into account before you go claiming it says that unsown seed is sinful. The sin was not in that he pulled out, but that he refused to give his late brother a child. The sin was in not fulfilling his duty as a brother. That doesn't mean that the Catholic church isn't using that for the basis of condemning contraceptive/birth control tactics, but that it is misguided.
Just to be clear, I didn't claim "what the verse says." I merely claimed there was a textual tradition interpreting the verse in a specific fashion. If you want to know what I think about the text, it is an account of how an ancient lineage was ended due to a failure of one of the members of that lineage to observe God's commandment. One might point out that the legal and social situation surrounding the text suggests that the sin is not Onan refusing to give his late brother a child, but rather the sin was transgressing against the law of Moses; it is a morality tale in which failure to observe the commands of the social and legal traditions of the Pentateuch results in adverse consequences. Thus the sin becomes, more broadly than anything, disobedience.
Yet note that no one has asked the wife what she thinks of the whole affair. How might sin look from her perspective? There are several options, of course; within the context of her society, she might be left bereft and without support unless Onan helps her. Thus on one kind of feminist reading, Onan's sin might be his failure to support a family member, and an exceptionally vulnerable one at that, in a time of intense grief and uncertainty. Another feminist reading might suggest something almost exactly opposite; that the text denies this woman any ability to shape her own future, that the very culture described is so steeped in sin that it is considered acceptable to effectively transfer a marriage as if women are property--and not only acceptable, but so desirable that failure to do so constitutes a death sentence.
Deciding on the sin of Onan, as with all the biblical testament, is much more difficult than simply stating that it is about spilling semen, as per some Catholic traditions, or about masturbation, as per many fundamentalist traditions, or about disobedience, as per other traditions -- or even about levirate marriage myths, as per the tradition I am a part of. I think it wiser to say that the story is about all of these things, and the task of the community that takes these texts as sacred is to let these meanings air out, and walk, and speak to people in different spaces as their different interactions with each other and with the intuition of the divine let them.
If I recall correctly, Jasmine, you and I have had our share of fights over the years over these issues. I'd just like to propose something of a truce, and say that I'm more interested in figuring out these days what can be done together, as we both try to find meaning and purpose in the texts we share, despite differences of opinion.
But, for some, Christianity has answered that question in their lives. And for others, it has not -- they have found their sources of happiness elsewhere. I would not presume to forestall anyone's happiness, or say that what makes me happiest must be also what makes you happiest. But I would ask a question to the materialists in the room: if it is only this, and only us, what can you do within your lifetime to be happy? What is it that makes a happy life?
Love.
But only heterosexual marital love :p.
I meant it in a more general sense. The people I love make me happy. The things that I love to do make me happy. The specifics change for everybody, but I think the idea remains the same.
(Yes, I understood the joke.)
Wynken, I hate to say it, but I can show you the verse that references unsown seed. Genesis 38:8-10, the story of Onan. Does it mean what Catholic tradition (dating at least to Clement of Alexandria and St. Jerome, early thinkers in the genre you claim interest, apologetics) has said it means, namely, that semen is instituted divinely for procreation, and therefore should not be treated in a way that denies its final cause? I have my doubts. But the verse and the tradition of interpretation is there, it's strange to reject it outright.
Jasmine answered this in part but I'd like to further clarify in saying that Onan's sin was his lustful deception. The concept of unsown seeds being sinful is ridiculous. The male body continually destroys and reproduces semen. Also, women are born with hundreds of millions of eggs, a fraction of a fraction of which can ever feasibly become offspring, and at least one of which is destroyed every cycle.
I see that you've acknowledged this on another character perhaps. I'll repeat again that I'm less interested in traditional interpretations...especially those that are very obviously born of misconceived bias.
If sarcasm is your modus operandi, might I suggest Augustine's On The Morals of the Catholic Church? He has some one-liners directed towards the Manicheans that are well worth perusing if you're up for a laugh. Yet he also says this: "For I like to imitate, as far as I can, the gentleness of my Lord Jesus Christ, who took on Himself the evil of death itself, wishing to free us from it." I will admit, in reading that document, that I find myself longing for this gentle version of Augustine more than I do laughing at the sarcastic version of Augustine; and what is more, I find myself more convinced to his cause when he operates in kind words than when he acts in polemic and assault.
It's true that sarcasm and wit are less likely to win anyone over in a debate than rhetorical appeals to pathos. However, I've found that when arguing core beliefs on message boards that are unrelated to said discussions, no one is engaging one another with the intent to have their predispositions altered. I debate largely for my own gain - be it simple entertainment or mental exercise. I'm not trying to convert anyone...
Your point is the same and still missing mine, I don’t concern it with power, I concern it with being RIGHT
So far you've used the words power and authority, which I've addressed. However, I've also addressed your allusions to "being RIGHT". My point is and has been that both are RIGHT.
It’s a matter of creating ultimate answers to incredibly vague questions.
And?
You take less issue with a method that provides "good enough" answers to incredibly specific questions? Why? If the answers turn out to be correct, who cares what method is selected? I maintain that there is a place for both and that both perform their proper functions in unison and not in spite of one another.
I can say I’ve met far more Christians lacking in knowledge of their own bible than Atheists who went out of their way to read something people haven’t stopped talking about since Moses was old enough to start talking to bushes.
I have plenty of experience that confirms your assertion as well as my own. It's true that a great many Christians have never cracked a Bible save for to reference the text that's being read to them on Sunday morning. However, you give far too much credit to your atheist "community". While it's refreshing to speak with someone as intelligent as yourself, the majority population goes to juvenile and rebellious individuals looking to follow a trend or buck the system or both. The OP was certainly heading in that direction, in my opinion.
However, I'm talking primarily about fundamental understanding. While some atheists may skim through a religious text, most do so with a pretense. They're expecting to find something in particular, and not at all looking to assimilate new knowledge. They'll be quick to point out how open minded they are though...
We'll get back to this later on in my reply.
Ultimately, this is a sign that you don’t respect my position enough to not to tell me so.
No more than thinly veiled sarcasm. I respect anyone willing to engage in intelligent discussion, and I respect your position just as you respect mine. My point remains, however, that religion (again read:Christianity) is not myth. It prescribes few natural occurrences to God, yet time and again I hear atheists attempting to argue to the contrary.
I’m going to assume that your hasty defense by suggesting what I don’t understand to be the creation of the universe in regards to your book is some assumption that I am talking about Genesis alone.
Perhaps you didn't notice the question marks? Those were questions I had asked, and rhetorical ones at that. I assume nothing but admittedly have a very dry way of making a point.
I’m also referring to passages that speak of floods and carrying all animals two by two, talking bushes, pillars of moving still flames, death personified still needing to ride a horse, commands to rape and kill, surviving in the belly of a whale, summoning bears to maul forty-two youths for mocking your male-pattern baldness, the proper method of treating your slaves, and so on.
Let's get this out there first: Presupposing that the being exists, there's nothing illogical in stating that an all-powerful being can perform feats beyond our observed limits of time and physical law. That handles a portion of your problem. If you'd like to debate the existence of such a being, that's fine, but don't make claims or place limits on such a being because doing so necessarily implies its existence.
Secondly, the act of murder implies innocence. It's also a term that can not in any fathomable way be applied to a being that is, by all rights, your creator and owner. The notion of God "murdering" someone as you and I understand the concept further exhibits that fundamental misunderstanding that I spoke of before. You're attempting, as many atheists do, to interpret the scriptures from a secular point of view - under the assumption that this life is paramount and something to which we are entitled. You presuppose you're own conclusions before evaluating any of their supporting premises.
Third, rape was never commanded or condoned in the Bible. I assume you are referencing Judges 21, and I would urge you to read it again after brushing up on the applicable Old Testament Law detailed in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
Which leaves us with slavery. From an article I had written years ago:
My argument is that Israel actually had very progressive and revolutionary laws and rights reserved for slavery, which was very entrenched in the social system and remained so throughout the Middle Ages. Slavery then was much like the peon of the feudal caste system. It was a legitimate occupation and a way to repay a debt. People would often sell themselves to slavery.
All slaves in Israel had not only human rights, but spiritual rights as well. Although Hebrew slaves had even greater protection aliens still ate the same food as their master, they were protected from abuse and oppression, they could own their own property, many times the master would give his daughter to marry a slave. Slaves, once circumcised, were allowed to enter in to worship with God. They would rest on the Sabbath (Jewish holy days), they could file grievances with their masters, and if they ran away they were to be given sanctuary and not returned to their master...etc. The Bible also restricted forcing someone in to slavery or kidnapping them. Furthermore, the slavery in the Old Testament was not the oppressive slavery that the modern world has come to know.
Exodus 12
43 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover...
44 Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.
Exodus 23
12 "Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed.
Exodus 21
26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.
Job 31
13 "If I have denied justice to my menservants and maidservants when they had a grievance against me,
14 what will I do when God confronts me?
Deuteronomy 23
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.
Deuteronomy 28
68 The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.
What I mean to say is that the position does not allow for any means to be wrong, it demands to be right.
“Christian apologetics is kind of a hobby of mine. I'm most familiar with Christian theology, so I'll let other defend their particular beliefs.”
It demands to be right, this is true. However, I've made two previous points that I would again bring to your attention: 1) the Bible attributes few natural occurrences to God. 2) The Bible does not concern itself with "how" or "what" but rather "why".
I didn't mention the 37 verses of creation detailing nearly 14 billion years of events to be curt. Though subtle, the point was that the veracity and accuracy of scientific truth has no bearing on that of Biblical truth. There is plenty of room for both to be RIGHT and the correctness of one in no way affects the correctness of the other. It seems as though you confuse the terms atheist and scientist. Though your atheistic beliefs may be under attack by religion, the scriptural, Biblical doctrine (being apart from human tradition and the Church) leaves science to its own devices.
You may lead to how you can suggest complete creation and gradual evolution at your leisure; I’ve not heard too much of anything like that and it should prove original in my eyes.
There are several points that are key, not the least of which is the previously discussed fact that the Bible is not concerned with scientific accuracy. It races through creation in order to devote time to its true purpose. Furthermore, the events of Genesis 1 are being narrated by God, a timeless being, to an audience that has amassed little scientific understanding. There is a great deal of linguistic convention used in order to briefly highlight a concept that is entirely beyond their comprehension. For instance, the Hebrew word yowm, which we translated to "day", simply means any period of time. Consider the language used to discuss the passage of time in Geneis 1, "there was morning and there was evening". It isn't very descriptive and the Bible states in two different places that 1000 yeas are like a day in God's eyes.
Bear in mind also that many of these concepts originated with Nahmanides and Maimonides in the 1st and 2nd centuries...long before the field of cosmology had even been considered.
Genesis opens with the creation of the heavens and the earth. These are loose translations from the original Hebrew which Maimonides had taken to mean energy and matter. The third verse details the existence of photons, or light, while the fourth explains how light was separated from darkness. According to Big Bang cosmology, the early universe was entirely opaque, meaning that no visible light existed. So, between the second and fourth verse, we have already covered at least 100 million years and remained in line with modern physics.
Things speed up from there and the next passages discuss liquid water (vs. 6-10). During its formation our Earth contained only ice with the appearance of liquid water several million years later. Shortly after the existence of liquid water, those bodies were inhabited by Earth's first life forms - single celled, photosynthetic algae. So, we have the existence of plants in verses 11-13, with the entire phyla being discussed in a condensed version of its evolutionary order.
The next passage is what throws most people who are quick to point out the existence of the Earth before that of the Sun. However, this is now being narrated, by God, taking an Earthdweller's perspective. Earth's early atmosphere was composed of sulfuric and other such gasses, and was all but opaque. It wasn't until after photosynthetic plants gave rise to an oxygen-rich atmosphere that the Sun and Moon would be clearly visible as detailed in verses 14-19.
After this we have the existence of fish, birds, and lastly mammals. An accurate picture of evolution, as I recall.
I maintain that any answer given as a metaphor fails to be a sufficient one
I don't disagree. However, the Bible contains portions that are inherently metaphoric, poems, songs, prophetic visions, etc. as well as passages that are not.
I realize that you are dead set on making this a Christian thing
Sorry. It's impossible to make any solid points when arguing in polite generalities, and I don't have the knowledge of other world religions in order to debate intelligently about them. I also don't believe them to be logically viable...which is necessary in a logical discussion.
The pope, the illuminati (buff and shine their souls!), or any individual who makes a decision based on “Faith.”
"Love the Lord with all your...mind". I'll not tell you that faith can ever be separated from any religion. I'll be the first to conceded that, at the end of the day, my emotional and faith-based experiences and "observations" are the only piece of "evidence" I can truly claim for the existence of God. However, I don't act or make decisions purely from a position of faith, and I don't at all believe that to be the message of the Bible.
you’ve got to work on your jokes more than anything else, otherwise it’s like walking in the dry wind.
I like my humor like I like my vaginas...dry.
So what did people do before the Bible, before God?
I don't understand your question, Duffy.
Off topic, why are 40 lines of whitespace added to every post?
Elrundir
02-18-11, 11:25 AM
Off topic, why are 40 lines of whitespace added to every post?
To accommodate the information in the side-bar.
*evacuates yet again*
How did people find happiness before God existed?
The Piper
02-18-11, 12:05 PM
Before god, as in the Christian god? Well, if I remember correctly, the Jews brung it to the UK, and they lived by rule of the Romans. So, Roman Gods? Jupiter and Mercury and all that?
If you mean God as in the definition of God (divine being ect ect), I guess people didn't. Although they may have been asking questions, before they came up with the final awnser, right or wrong, that it was a being that made it all. This could then have inspired the idea of seperate gods, and created the first of the religons. (supposedly Hinduism, of which we do not know the origin.) This then lead to arguements from people who thought differently, had their own awnsers, but couldn't peice them together, and yet, with this thought of a possible 'guy/gal in the sky' controlling everything, they began to form other religons.
I don't know. That's just how I suppose it happened.
The Bible isn't necessarily about finding happiness...it's about purpose.
Before god, as in the Christian god? Well, if I remember correctly, the Jews brung it to the UK, and they lived by rule of the Romans. So, Roman Gods? Jupiter and Mercury and all that?
The concept of "before God" is semantically nonsensical. God is infinite so there technically could be no "before" or "after" God. He always has been.
Also, God is referred to as being Judeo-Christian (or Abrahamic) because the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity are the same. The Roman and even Greek pantheon would have been developed millenia after the God of Israel. Regardless though, if we presuppose the Bible to be truth, there was never a before God even in human history, as the story of Adam and Eve would very obviously stretch back to the first humans.
Double post but to further my first point, I believe that atheists can achieve happiness without a belief in God. However, none who understand the implications of purpose would claim that existence is meaningful on any grand or ultimate scale. Purpose implies design which implies sentience...
http://falseandpossible.blogspot.com/2010/04/illusion-of-purpose.html
But there was a whole stretch of civilisation that pre-dates Roman, Greek...things much older than Israel itself. If something is not believed in, and if something is not consciously being thought of then there is no rational connection to bring it to life. Wherever or not God does or doesn't exist is not the question, but if humans do not believe or are not aware, they still most easily find the very same happiness atheist, gentile and religious man alike does.
You seem to assume there is a purpose to life.
I am afraid to say the only purpose quantifiable by any means that is not predominately based on a man's written word and his psychological predication to the intangible is to be born, to eat, to sleep, to sleep with others, procreate and die.
Life is about death, it is inescapable, and we are simply facets to ensure the survival of our race is prolonged. Sure, that gives creedance to "go forth and multiply" but every good book needs a sex scene every now and then :p.
For the record, I am not atheist. Though I guess being a morally eschewed social scientist is the same thing...
orphans
02-18-11, 02:31 PM
I can't help but see that most of the discussion is focused around European/Middle Eastern thought and culture and religion that has developed there. I mean, there is Daoism (Taoism) and Ancestor Worship in China, and I believe a long time ago in Japan there was Shinto (but has declined in recent times?). Buddhism as brought later from India... though I suppose Buddhism isn't really worship in a god as so much as the search for enlightenment? Though I'm not too sure on that...
Point is in my rambling is that :/ everyone seems to be only focused on European/Middle Eastern thought.
But Duffy wrote something that I want to build off of, and that's the whole facet of belief and awareness.
Suppose suddenly that everyone decided/forgot about Christianity/Judaism/Islam, or any religion in general, would that mean it longer exists? Do intangible things seems to exist because we believe in them, whether or not they're there? No one can disprove or prove the existence of a "God" or if there are many gods/essessesses. Or if there are really ghosts of our dead ancestors watching over us, or if the spirits of the forest are working against us or with us, or if there should really be a balance in all things with Yin and Yang energy.
As silly as it may sound, I'm afraid of silence and the darkness in my own home, only because I believe (however ludicrous) that there might be a zombie (the rotting/shuffling variant) around the corner or some other unseen horror. I know logically (in our current time) that it most likely doesn't exist, but that doesn't stop me from believing that it might.
I mean... it's all fine and all to be discussing only the "One God," but I can't help but think that the discussion is focused mainly on "The One God" because that's what the majority is familiar with... and when the belief in something familiar is threatened, there is a natural response/need to defend it?
...I only think that because I have the same issue with gardening and what ways to make my vegetables grow better.... :/
EDIT: Also, wasn't this supposed to be just thoughts on the topic and not an argument?
Suppose suddenly that everyone decided/forgot about Christianity/Judaism/Islam, or any religion in general, would that mean it longer exists? Do intangible things seems to exist because we believe in them, whether or not they're there?
This depends on how you define intangible. Concepts and other similar abstracts would cease to exist if people forgot about them, but I disagree with the notion that God is a concept. Nietzsche be damned.
If you define intangible as merely out of reach or inaccessible, then the answer is no. Neutrinos are intangible and have existed since the dawn of the universe with nary a care who was looking or who wasn't.
I can't help but think that the discussion is focused mainly on "The One God" because that's what the majority is familiar with
EDIT: Also, wasn't this supposed to be just thoughts on the topic and not an argument?
I'm guilty on both counts. I turned it into a debate about Christianity because that's what I'm interested in. Feel free to discuss or debate whatever belief or religious system you would like though...
orphans
02-18-11, 03:04 PM
If you define intangible as merely out of reach or inaccessible, then the answer is no. Neutrinos are intangible and have existed since the dawn of the universe with nary a care who was looking or who wasn't.
I thought a Neutrino was actually isolated for a split second a few years back by scientists.... I don't remember though exactly, have to find the article again.. Mm something else to do when I have down time ^ ^ thanks for reminding me. Neutrinos are the thingies that pass through everything correct? Not sure what the exact thing about them was, but yeah...
Also for intangible, that was my fault for not setting a the definition I was using. I suppose what I mean is able to be seen/touched/felt/experienced? Not sure if that's a clear way of describing it. Only reason why I think most religions are intangible because no one can really prove or disprove that it really happened. Such as a "religious experience." How would you know what one was if you've never experienced it and if it was, how would you know it was and not just a product of one's own mind?
Mmm... though to be honest, if anything interests me in religion is Unitarianism I think it's called? The study of all the religions? Or... am I thinking of something else? (I'm rather scatterbrained these days...)
Elochai
02-18-11, 03:15 PM
The Bible makes wonderful fiction.
In all seriousness, I don't care about religion. I really don't care if there's a God or not. If there is, great. If there isn't, even better. Now we know it's all OUR fault things are fucked up. Really, I use religion all the time in things I write and characters I create, but that's all I consider it; great material for fiction writing.
Oh, and Slayer? Mine's bigger.
So far you've used the words power and authority, which I've addressed. However, I've also addressed your allusions to "being RIGHT". My point is and has been that both are RIGHT.
No, your point has been that they have not existed to grant any individual power, more and more it just looks like you are proving that your position demands that you be correct even though they have less to do with mine than with another’s. Either way, it stands, and your conception of right in this statement now includes multiple definitions that are not directly related to the word. This is my fault, and I must apologize.
You take less issue with a method that provides "good enough" answers to incredibly specific questions? Why? If the answers turn out to be correct, who cares what method is selected? I maintain that there is a place for both and that both perform their proper functions in unison and not in spite of one another.
Never used the words “good enough” but in the sense that they provide answers accepted without being tested, yes. Now “incredibly” is a word on your part I don’t find appropriate as simply being testable, unbedizened, and unperfumed as it is ejaculated into the world as a constant that can be recognized in the same way that Paris is in France, never mind the math (48° 52' 0" N / 2° 20' 0" E). Who cares what method? Why, if the method lacks any proof to its fallibility or lack of, it is untested, and if it is more often than not correct, then it is reliable. You can maintain all you like, but unless you can demonstrate a material foundation for your immaterial ideas, then its all hot text.
I have plenty of experience that confirms your assertion as well as my own. It’s true that a great many Christians have never cracked a Bible save for to reference the text that’s being read to them on Sunday morning. However, you give far too much credit to your atheist “community”. While it’s refreshing to speak with someone as intelligent as yourself, the majority population goes to juvenile and rebellious individuals looking to follow a trend or buck the system or both. The OP was certainly heading in that direction, in my opinion.
Credit? You assume too much, fool, I maintain that the atheist community is simply a group of people who do not acknowledge a deity. Nothing more, nothing less, no tenets of race or party, no particular education either given that anyone who does not invent or become involved with a group dedicated to a god are considered part of the nonbeliever corner. Children, British biologists, it is really a group anyone can belong to. You still make a wild generalization assuming it some act of rebellion, it is an unfounded assumption that is too common and still means nothing. The opening post…meh, Petoux is a big boy, he can address that himself.
However, I’m talking primarily about fundamental understanding. While some atheists may skim through a religious text, most do so with a pretense. They’re expecting to find something in particular, and not at all looking to assimilate new knowledge. They’ll be quick to point out how open minded they are though…
“Some”, “Skim”, ”most” these words mean very little in terms of actually representing a group except to aid the generalization. Where are you getting this great understanding of the atheist inner workings? I’d contest these charges on the simple grounds that I am an atheist, and knowing the sporadic way in which this “group” operates, I’m fairly certain you haven’t met that many to begin with, feel free to inform me how often you run elbows with atheists of any kind. Personally, I start indifferent, then my friends all ended up hanging out at the church a block over from my house. That was between ten and thirteen. The pastor handed me a bible, I read it up until John and then skipped to the end. I attended a Christian school for the sixth grade, asked for the Holy Spirit to inhabit my body, and when I left, I found out that the guidance counselor was a pedophile… I will not claim absolute knowledge, but I went through it with no pretenses of finding things to hate. With that said, I am open-minded, I am a moral relativist, but not in the popular sense. I reserve the right to tell you that you are wrong.
It prescribes few natural occurrences to God, yet time and again I hear atheists attempting to argue to the contrary.
Its not whether anything is prescribed to God directly, I take the same point here that the FCC does in judging whether or not material advocates any negative behavior or stereotype. The bible is written in a direct manner in terms of who did what, where, and whether or not they were punished. If they were, it is usually preceded by something along the lines of “And the lord waxed wroth!” or any action that might be considered smiting. I use these terms because it is considered a source of moral guidance.
Let's get this out there first: Presupposing that the being exists, there's nothing illogical in stating that an all-powerful being can perform feats beyond our observed limits of time and physical law. That handles a portion of your problem. If you'd like to debate the existence of such a being, that's fine, but don't make claims or place limits on such a being because doing so necessarily implies its existence.
No, this is going back in its box! Presupposing the existence of Eldritch Abominations, Unicorns, Leprechauns, miracles, and magic allows for all of these things to be true. I would like you to separate out how your presupposed myth is in any way different from these, or argue for all their existence. If you want to walk this road, you are going to have made some claims barring these others from existence or start accepting the idea that Vishnu sleeps in his hidden mountains dreaming up the world.
Secondly, the act of murder implies innocence. It’s also a term that can not in any fathomable way be applied to a being that is, by all rights, your creator and owner. The notion of God “murdering” someone as you and I understand the concept further exhibits that fundamental misunderstanding that I spoke of before. You’re attempting, as many atheists do, to interpret the scriptures from a secular point of view – under the assumption that this life is paramount and something to which we are entitled. You presuppose your own conclusions before evaluating any of their supporting premises.
This is the second you’ve made a statement, which many Christians have made before, insinuating that by your blessed eyes you are more enlightened, and that your position affords you knowledge mine does not. I disagree and call that a delusion when the knowledge you possess has no physical basis that you can present. Sadly, my secular viewpoint, which allows for equally dubious but far more productive clarity, disagrees.
Woah, that is the first time I have ever been given this line of thought, I have seen it before, but never been graced with it at my doorstep in its paper bag and flames. You establish that life is owned, thus changing the meaning of murder to being an act whose choice is what I assume to be unknowable. This effectively sets aside the concept of morality all together and places it before a single individual. Under these terms, morality is an extension of one beings will. Technically, could do the simple rant along the lines of, “YOU ARE A SLAVE!” but that would be out of place, instead, given that I am clearly so very wrong and you so right, you should explain without presupposing the existence of a god why life is inherently subject to an unpresupposed divine rule.
Third, rape was never commanded or condoned in the Bible. I assume you are referencing Judges 21, and I would urge you to read it again after brushing up on the applicable Old Testament Law detailed in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
I was not referring to that at all, it was Numbers 31. Wonderful, this will be an education. In addition, I judge this as still a moral tale, Moses issues the order, and the issue is credited to divine command at line 31.
Which leaves us with slavery. From an article I had written years ago:
(Dude, what do you do for a living? It sounds so awesome; please tell me you are paid to write this stuff)
[I]My argument is that Israel actually had very progressive and revolutionary laws and rights reserved for slavery, which was very entrenched in the social system and remained so throughout the Middle Ages. Slavery then was much like the peon of the feudal caste system. It was a legitimate occupation and a way to repay a debt. People would often sell themselves to slavery.
You have rationalized the loss of freedom, the reduction of basic human rights, and the subjugation of one human being to another in one paragraph. Impressive. More than that however, it was not a job, it was not something a person could at any point choose to leave, and more often it involved being born or sold into slavery, a man reserved those rights over his wife, daughter, and son. Beyond this there was the fact that a woman could be bought like cattle if the father was so inclined. It was a lot like the feudal caste system, an excellent reminder of why that is not okay either. You do not value human will, life or rights the same way I do, so I will not get too defensive here.
All slaves in Israel had not only human rights, but spiritual rights as well. Although Hebrew slaves had, even greater protection aliens still ate the same food as their master, they were protected from abuse and oppression, they could own their own property, and many times the master would give his daughter to marry a slave. Slaves, once circumcised, were allowed to enter in to worship with God. They would rest on the Sabbath (Jewish holy days), they could file grievances with their masters, and if they ran away they were to be given sanctuary and not returned to their master...etc. The Bible also restricted forcing someone in to slavery or kidnapping them. Furthermore, the slavery in the Old Testament was not the oppressive slavery that the modern world has come to know.
No, son, and you may call me father if that puts you at ease, the slaves had spiritual rights, and mistakes made allowed for them to be beaten. Beaten until unconscious, but not beaten to death. That is a human right I suppose. Now as far as kidnapping or forcing, why, this is the same path you walked over earlier: some people are property before they are acknowledged as slaves. While you may say that slavery in the old sense was different from the more modern version, your argument was still used by the proslavery south, which touted the bible as a testament to the legality of slavery, because all masters are benevolent.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25 44-46
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. Exodus 21:2 6
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21
It’s really that simple, you point to pieces of your ancient text which are bright and shiny, I point to ones which are in the present sense wicked. Again, this isn’t about your religion alone, but that all are dificient, leading just as often to wrong as right, and out of touch with a concrete creation.
It demands to be right, this is true. However, I've made two previous points that I would again bring to your attention: 1) the Bible attributes few natural occurrences to God. 2) The Bible does not concern itself with "how" or "what" but rather "why".
I didn't mention the 37 verses of creation detailing nearly 14 billion years of events to be curt. Though subtle, the point was that the veracity and accuracy of scientific truth has no bearing on that of Biblical truth. There is plenty of room for both to be RIGHT and the correctness of one in no way affects the correctness of the other. It seems as though you confuse the terms atheist and scientist. Though your atheistic beliefs may be under attack by religion, the scriptural, Biblical doctrine (being apart from human tradition and the Church) leaves science to its own devices.
If something demands to be right, and lacks any actual proof as to the veracity of the claim, then it is dishonest. More often than that, you keep telling me what I am, and that shows you have no idea who is on the other side of the internet. You are an attention seeker, I am your John. :D There is so much condensed wrong here; I finally have achieved mirthful satisfaction.
You have separated your beliefs from any possible objective research to determine its place in reality or lack thereof. No problem there, but I take it to mean you have no intention of actually attempting anything besides proving that popular misconceptions of your position are false while casually slinging slander (strong word, but I like alliteration). I would advise you to actually get up and go meet some atheists without a prior motivation to prove them wrong and uneducated, as you regularly imply. My position does not come with any beliefs but describes my lack of it, you can now proceed to tell me what I have, but it is still what I do not. As far as attack, how am I attacked? (In argument the Greeks did think of it like a great battle warring and raging, but I’m not too used to employing there weapons so I won’t go about acting like one.) I am unthreatened, copacetic if nothing else. Religion only takes up enough of my day for a laugh or a shake of the head, or an eye for all that art. I can only think this is you projecting.
Your next move is to admit it is badly written…and still claim it was the work of a divine being with all knowledge including the future. Cool. I maintain that a perfect being would be able to perfect text transcending language barriers that sources say he put up. Taking British literature, reading multiple poems, I can say without a doubt that conveying meaning through metaphor as well as poetry is a poor medium when done to instruct. It allows for multiple interpretations, and multiple opinions, which conflict but remain just as valid. For the sake of entertainment, poetry is fine; for the sake of education, a book of prose is better. Actually, a library, a divine being with absolute knowledge could certainly do better than what we have now.
Cool, have faith, and I hope you don’t. Its when faith is considered something to be depended on beyond reason that it becomes a problem. Rely on prayer to heal the sick. Seeing innate sin as the source of direct suffering. I’d like to think that people can have faith, but only when it does not overshadow their judgement.
I like my humor like I like my vaginas...dry.
Best line on this board. :O
@Sighter
While this sideshow has been running out of control, I was under the impression that you were doing something with the rhetorical point that seemed like nitpicking, and I am sorry. Right now, it looks more as if I am getting a lesson in thought, and I do not think it would be fair or right to shrug it off. Also, I know I have been talking fallacy language, and I seem to have put you on your guard against any oversensitive reply to a sincere comment. I really do not like that.
As far as the Religious Method, it is a joke. Disregard the bulk of it as a serious statement, it was the work of a few minutes and some curdled enjoyment renewing itself by parodying one idea as a representation of another. At its core, it is my take on how religions are initially created, and should not be applied to any individual who had no part in the original design of the hypothesis. This is essentially a method to create modes of thought on reality, and was mainly done to illustrate how different one was from the other. The only thing that I would issue to human beings beyond the progenitor are number seven and eight.
Edit:
@ Amber, yeah, it was, not sure why this has gone so far. Either way, its not a fight, we haven't devolved to just name calling.
Scrotus
02-19-11, 01:19 AM
You guys are so cute.
Non-believer, although I go to (Baptist)-church from time to time, but that's more for the life lessons than anything else.
Jack Frost
02-21-11, 12:12 PM
You guys are so cute.
Non-believer, although I go to (Baptist)-church from time to time, but that's more for the life lessons than anything else.
Isn't that what religion is for?
Scrotus
02-21-11, 06:14 PM
Isn't that what religion is for?
I don't know what religion is for, as I stated above I'm not religious. For me that's what "church" is for.
fool
No, son
Yay for attacks ad hominem. I suppose that's the respect you were whining for earlier, no?
No, your point has been that they have not existed to grant any individual power
Oh. Is that what my point was? Thank you so much for letting me know. Now that you have, perhaps you could take a break from that and actually read my words in context in order to fully evaluate the entirety of their meaning? Especially when I lay down for you, in no uncertain terms, exactly what that meaning is...
more and more it just looks like you are proving that your position demands that you be correct even though they have less to do with mine than with another's.
More and more it looks as though you assume what my point is, or will be, at the expense of sound reasoning and a proper response.
Never used the words "good enough" but in the sense that they provide answers accepted without being tested, yes. Now "incredibly" is a word on your part I don't find appropriate as simply being testable, unbedizened, and unperfumed as it is ejaculated into the world as a constant that can be recognized in the same way that Paris is in France, never mind the math (48° 52' 0" N / 2° 20' 0" E).
Did I say proper response? I'm quite certain this isn't even in English. Or, perhaps I'm just a fool who can't understand your haughty speech? Care to dumb this down for me?
I maintain that the atheist community is simply a group of people who do not acknowledge a deity. Nothing more, nothing less, no tenets of race or party, no particular education either given that anyone who does not invent or become involved with a group dedicated to a god are considered part of the nonbeliever corner. Children, British biologists, it is really a group anyone can belong to.
I have never stated otherwise, and never would as I'm quite familiar with the definition of the term a-theism. This entire side argument originated from an off-handed and patently sarcastic remark. Let me sum up my thoughts for you:
Not all theists are backwards retards
Not all atheists are super elite geniuses
Where are you getting this great understanding of the atheist inner workings...feel free to inform me how often you run elbows with atheists of any kind.
If you must know, my father is a staunch atheist, and always looking for a debate. I have thousands of posts spanning the better part of five years in several religious debate threads scattered in various forums across the net. Most of my friends are atheists or agnostic, but I don't often debate with them.
I reserve the right to tell you that you are wrong.
Wrong in the sense that the general statements I made don't apply to you, but I had already admitted as much. They weren't made about you in the first place.
No, this is going back in its box! Presupposing the existence of Eldritch Abominations, Unicorns, Leprechauns, miracles, and magic allows for all of these things to be true. I would like you to separate out how your presupposed myth is in any way different from these, or argue for all their existence. If you want to walk this road, you are going to have made some claims barring these others from existence or start accepting the idea that Vishnu sleeps in his hidden mountains dreaming up the world.
Your first sentence is absolutely false, and has nothing to do with mine. You're changing the argument here. My assertion was, in its simplest form, that an all-powerful being is all-powerful. There's nothing illogical about that. Without saying so, I see that you've opted to take me up on my invitation to attack the presupposition that such a being exists in the first place. Fine.
My answer to this is always that those and similar logical devices (such as Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot) remain or become logically viable only as they garner the traits of the Abrahamic God. In order to protect your claim that belief in unicorns is sufficiently similar to belief in God, you'll need to attribute to them more and more of God's traits until at some point we'll simply be arguing semantics. You say unicorn, I say God, but we're referencing the same entity...
I disagree and call that a delusion when the knowledge you possess has no physical basis that you can present. Sadly, my secular viewpoint, which allows for equally dubious but far more productive clarity, disagrees.
Look! Over your head; it's the point!
Woah, that is the first time I have ever been given this line of thought, I have seen it before, but never been graced with it at my doorstep in its paper bag and flames. You establish that life is owned, thus changing the meaning of murder to being an act whose choice is what I assume to be unknowable. This effectively sets aside the concept of morality all together and places it before a single individual. Under these terms, morality is an extension of one beings will.
I couldn't agree more. Morality is entirely subject to the objective and unchanging will of our God and Creator as He has outlined and established in the Bible.
you should explain without presupposing the existence of a god why life is inherently subject to an unpresupposed divine rule.
What you're asking for is paradoxical and nonsensical. The very belief that anything (life, morality, etc) is subject to the will of such a being presupposes its existence. I've said once that if you want to debate said existence, have at it. If you want to debate claims made presupposing God's existence than we can do that too...but it's impossible and illogical for you to assume we can do both at once in a single argument.
I was not referring to that at all, it was Numbers 31. Wonderful, this will be an education. In addition, I judge this as still a moral tale, Moses issues the order, and the issue is credited to divine command at line 31.
Perhaps you could quote me the verse wherein God or Moses command anyone to be raped because I must be missing it. Perhaps first you'd like to read the earlier segment where you told me that you don't read the Bible with any bias...
(Dude, what do you do for a living? It sounds so awesome; please tell me you are paid to write this stuff)
Oh good. I'm no longer the only one being sarcastic. Just a hobby, as I said.
You do not value human will, life or rights the same way I do, so I will not get too defensive here.
Hah. I just explained that the word "slavery" in the Old Testament isn't at all used in the manner that we understand it today. Spare me your rhetoric and actually make a point if you reject mine.
This article from http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html does well to contrast modern slavery to its various forms in Mesopotamia during Biblical times, and it sites, "the definitive work on ANE law today, the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period)..."
Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.
So, [NS:ECA:4:1190] point this out: "New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market."
In the ANE (and OT), this was NOT the case. The dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).
Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.
In the ANE (and especially the OT), the opposite was the case. This should be obvious from the MOTIVE aspect--these were choices by the impoverished to enter this dependency state, in return for economic security and protection. Some slavery contracts actually emphasized this voluntary aspect!:
"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]
The same, of course, can be said of Israel. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:
And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.
reatment : Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.
The images we have of the Old American South are filled with mistreatments, and we need no documentation of that here.
The ANE, on the other hand, was much less severe, due largely to the differences in the attitudes of the 'master' to the 'slave'. Slavery in the ANE was much more an 'in-house' and 'in-family' thing, with closer emotional attachment. However, there were still some extreme punishments in the ANE, but the biblical witness is of a decidedly better environment for slaves than even the ANE. Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves...
Legal Status : Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'.
And this implied range of freedom/slavery can be seen all over the ANE. Buying and Selling, for example, can be the contractual terminology for child adoption:
"Older children were adopted by reimbursing their parents for the expenses of feeding and raising them. These transactions were recorded as if they were sales." [HI:DLAM:131]
and slaves had very specific legal rights (can real 'chattel property' have such?):
"Slaves had certain legal rights: they could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their freedom." [HI:DLAM:118]
"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active." [HI:HANEL:1632]
Exit : Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a 'bare bones' release--no property went with the freedman.
In the ANE, although some cultures had pre-built "debt-payoff-periods" (like Israel's 6 years), "chattel" manumission was rare because it wasn’t sought after--the issues of economic security and the quasi-family relationships that developed within the household unit created little incentive to become 'independent':
[We will be semi-shocked below when we discover that manumission in Israel was either pre-scheduled (in the case of Hebrew slaves) or anytime-you-want-it (in the case of foreign slaves)…!]
You have separated your beliefs from any possible objective research to determine its place in reality or lack thereof.
Which belief would that be? My belief in Big Bang cosmology or that of evolution? How about abiogenesis? Have you ever considered that the creation account of the Bible attributes two things to the direct power of God? "God created the heavens and the earth" and the formation of the human soul. For the remainder God merely permitted nature to take its course ("God said let there be"). Look at the wording throughout...several times it states openly that, "the land produced" the various forms of life. Nature already had all that was needed for the formation of life...
No problem there, but I take it to mean you have no intention of actually attempting anything besides proving that popular misconceptions of your position are false while casually slinging slander (strong word, but I like alliteration).
What else can I do? I've conceded that I can not "prove" my position, though I do feel that there is some strength to the cosmological argument.
As far as attack, how am I attacked?
Twas simply convention my good man. I don't mean to imply that you are or should feel threatened in any way. I certainly don't.
Your next move is to admit it is badly written
Oh?
Melancor
02-25-11, 12:44 PM
God, I stopped carying after the second page.
MetalDrago
02-25-11, 05:53 PM
Over the many years I've been a member, I've learned to keep myself apart from this shitstorm of a topic. Let's just say I'm spiritual and leave it at that.
Visla Eraclaire
02-25-11, 07:37 PM
I think you missed the big upsurge of arguing about religion on the internet. Obviously it's an endless wellspring of stupid bullshit, but it was full to bursting when there was all that YouTube drama about a year ago.
Anyone who posted in this thread is stupider from having done so and I willingly include myself in that number to bring you that message.
I think you missed the big upsurge of arguing about religion on the internet. Obviously it's an endless wellspring of stupid bullshit, but it was full to bursting when there was all that YouTube drama about a year ago.
Anyone who posted in this thread is stupider from having done so and I willingly include myself in that number to bring you that message.
i r dumb, i r on wagon!
Yay for attacks ad hominem. I suppose that's the respect you were whining for earlier, no?
No, let me correct your flailing attempt at calling fallacies like soccer players call fowls. Ad hominem only applies to the address of a person’s character in reply to the topic. Calling you a fool is not ad hominem for the simple reason that it is only a garnishment to my statements; it has no barring in my statement and is simply a term of endearment, like “son”. Calling you a fool is just playful abuse. As far as whining? Come now, dear Wynken, I don’t mean to me, I mean to my position, generalizing myself and my group to use what resembles unfounded accusations that have little to do with the point constitutes Ad Hominem. Feel free to use more, I will do my best to let you know you are correct, or I will correct you. ;)
A good example would be along the lines of, “He is a fool, nothing he says can mean anything but the babbling words that echoes through his iron plated skull! He can never learn, will never know, and thus he is wrong!” This is Ad Hominem.
Oh. Is that what my point was? Thank you so much for letting me know. Now that you have, perhaps you could take a break from that and actually read my words in context in order to fully evaluate the entirety of their meaning? Especially when I lay down for you, in no uncertain terms, exactly what that meaning is...
In context, it’s a reply to someone else you’ve grown to blanket everything instead of simply saying you were too far onto your stump to think about getting onto another one. You want to talk semantics in order to get past your stumbling attempts at keeping up then consult your dictionary.
More and more it looks as though you assume what my point is, or will be, at the expense of sound reasoning and a proper response.
Only to save time, I’m not missing anything that matters.
Did I say proper response? I'm quite certain this isn't even in English. Or, perhaps I'm just a fool who can't understand your haughty speech? Care to dumb this down for me?
Educate yourself, take up your dictionary, and reintroduce yourself to the English language. Surely, you have knowledge of simple prefixes. I do not blame you for not knowing what longitude and latitude are. A simple Google would have done you well, or mulling over the context, but where I might be haughty, you might be lazy, so it is a moot point.
I have never stated otherwise, and never would as I'm quite familiar with the definition of the term a-theism. This entire side argument originated from an off-handed and patently sarcastic remark. Let me sum up my thoughts for you:
Not all theists are backwards retards
Not all atheists are super elite geniuses
Quite, now keep it in mind; earlier posts cast my doubt and suspicion on the part of your understanding. I am much relieved to see you now know, at least in words over the internet.
If you must know, my father is a staunch atheist, and always looking for a debate. I have thousands of posts spanning the better part of five years in several religious debate threads scattered in various forums across the net. Most of my friends are atheists or agnostic, but I don't often debate with them.
It is sad that parent and child must fight, glad you do not bring this to your friends though, it would rather ruin the party. As far as where you spend your spare time, cool, we all need our hobbies that span the larger portion of our lives. I know I do this too much.
Wrong in the sense that the general statements I made don't apply to you, but I had already admitted as much. They weren't made about you in the first place.
You see this is why our conversation swings every time I post, that was not even aimed at you. That was a statement without address, without target, without destination. It was a feather from my wing of odd phrases and tangents; I think I aimed at the posts preceding that put forward the more popular variety.
Your first sentence is absolutely false, and has nothing to do with mine. You're changing the argument here.
My answer to this is always that those and similar logical devices (such as Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot) remain or become logically viable only as they garner the traits of the Abrahamic God. In order to protect your claim that belief in unicorns is sufficiently similar to belief in God, you'll need to attribute to them more and more of God's traits until at some point we'll simply be arguing semantics. You say unicorn, I say God, but we're referencing the same entity...
Your first statement is a fly destined for naught but the swat of objection! The rest however is true, and it seems I have jumped the gun. However, seeing as the game has changed I shall continue on the track you have allowed us to enter. First, you do not explain why they are logically more viable as they attain the same traits as the Abrahamic God, so the statement is unfinished, or contains an assumption. Moving on, a Unicorn inhabits the mystical land Futopia, and occasionally grazes on Earth and commands earthlings to do its will with nary a dropping left behind as evidence; being magical he can do as he pleases in all affairs. How do we prove he does not exist? We do not because this is an argument for possibility, like life on the moon, or sentient sea conquering jellyfish. This is an argument for possibility, and while we cannot disprove these things without scanning all space/time/ant-space/anti-time they can’t be proven to be the work of one guy on a computer.
Look! Over your head; it's the point!
Look, in front of your face, another one!
I couldn't agree more. Morality is entirely subject to the objective and unchanging will of our God and Creator as He has outlined and established in the Bible.
That is not morality, that is obedience. (Good boy.) We are back to the existence of such a being in one part, but the next is still the composition of such a being in nature. Because it is unverifiable, there is nothing wrong in questioning how it comes to be that we assume such a being possesses absolute knowledge of right and wrong, and how such a being might then allow for the existence of evil. This can be overlooked by assuming that such a being is free to be malevolent as his will dictates.
There is always something fun about the actual distribution of the text alongside its creation.
What you're asking for is paradoxical and nonsensical. The very belief that anything (life, morality, etc) is subject to the will of such a being presupposes its existence. I've said once that if you want to debate said existence, have at it. If you want to debate claims made presupposing God's existence than we can do that too...but it's impossible and illogical for you to assume we can do both at once in a single argument.
It. Was. A. Joke. Like your sarcasm. ;) Good to see we are already on track though, but why not debate them at the same time? It is just words, bro. I assume you are having this conversation in the attempt to break new ground, so let us talk the impossible. Let’s go there, baby. Seriously, it would be too cool see you do that! I await your meaningful reply.
Perhaps you could quote me the verse wherein God or Moses command anyone to be raped because I must be missing it. Perhaps first you'd like to read the earlier segment where you told me that you don't read the Bible with any bias...
Really Wynken? First, you use sarcasm to wound my heart, and now you are playing coy? Oh! Why was I cursed with such a playful partner! Now, as far as bias, I can assume two definitions, the one by which I come to form expectations, and the one by which I allow my vision to be colored. The first is solely human, and no one is without itif they have prior experience relating, the second allows for the change of present observations to suit previous ones. The first I am guilty of, and the second I will not assign to you.
If you need instruction, then you have gotten lost in your bible, even with an address, and, with regard to its condition, possibly a map by index. Please look again, and come back when you have found something. Of course, I have seen your problem before; the last person I tasked with the verse denounced Moses, and charged him with being a charlatan who edited the bible to attain divine backing. He still wouldn’t admit he was wrong, what great lengths some people will go!
Oh good. I'm no longer the only one being sarcastic. Just a hobby, as I said.
That was actually a serious question, I would like a job that allowed me this kind of freedom, and I was curious. I usually do not bother with online sarcasm; it takes too much energy, and most of the time no one bothers to read into it. Paranoia would likely have me seeing it in every direction, and I’d be reading every line as if it contained some hidden barb.
Hah. I just explained that the word "slavery" in the Old Testament isn't at all used in the manner that we understand it today. Spare me your rhetoric and actually make a point if you reject mine.
Nay, good sir, this is unoriginal to me, I have scented this on the e-winds before, and recognize it as the stench of sophistry on the wind. It is an attempt to suggest misconstrued words replacing the abhorrent term of slavery with the perfumed servant. Could they come and go? Were they paid? Were they branded? Did God watch the masters as they watched the slaves to ensure these laws were maintained? Were they free? Were they happy? Why the question is absurd, by your estimates, if anything had been wrong, we would certainly have heard! (Some lines attributed to WH Auden.)
That was simply a summation of your words so far on the subject, you are not disagreeing.
You may quote from this blog; I see no reason to question their credentials, their education, their mission, their goal, their collaboration, their openness. I will not that all citations given fall back onto the bible, and using the term, statistically is out of place with such a text…unless the bible contains every instance of every Israelite’s life, with quantified measures for all things stretched across a timeline measuring several centuries. The texts have doubt of their veracity to begin with.
This is not to contest the interpretations of the bible, and it does a fine job of allowing for similarities. I would urge you however to read interpretations supporting modern slavery. I am above placing large unwieldy blocks of “scholarly” texts , but I will grant three things. One which invokes many of the points offered here in in support of slavery (http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/string/string.html), and the other two being the personal accounts of Olaudah Equiano and Mary Prince (http://www.google.com/), whose slavery was not under American law, but British, and allowed them the ability to “take part in business, borrow money, and buy their freedom." I offer these with the understanding that you are attempting to justify past slaveries by juxtaposing them with modern ones, and then calling them just for being the lesser in wickedness. You will find valid evidence that even with a more, by what I take to be your term of, “biblical” interpretations of slave tradition, no shortage of cruelty.
Which belief would that be? My belief in Big Bang cosmology or that of evolution? How about abiogenesis? Have you ever considered that the creation account of the Bible attributes two things to the direct power of God? "God created the heavens and the earth" and the formation of the human soul. For the remainder God merely permitted nature to take its course ("God said let there be"). Look at the wording throughout...several times it states openly that, "the land produced" the various forms of life. Nature already had all that was needed for the formation of life...
You know what, ignore this paragraph, this is strictly for my amusement.
I really have let you run this two-thing attribution bit too far, but to the point, these are simply your interpretations, which you have molded to suit a more knowledgeable world. Much like how a theist might question with simple jabs about how an evolutionary biologist might posit some statement on the gradual change in organisms, I am going to ask, “were you there?” Why? Because I can, and from what I know of these positions I do believe you will have a hard time putting forward a better argument for evolution than you might for divine inspired evolution.
What else can I do? I've conceded that I can not "prove" my position, though I do feel that there is some strength to the cosmological argument. /[quote]
It’s cool, bro, you can choose where you go from here. You aren’t posing me with an argument, so I got no issue to wax wroth about.
[quote]Twas simply convention my good man. I don't mean to imply that you are or should feel threatened in any way. I certainly don't.
I should hope not, this is a friendly board after all, and I would never think of seriously abusing you with rhetoric, and I’m sure by all your sarcasm you feel the same way.
Oh?
Yep. :O
To all who are commenting, you are unilaterally correct. Now get you peanut butter out of my fudge if you aren’t here to party and play fool.
To all who are commenting, you are unilaterally correct. Now get you peanut butter out of my fudge if you aren’t here to party and play fool.
Fighting with douchebags, man. Fighting with douchebags.
$10 says your all the way to the bus station bathroom on this one, manning the glory hole and taking payment in theological quips for this argument. Though, in reality, they have about as much substance as the hot yogurt about to hit the back of your throat.
Forgive me. I started replying at 8 when I got in and it's now nearly 3:00. My responses are fragmented, as is my attention to them.
No, let me correct your flailing attempt at calling fallacies like soccer players call fowls. Ad hominem only applies to the address of a person’s character in reply to the topic. Calling you a fool is not ad hominem for the simple reason that it is only a garnishment to my statements; it has no barring in my statement and is simply a term of endearment, like “son”.
My apologies. I didn't read them to be endearing but rather as condescending attempts to question and undermine the "authority" with which I speak. Age, in particular, is often suspect on the internet.
Only to save time, I’m not missing anything that matters.
If you were in fact missing something you couldn't possibly know, for then you would surely no longer be missing it. Unless of course you were willfully negligent, which I don't believe to be the case. In any event, if you believe that I have not previously made the point that science and Christianity are reconcilable, than you have indeed missed something.
Educate yourself, take up your dictionary, and reintroduce yourself to the English language. Surely, you have knowledge of simple prefixes. I do not blame you for not knowing what longitude and latitude are. A simple Google would have done you well, or mulling over the context, but where I might be haughty, you might be lazy, so it is a moot point.
Har har. I"ll admit that I looked up the word unbedizened, though I had guessed its meaning by its context. I believe now that much of my confusion is simply because, in the first portion of that segment, you seem to be speaking of religion while I was making another jab at science by stating that it provides truths that are "good enough". I was steering us once again to evaluate the fact that the scientific method, while immensely practical, is not robust enough to ascertain absolute truth.
It is sad that parent and child must fight
Fight is perhaps too harsh a word, though I was rather upset the Christmas he bought me a copy of "The Jesus Puzzle". I mean, I'm all for studying and understanding the secular philosophies that oppose my religion, but there's something inappropriate about a gift from dad that says, "Merry Christmas, I think your belief system is retarded".
I'm thankful for the varied upbringing, though it was, and continues to be, difficult on my devoutly Christian mother. It was beneficial to know more than a single side.
First, you do not explain why they are logically more viable as they attain the same traits as the Abrahamic God, so the statement is unfinished, or contains an assumption.
Well, I had expected for you to defend your unicorn, and, now that you have, we'll follow this through to find the truth in my statement.
Moving on, a Unicorn inhabits the mystical land Futopia
Define mystical. Extra-dimensional? Or is it another planet?
[It] occasionally grazes on Earth and commands earthlings to do its will with nary a dropping left behind as evidence; being magical he can do as he pleases in all affairs.
It travels between worlds and it eats our grass, so it can certainly be measured. Likelihood and probability are of little importance in this debate, and the fact is that you're making a claim that can be empirically verified or falsified.
This is trivial but another problem is that it commands earthlings. Do any recall this?
How do we prove he does not exist? We do not because this is an argument for possibility, like life on the moon
You don't believe we'll ever verify the (in)existence of life on the moon?
while we cannot disprove these things without scanning all space/time/ant-space/anti-time they can’t be proven to be the work of one guy on a computer.
See, now this is just not true. Even if your unicorn is invisible, it can still be seen or measured in some way. Sonar, microwaves, the varied frequencies of electromagnetic radiation - and those are just standard detection techniques. Additionally, we wouldn't have to scan all of space and time, just the particular space that the unicorn is occupying at any given time. So, now the unicorn becomes immaterial (beyond the confines of our physical universe0 as well as timeless or infinite. More and more Godlike.
That is not morality, that is obedience. (Good boy.)
I posit that the two are synonymous in the current context...
Because it is unverifiable, there is nothing wrong in questioning how it comes to be that we assume such a being possesses absolute knowledge of right and wrong
Well, we're currently discussing the fact that God is "right", or that right is merely an expression of His will. Either way, it's unnecessary that He would possess or have gained a knowledge of right and wrong as we would define understanding and learning. And, since we're taking the liberty to presuppose God's existence, why rely on assumption when the Bible clearly defines the traits of our Creator.
Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
Again, I would urge you to evaluate these things outwith the box secular Western thought. If God is a perfect and unchanging entity, than we should be unthreatened by morality as no more than an extension of His perfect will. Obedience becomes desirable rather than taking on negative connotations which allude to slavery or malevolent mastery.
and how such a being might then allow for the existence of evil.
Ah, the riddle of Epicurus.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
From another of my writings...
So, how can the tragedies of the human condition be reconciled with the existence of an omnibenevolent God? The simple answer is free will. God, in His benevolence, desires a personal and loving relationship with each of us, and true love necessitates the freedom to choose. If all actions were preordained, our love and devotion to God would be without meaning. Free will itself is viewed in contradiction to God’s omniscience, but I’ll save that argument for another post in the interest of remaining on topic.
There are two logically viable ways in which free will absolves God of the responsibility and blame of tragedy and disaster, though both are related. First is through the account of Adam and Eve, who wielded their freedom in disobedience. In Genesis we learn that humanity’s initial sinful act and conscious defiance introduced to the world the maladies and suffering that we know today (Genesis 3:17-19). As with all decisions, this one bore consequences.
The importance and existence of such causalities is the second premise in defense of an all-loving God. In the interest of free will, God created natural law as a set of guidelines by which all things within the universe operate. Fire burns, water drowns, impacts crush, and so on. All nature, not just human nature and behavior, is governed by consequence. These are cause and effect relationships that we acknowledge and understand, even in the context of God’s existence. However, these same physical laws also dictate weather patterns, the degeneration of living cells, and the properties of viruses and bacteria.
The simple and undeniable fact is that natural law, and the causalities established by it, are largely beneficial and could not nor should not be removed. For instance, while it can be harmful, fire keeps us warm and allows us to cook (and therefore sanitize) foods. Bacteria also perform a myriad of helpful and necessary functions. In the human body alone different bacteria are responsible for, or aid in, food digestion and the immunity to other, harmful, microbes. The convection process which is thought to be responsible for tornados and hurricanes is also necessary for heat transfer within stars including our Sun. Additionally, oceanic convection is integral in the regulation of global climate through thermohaline circulation.
These natural laws are continual and consistent, as are the consequences of human action. There is no method or force in the universe which affords selectivity of which laws are obeyed at which time. However, in His position of authority over our universe, and the laws that He has created within it, God could selectively alter or suspend natural law in order to prevent suffering. Attempt to imagine a universe with no meaningful or predictable cause and effect relationships. The practicality of science and perhaps all rational thought would be rendered useless. In addition, accountability and individual responsibility would be greatly diminished if not entirely removed as no action would be of predictable consequence.
Although we often wish for a Utopian Earth, free from pain and suffering, the reality is that such consequences are necessary. Free will is perfection, and God simply could not have designed the universe any better. He has, however, offered humanity the strength to move past the eventualities of mortal existence through the comfort of His presence and promises.
If you need instruction, then you have gotten lost in your bible, even with an address, and, with regard to its condition, possibly a map by index. Please look again, and come back when you have found something.
If the road is so clear, than why not merely show me the way as I've asked? Why tell me how straight and plain it is and then beg for me to traverse it alone? I'll tell you again that apart from misappropriated allusion or inference, there is not a single command from God or otherwise that anyone should be raped in the Bible.
Of course, I have seen your problem before; the last person I tasked with the verse denounced Moses, and charged him with being a charlatan who edited the bible to attain divine backing. He still wouldn’t admit he was wrong, what great lengths some people will go!
Bah. I reaffirm my previous estimation that rhetorical appeals to pathos will more handily win debates than witticism. You throw the word rape or slave into a debate and people freak out and abandon all logic.
That was actually a serious question, I would like a job that allowed me this kind of freedom, and I was curious.
I'm an Information Systems Administrator 8-5 and I run my own network engineering and information security consultancy on my off hours.
Could they come and go?
Deuteronomy 23:15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.
Yes.
Were they paid?
It depends on how you define payment. It was often used as a means to repay debt, so I would certainly say yes in that case. At other times slavery was an alternative to death during times of war or certain death as a result of having lost your family and possessions as casualties of war. Room and board for the exchange of labor should be considered payment, I think.
Were they branded?
Only willingly.
Did God watch the masters as they watched the slaves to ensure these laws were maintained?
Certainly that's beyond the point, and would entirely negate free will.
Were they happy?
This is such a silly question. In terms of willful debt repayment or being taken as a slave after having your family killed in war, I can't imagine that either would be considered ideal. Now, were they happy in relation to the alternative? That's more likely and much more meaningful to the debate.
I would urge you however to read interpretations supporting modern slavery.
If I don't believe it to be equal or even similar to "slavery" as it was practiced in ancient Israel, why would I have any interest in justifying its modern form?
I offer these with the understanding that you are attempting to justify past slaveries by juxtaposing them with modern ones, and then calling them just for being the lesser in wickedness. You will find valid evidence that even with a more, by what I take to be your term of, “biblical” interpretations of slave tradition, no shortage of cruelty.
I don't really understand where you've come up with this valid evidence. Let me state again that for the purposes of this debate we should focus on what the Bible states rather than what it does not. We're interested in Biblical Law and God's desire for humanity and not human interpretation or execution of that law. We're evaluating a socially and culturally appropriate practice in slavery. God and the Bible never command mistreatment of slaves, it merely condones the practice of slavery (as it was understood in the ancient near east) given that a set of moral guidelines are upheld. Whether or not those guidelines were adhered to is not in question here...
I really have let you run this two-thing attribution bit too far, but to the point, these are simply your interpretations, which you have molded to suit a more knowledgeable world. Much like how a theist might question with simple jabs about how an evolutionary biologist might posit some statement on the gradual change in organisms, I am going to ask, “were you there?” Why? Because I can, and from what I know of these positions I do believe you will have a hard time putting forward a better argument for evolution than you might for divine inspired evolution.
It's a horrible tactic when employed by theists...I can't imagine why you'd seek to mimic it. The question is obviously rhetorical, but I still don't understand what you expect in return. Was I there for what? Abiogenesis or Biblical authorship? In either case I fail to see why my presence is demanded by a rather literal recounting of the Biblical Creation. Is the Bible so confusing that when it clearly states, "the earth brought forth grass", that we should somehow believe that it means instead that God planted each blade by hand or even by the power of his words? My interpretation indeed. You have eyes and an aptitude for reading comprehension.
I don't know what you mean by your final sentence either. Why would I want or need to put forth a better argument? As far as I'm concerned, my original statements stand.
Visla Eraclaire
03-02-11, 07:49 PM
I threw up a little in my mouth when I read that tired "free will" excuse to the Problem of Evil. Setting aside the fact that "free will" is a questionable concept when the initial conditions are set by an all-knowing individual, "free will" doesn't address so-called "natural evil." The term's stupid, but it's the term that's used. There's no reason that a deity couldn't create a world where the natural laws didn't necessitate volcanism, pestilence, or similar natural forces. The idea that the world has to be as it is and not any other way is completely ridiculous. A God that cannot produce a better creation is unworthy of worship. "All part of the plan" or "couldn't be any better" are naive responses that justify what the speaker wishes to believe. It is certainly possible that certain elements of suffering could be reduced without upsetting the balance of natural systems. Existence has a surplussage of suffering and there is no reason that it need be that way.
That being said, I don't think that makes my position "win." I cannot believe I've been hearing these same stupid arguments for so long and I still feel the need to respond to them. People have had these same discussions for centuries and will continue to do so for centuries to come. Believers will always believe; doubters will always doubt; and there will be douchebags among both groups. Trying to say that faith is reasonable is as fruitless a pursuit as trying to disprove absolutely that which is, by its very design and definition, impossible to provide meaningful evidence for.
If religion were susceptible to refutation, it would have ceased to exist long ago, but it lurks in the shadows of the unknowable and the unprovable and will remain there in perpetuity. Our knowledge will never be sufficient to bring light to every dark corner and leave it nowhere left to hide.
About God's omniscience...
Time is a funny thing when viewed from above our 3rd dimension, and more peculiar still when beheld from beyond the 10 dimensions that (are now thought to) compose the entirety of our multiverse. Seeing/knowing everything and knowing which everything will actually come to pass as a result of our free and sentient choices are two entirely different things.
Also, according to modern cosmology, there are six forces - six equations - that make our universe, and the life it supports, possible. If any of the six were off by even a fraction of a fraction, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. It's impossible to argue that these were purposely tuned by a sentient entity because the argument would be entirely anthropic. There likely exist an infinite number of universes. However, it serves well to illuminate the fact that for you or I to claim that the universe could have been created "better" is laughably presumptions. The scope of change necessary to remove even an ounce of human suffering as a result of causality is entirely beyond human comprehension.
Rayse Valentino
03-03-11, 09:06 AM
Why this thread is going nowhere: Knave is arguing on Wynken's terms. He delves into the bible, he delves into theistic arguments and tautologies. Nobody from the scientific point of view looks into the bible to disprove god. At least, to disprove intelligent design.
Good luck "disproving" God from a scientific perspective...
From the Oxford dictionary.
science(sci|ence)
Entry from World dictionary
Pronunciation:/ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
Rayse Valentino
03-03-11, 09:20 AM
I was particularly referring to "the god of the gaps" but I doubt you believe in something so silly.
And you're right, 'disproving' is very silly because relies on something being 'proved' in the first place.
Okay fine, just leave it to intelligent design, where belief treads into science and fails miserably.
I'm not a proponent of intelligent design as an opposing theory to evolution. I own a handful of Michale Behe's books but have yet to read them, and intend to do so only for exercise rather than to affirm any belief.
Rayse Valentino
03-03-11, 12:23 PM
Good on you.
Like I said, though, you and Knave are in a realm which I call 'limbo' in which no one that goes in ever comes out.
If you guys like it there that's fine, it's entertaining to see you two bicker, I just want to see some new material out of you two. Chop chop!
Breaker
03-03-11, 12:40 PM
If this stuff is so important to you guys, I'd suggest reading something by Derrick Jensen. His work is paradigm-altering.
New material? Throw me a bone man...how many Christian/religious arguments have you read that seek to unify the creation in Genesis with Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution?
I'll admit that, as Visla points out, the rest of this garbage has been discussed ad nauseam since shortly after the discovery of spoken language. I highly doubt any one of us is going to break new philosophical ground, considering that the fundamentals of Western thought have barely evolved from their origins during a time when leaches would have been considered a medical miracle.
Rayse Valentino
03-03-11, 12:57 PM
New material? Throw me a bone man...how many Christian/religious arguments have you read that seek to unify the creation in Genesis with Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution?
A lot. It's very common on these here internets. Using the bible as a source presupposes the validity of the bible so it's really just circular reasoning.
Visla Eraclaire
03-03-11, 01:05 PM
Clearly we live in the best of all possible worlds, eating the best of all possible cake. Existing is better than not, after all, so the best must exist.
MMMmm cake. The ontological argument never tasted so good.
I believe there is a (one) God, but I don't follow any specific religion or scripture. I pretty much follow my own belief system around the fact that there is a creator.
The jury is still out on whether I believe in Heaven or Hell though. Part of me thinks that the concept is a ploy to control the masses into doing right, but another part of me knows that within most fiction there is a hint of truth.
Visla Eraclaire
03-12-11, 02:15 PM
What makes you specifically believe in one god? That's one of the things that gets me about religious beliefs. It's one thing to believe there's something beyond, blah blah, but the specificity... oh the specificity. And the derision of other religions, which in any other situation would be considered virtually identical.
Knave and I scratched the surface of this, but there are specific traits that make one god more logically viable than others. The Greek and Roman pantheons, for example, come completely undone because the gods are largely bound within the framework of our physical laws. The Hindu gods suffer similarly with their supreme Gods: Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva being perhaps the only exceptions due to their abstract and Abrahamic traits. Regardless, as you delve deeper into Hindu beliefs you find that, at various points, they contradict either themselves or logic...I mean, they suppose that our universe hatched from a golden egg. Unlike the Christian concept of God, eggs and the concept of hatching are bound by certain parameters that appropriate the age old question, "then where did that come from". It doesn't make sense to ask where God came from because He is without beginning by definition...but the golden egg concept is circular and self defeating.
Where did God come from, then? (Just to play Devil's Advocate).
As I said, God doesn't require an origin by definition. He's always been. He's immaterial and infinite, completely beyond our concept of reality as observed and established within the confines of physical law.
And how is that different from any of the polytheistic pantheons?
Knave and I scratched the surface of this, but there are specific traits that make one god more logically viable than others. The Greek and Roman pantheons, for example, come completely undone because the gods are largely bound within the framework of our physical laws. The Hindu gods suffer similarly with their supreme Gods: Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva being perhaps the only exceptions due to their abstract and Abrahamic traits. Regardless, as you delve deeper into Hindu beliefs you find that, at various points, they contradict either themselves or logic...I mean, they suppose that our universe hatched from a golden egg. Unlike the Christian concept of God, eggs and the concept of hatching are bound by certain parameters that appropriate the age old question, "then where did that come from". It doesn't make sense to ask where God came from because He is without beginning by definition...but the golden egg concept is circular and self defeating.
So your belief in God is more viable then that of others simply because the deity of your choice lacks definition? I'm not one to call bullshit on someone's choice of imaginary friends, but your reasoning comes off as a bit pompous. Because it seems like your basing this argument of validity less on certainty and faith in a rational and logical system of beliefs and more so on the trust that such a God who lacks definition would make it very difficult for those skeptical of your arguments to question and analyze it. And if that is true, it makes arguing with you pointless because it would be too easy for you to run and grab ambiguous, vague scripture and try to present it as meaningful evidence in your arguments in order to keep yourself from being KO'd every time you paint yourself into a corner.
At least in some sense faiths who attempt to explain creation that is applicable to their respective faiths show a bit more honesty and at least attempt to be more forthcoming then to stress upon their believers that faith is paramount to understanding. Though, this is coming from somebody who sees religion more as a shell game then a constructed system of logical and reasonable beliefs, so please take my willingness to listen to you quote scripture with a grain of salt.
orphans
03-14-11, 01:05 PM
I've been curious...
most people know the story of Noah's Arc and how he had two of every animal or something on a giant boat with his family and then the world flooded and everything else died? (I'm not completely familiar with it... I grew up with stories of mountain ghosts and snake spirits...)
It was explained to me by a Christian friend (not sure of the accuracy) that Noah's family spread throughout the world and became all the different people of today. But if that was true, why did other religions rise up if they had all come from the same family with the same religion? Even if the religion differed, it should have only been slight differences, not entirely new?
That also being said, why are there so many ways of writing systems and languages?
Intangibles aside, I've also been told that "The God" is omnipotent and all kind. If that is the case, why does he make humankind have so many flaws? My friend said it was because Eve ate a forbidden fruit, but doesn't it seem somewhat cruel to punish the children for the sin of their parents?
That being said, since "The God" is omnipotent, why can't he just oust the devil and destroy him completely and rid the world of temptation?
I realize that most of these questions usually spin in circles until people are bored of them, but, it just all seems strange to me. I mean, I have less trouble in believing in snake spirits and mountain guardians and that there should be balance in all things rather than some omnipotent being that watches a race for his own amusement and chooses who gets to have eternal happiness or damnation based on arbitrary tests.
And how is that different from any of the polytheistic pantheons?
Well, to stick with my two previous examples, both the Greco-Roman and Hindu pantheons openly declare a material origin for their gods, and they detail divine activity which requires a material universe. For instance, the Greek protogenoi are said to have slept with each other and given traditional birth, and all of those supposed "first" entities are actually composed of physical constructs. For instance, Chronos is the personification or embodiment of time, which we know now had a finite origin, being the Big Bang.
So your belief in God is more viable then that of others simply because the deity of your choice lacks definition?
It doesn't lack definition...it has a definition that is logically consistent with itself and our observations of reality. Again, God is defined as a timeless and immaterial entity, so it's logically consistent that He could create the time and matter that we experience in our universe.
It seems like your basing this argument of validity less on certainty and faith in a rational and logical system of beliefs and more so on the trust that such a God who lacks definition would make it very difficult for those skeptical of your arguments to question and analyze it.
It sounds to me like you're supposing that ancient theologians purposely designed the Christian God to be unarguable. The problem with this is that these concepts are ages old from a time long before modern cosmology, astronomy, or physics and at a time when logical thought and philosophy were in their infancy. Perhaps the authors of the Bible were all geniuses and visionaries.
And if that is true, it makes arguing with you pointless
This is all pointless anyway. It's just mental exercise to pass the time. I'm not out to change your world view, and don't expect anyone to hit me with anything that will alter mine...
it would be too easy for you to run and grab ambiguous, vague scripture and try to present it as meaningful evidence in your arguments in order to keep yourself from being KO'd.
Unless the topic requires or allows for it, I try to argue with as little scripture as possible, actually. I find that it's much easier to argue my case using pure logic or even scientific fact than to introduce a source that my opponents openly reject.
Though, this is coming from somebody who sees religion more as a shell game then a constructed system of logical and reasonable beliefs.
Well, why shouldn't religion be logically consistent? I see no reason to view it as you do, and I think you've been painted an unclear picture of religion on the whole and Christian theology in particular. There's a reason that some of the world's finest minds and dedicated scholars have been contemplating and discussing religion since before the AD switch...if you think religion falls outwith the realms of thought and reason I think you're sorely mistaken.
You have a very stringent grasp of physics, if you believe time to have either an origin or a confine in which to operate. Time is something entirely dependent on motion, activity, movement within a sphere.
Let's also consider the principle variation between traditional mono and poly-theisms; mono is creation, usually a single, omni-potent god that created all, is all and encompasses all. Polytheism on the other hand tends to lean towards avatars, deities, supreme beings or personifications of constructs, notions, times and seasons. They operate on two entirely different principles, the latter is a salvation religion, the other is primarily worship and a way, traditionally, of appeasing the uncontrollable elements of life or to have a universally recognised symbol to praise when the moment is blissful.
We admire love for it's many wonders, and praise the moments when we are together with the people we love; the Romans and the Greeks and the traditional 'pagan' civilisations gave love a name - a person, a deity by which to recognise that providence. Just because they are symbolic, and often taken to be just that, by the practitioners themselves, does not mean they have any less creedance than one single creator.
You mention purposefulness in the Golden Argument, but that's entirely the point of Christianity, as well as the other monotheistic religions. They are designed, or have become faiths dependant on infallible, illogical and unrepeatable arguments; this is solely for the purpose of conversation, expansion, and in turn, the increase of that faith's power and wealth tally. Do you really think Christianity would have an ounce of it's current momentum if the narrow-minded 'god is X or Y and thus is indefinable' (or one of many purposeless philosophical discussions that branch out from that line of thought) was not so impenetrable?
Science, logic, reason, humanism and the basic moral principles (social ethic, not religious) have continued to devalue the traditional belief systems; yet in the face of physics, evolution, the very unravelling of the basic elements of life and the redundancy that our civilisation, race and time-line has become, people have buried their heads further and further into their respective discipline's sands...I speak about scientists and atheists and followers of the faiths alike, yet whilst science continues to look for, and successfully find the answers to it's questions, religion only wraps itself in a tighter and tighter ball of non-chalant, illogical defences based on the fallacy that is omniscience, effervescence, incidental godhood.
The sad thing about religion, and indeed science, is that neither paths are needed. Religion is a tool, wherever or not you take it's principles literally (and god forbid you should be one of the creationists I scorn so much) or the Christian Union attendees who are so disgustingly amoral in their 'innocent' morality, or if you simply do it to find ritual and solace in the chaotic world we live in...it is something we each chose to do (and should have the choice to do or to not do) and whilst people continue to be evangelical, and to be overtly zealous in their attempts to convert, badger and kill in the name of intangible, faceless entities, discussions like these, arguments like the greats will continue to rage on internet forum, school yard bench and university seminar time forever.
The gist of this post essay writing rant is thus: Buddhism is the way forward ;).
You have a very stringent grasp of physics, if you believe time to have either an origin or a confine in which to operate. Time is something entirely dependent on motion, activity, movement within a sphere.
You're going to need to elaborate on this a bit. I'm no physicist, but I know a thing or two about physics and cosmology...and according to both time (as it exists in our universe) most certainly began with the Big Bang and likely at 1 Planck Time to be exact.
Let's also consider the principle variation between traditional mono and poly-theisms
I happened to pick on two polytheistic religions, but their polytheism had nothing to do with my argument. In other words, they aren't less viable because they are polytheistic...
You mention purposefulness in the Golden Argument, but that's entirely the point of Christianity, as well as the other monotheistic religions. They are designed, or have become faiths dependant on infallible, illogical and unrepeatable arguments
How can they be both infallible and illogical? It makes no sense.
Do you really think Christianity would have an ounce of it's current momentum if the narrow-minded 'god is X or Y and thus is indefinable' (or one of many purposeless philosophical discussions that branch out from that line of thought) was not so impenetrable?
Are you asking if I think Christianity would be popular if it were logically inconsistent and very obviously bullox? Did you do it with a straight face?
That's akin to me asking if you think science would have such a following if planes starting falling from the sky due to our complete fabrication of aeronautic lift.
Yet whilst science continues to look for, and successfully find the answers to it's questions, religion only wraps itself in a tighter and tighter ball of non-chalant, illogical defences based on the fallacy that is omniscience, effervescence, incidental godhood.
Yes yes. We've been over this.
Science - immensely practical.
Religion - not good at solving practical problems.
You still seem to view the two in false dichotomy, and I would (and have been attempting to) argue that there's nothing fallacious about theology.
Effervescence?
The gist of this post essay writing rant is thus: Buddhism is the way forward ;).
I don't know much about Buddhism accept that it's tenet is enlightenment and that it places high importance on the self.
Oh, and that a lot of pseudo intellectuals like to prattle about it because Eastern religions are hip.
It doesn't lack definition...it has a definition that is logically consistent with itself and our observations of reality. Again, God is defined as a timeless and immaterial entity, so it's logically consistent that He could create the time and matter that we experience in our universe.
So... your belief in God is more viable then that of others simply because the deity of your choice lacks definition?
It sounds to me like you're supposing that ancient theologians purposely designed the Christian God to be unarguable.
Pretty much. People generally don't fanatically accept beliefs that govern their lives if others can poke holes through it.
Well, why shouldn't religion be logically consistent? I see no reason to view it as you do, and I think you've been painted an unclear picture of religion on the whole and Christian theology in particular.
Because it isn't? Many religions, not just Christianity, make their bread on logical fallacies and getting people to pay tithe on hope, faith and well wishes. People whose religion is kindness are the people I'd gladly stand up for, but if we're questioning whether or not I have a myopic view of religion because of something done to me personally, you're mistaken. I have no issue with the existence of religion because people are free to believe what they are want. The problem I have mostly stems from the demagogues who actively prey on those willing to be suckered into their bullshit.
So... your belief in God is more viable then that of others simply because the deity of your choice lacks definition?
Isn't that what you just said, to which I have already responded, no?
Because it isn't? Many religions, not just Christianity, make their bread on logical fallacies and getting people to pay tithe on hope, faith and well wishes.
Here's the wealth argument again. I'd urge you to see my opening post in this thread. I accept that some institutions have or continue to operate churches like a profitable business model, but I refute that wealth or power or political influence are the fundamental or original purpose of religion. I give money when I can to my church, and I'm absolutely confident that it's put to good and ethical use. In fact, we've opened several schools and medical facilities in various countries around the globe.
If we're questioning whether or not I have a myopic view of religion because of something done to me personally, you're mistaken.
That's not what I meant to insinuate. I believe it's less overt than that, and more a product of current social views.
The problem I have mostly stems from the demagogues who actively prey on those willing to be suckered into their bullshit.
That's fine, and I agree wholeheartedly. Just so long as there is an understanding that the way one person or even sect of people misuse religious faith has no bearing on the actual tenets of their given religion.
The same could be said for any field as well. There have been heinous, purposeful misappropriations of scientific understanding that have resulted in direct personal gain or the advancement of an immoral agenda. Look at eugenics or biological determinism...
Max Dirks
03-14-11, 03:54 PM
@orphans: I just watched Revolver with Jason Statham. The movie focuses on a psychological explanation for original sin (i.e. the human ego). You might want to check it out if you're interested in the topic.
I've always believed in one God, and Jesus as his son. I'm not the close minded religious type, but I'll believe that until someone can answer "why?"
Visla Eraclaire
03-18-11, 09:30 AM
So you've picked an arbitrary starting point based on your upbringing and won't change until someone can prove otherwise?
At least you admit it. That's what I figure most religious types are doing, if they're really honest with themselves.
Here's the wealth argument again. I'd urge you to see my opening post in this thread.
Yes, here it is again. Shit.
I accept that some institutions have or continue to operate churches like a profitable business model, but I refute that wealth or power or political influence are the fundamental or original purpose of religion.
Yes. Some churches operate that way, and that title usually extends to cults, not John Q. Public's First Church of Christ. Usually. But because wealth, power and influence are inherent to religion its why I stand in direction opposition to it and its general organization outside of individual use. I also don't like the idea of privilege mingling with my beliefs, especially ones concerning how things came to be.
Let a man believe in God and use it to structure his life and find his moral compass? Fine. Let men believe in God, build a church in his name and take my money for things we agree should be spent on, but allow them to spend it the way they think they ought to? No thanks.
I give money when I can to my church, and I'm absolutely confident that it's put to good and ethical use. In fact, we've opened several schools and medical facilities in various countries around the globe.
The stress you put in your own faith and confidence in how you choose to let other people spend your money is admirable, but isn't a sufficient argument to counter that people do take from the pot and will misuse your money when the opportunity presents itself. It isn't a question of religious tenets and morality as it is human nature. People aren't naturally born killers, thieves or adulterers, but what we all are is opportunistic and we will eagerly seize opportunity if it is lucrative enough and if we are certain we will not get caught. Theft of money left unguarded is the easiest way to illustrate that.
While I'm sure you believe you and your church are good people and put the utmost faith in your preacher to do what is right for you, they're still human. And human error is an especially big factor when it comes to money. And while I don't think everybody is actively waiting for the opportunity to take from the tithe plate when nobody is looking, I know that there are people that do and that fact should be known and heeded.
And I have a very big problem with people gaining my confidence to use my money while playing on my beliefs to do it. Less demagoguery, more common sense. Indirect charity is for suckers, and I argue that there are two types of people who give to it. The first are too lazy to help those who cannot help themselves, but give anyway because hey, maybe it'll go to the right place, right? The second are people who don't know nor care where their blank checks are going or how they get there, but are willing to trust the word of somebody else that it'll be spent the way it ought to be.
Wealth, power and influence are inherent to religion
Eh? Inherent to religion, or the historical application of it? I feel like we (in the general sense) keep going around in circles.
Let a man believe in God and use it to structure his life and find his moral compass? Fine. Let men believe in God, build a church in his name and take my money for things we agree should be spent on, but allow them to spend it the way they think they ought to? No thanks.
So you oppose all charity operations then?
There is a level of transparency, you know. Sure, there will always be administrative overhead. Perhaps there will even be instances in which you felt that some funds were handled poorly. However, by and large, I feel that allowing a charitable entity that is organized, and well equipped to manage the given operation, is much more efficient than stuffing an envelope and mailing it direct...or whatever the alternative may be.
The stress you put in your own faith and confidence in how you choose to let other people spend your money is admirable, but isn't a sufficient argument to counter that people do take from the pot and will misuse your money when the opportunity presents itself.
I consider myself to be a fairly cynical individual, but I could take some lessons from you.
It isn't a question of religious tenets and morality as it is human nature. People aren't naturally born killers, thieves or adulterers, but what we all are is opportunistic and we will eagerly seize opportunity if it is lucrative enough and if we are certain we will not get caught. Theft of money left unguarded is the easiest way to illustrate that.
So every one of us is capable of murder if there is a sufficient ratio of risk to reward, and no one is capable of overcoming their "sinful" human nature? Haven't you ever found something of value and returned it? I've taken things to a lost and found at a retail store even when the owner wasn't apparent. Haven't you ever been dealt too much change and rectified the clerk's error by handing the excess back?
Here's a fantastic illustration: I'm currently doing some information security/compliance consulting for a small retail business. I've learned a great deal about their systems and their security procedures. I know their audit controls, and I could easily get around them. There's currently a .txt file on their server which contains about 2MB worth of customer names, addresses, and credit card information. Way out of compliance, but that's why I have the job. I could very easily jot a few down and use them to make some online purchases. I could copy it to a thumb drive and sell the information on a hacker's black market. The possibilities are nearly endless, but I haven't and I won't. Not every human is a morally bankrupt piece of trash.
Now, I'd agree with you that humans don't inherently possess the will and strength to overcome temptation, but we are in a debate about God.
While I'm sure you believe you and your church are good people and put the utmost faith in your preacher to do what is right for you, they're still human. And human error is an especially big factor when it comes to money. And while I don't think everybody is actively waiting for the opportunity to take from the tithe plate when nobody is looking, I know that there are people that do and that fact should be known and heeded.
Well which is it? Is everyone a crook or only some people?
And I have a very big problem with people gaining my confidence to use my money while playing on my beliefs to do it. Less demagoguery, more common sense. Indirect charity is for suckers, and I argue that there are two types of people who give to it. The first are too lazy to help those who cannot help themselves, but give anyway because hey, maybe it'll go to the right place, right? The second are people who don't know nor care where their blank checks are going or how they get there, but are willing to trust the word of somebody else that it'll be spent the way it ought to be.
Do you have a bank account?
I consider myself to be a fairly cynical individual, but I could take some lessons from you.
Sorry, I don't give the master class to just anybody. However, if you're interested I do give music lessons and I'll teach you how to play on my golden fiddle. $45/hr.
Resator O'Caariel
04-07-11, 08:46 PM
Personally, I am a Christian. No, I don't want to get involved in a giant debate on this forum, especially being as new as I am - I'd probably get owned, regardless. Still, I feel the need to elucidate such since others have come forward with the same information.
I know, I know - it sounds like I'm apologizing, or implying that I'm embarrassed to state that I am a follower of Christ. Well, to an extent I am. No, I am not embarrassed by what I believe or whom I believe in. I spent a lot of time in the earlier years of my life attempting to dissuade myself from the belief in a singular, transcendent god who embodied the ideal of "Justice Tempered with Mercy". It makes no sense, logically, for something - anything - to be omnipotent. It makes even less sense for something to work outside the bounds of time, which for all intents and purposes is the closest corporeal thing we have to a divine mechanic or rule. And, truth be told, the vast majority of professed Christians that I have met in my lifetime have not only been ignorant of general truths, blatantly fidelistic, and even bigoted hypocrites, but they have been utterly misinformed or simply uninformed of their own faith and religious texts.
I said all of this to say this: in my mind, and from what I've studied (which, without losing the face of humility, I must say is quite a lot) concerning faiths, religions, and beliefs, true Christianity is the only faith that makes sense to me. Why? Because, quite frankly, it doesn't make sense. Allow me to explain:
Man is inherently bound by logic. Ever since the Enlightenment, specifically, has man been obsessed with the notion that measurable, tangible, objective reality is the only reality that is and can be - "homo mansura", if you will. The counter-movement to this was what I would call typical Americanized fidelism, or blind faith (more appropriately "ignorant faith"). The average professed Christian would tell you that when a person dies they become angel and fly up to Heaven. Sadly, that isn't anywhere in Christian religious texts, nor is it an accurate representation of the faith as a whole. This probably stems from the general lack of instruction within the modern Christian church on important disciplines, like scripture, theology, apologetics, and the beliefs of other faiths. This, combined with the overarching hypocrisy of Americanized religiosity has essentially neutered the power of the true Christian church.
Still, was I was intending to say is this: when man makes things, they always make some fashion of sense. Even idiots follow a method of logic, albeit fallible and broken. We can typically work along the path of a moron's thought process, even if it seems foreign, strange, and absurd to us. However, the generation of a monotheistic faith in the midst of a sea of polytheism makes no sense. The fact that the faith itself's most basic beliefs about the world, the powers that be, and mankind's relation to the divine is utterly opposite of everything they had to pull from makes no sense. The idea that a small group of nomads would willingly subject themselves to persecution and potential outright annihilation for something completely against the status quo doesn't follow any logical path. I can continue the list on and on, but I've already written too much when all I intended was to voice my own belief.
What I believe is this: There is a single deity who is wholly sovereign over reality. He created man to have a relationship with Him, but by virtue of giving man the ability to love Him freely he also gave man the ability to hate Him; and, furthermore loved His creation enough to want to mend that relationship with them in spite of their inherent hate towards Him, sacrificing of Himself to do so. It's pretty much just that simple.
Ryari Ksartharjaa
04-29-11, 05:51 PM
None of the religions were right for me, so I created my own. I worship a goddess named [Insert name here] (I haven't figured out her name yet). It's pretty much the Bahá'Ã* faith, Paganism, and Unitarian Universalism with modifications Sorry, only 1 member is allowed in my religion right now, and that spot is taken.
None of the religions were right for me, so I created my own. I worship a goddess named [Insert name here] (I haven't figured out her name yet). It's pretty much the Bahá'Ã* faith, Paganism, and Unitarian Universalism with modifications Sorry, only 1 member is allowed in my religion right now, and that spot is taken.
What the fuck?
Visla Eraclaire
04-29-11, 07:28 PM
SOOOOO ZANY!
Of course, it's just as full of shit as other religions, it's just earlier on in the process. Remember, every religion started just as stupid as the above post -- someone making shit up. They just decided one wasn't enough, member-wise.
Ryari Ksartharjaa
04-29-11, 07:49 PM
SOOOOO ZANY!
Of course, it's just as full of shit as other religions, it's just earlier on in the process. Remember, every religion started just as stupid as the above post -- someone making shit up. They just decided one wasn't enough, member-wise.
Actually, religions started because someone wanted to spread their ideas. I have no intent of spreading my religion, so eventually it will die out. So it just counts as an advanced system of beliefs, and not a religion in official terms.
Visla Eraclaire
04-29-11, 08:04 PM
Advanced being an extremely relative term.
Scrotus
04-29-11, 09:14 PM
This is a very strange world.
The International
04-30-11, 07:01 PM
I'm a Christian. At one time I was exposed to the major religions practiced by Humanity (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism to be exact. I know some things about Hinduism and Taoism but not enough to really say I'm educated in them) , and for quite some time I identified myself as an agnostic, but never as an atheist. There was an extremely short time in which I didn't believe in God but just said I did to avoid the inevitable argument that would follow. My family and friends were accepting of whatever belief system I chose to adopt and I consider myself lucky to have that.
A lot of people like to use science as a way to disprove the existence of God. I happen to believe that science is prof of God. The organized chaos in which the universe works, from Quantum Physics to Biology, seems to suggest to me that there is some sort of intelligence that guides all things. I just so happen to call that universal intelligence God. Galileo Galilei had a similar point of view despite the issues he had with the church, which he acknowledged was a human and flawed institution. Reading about him is actually what brought me back to religion.
I've found that most people who reject religion or the notion of God do so because they cannot reconcile certain characteristics or actions that they see in sacred texts. They cannot understand a God that would perform miracles then plagues in the same book. They cannot accept a God that asks for peace and war all at the same time. It's not a far cry from citizens who refuse to vote because they manage to find something they don't like about each of the candidates. For the most part, it seems like those who are against religion and/or God in this thread, cannot reconcile with the fact that man has done quite a few horrible things in God's name. It's a popular argument, but there's a surprisingly simple rebuttal. We all know someone in our lives who has done something questionable, and backward rationalized it with a just cause. Hell, let's be honest. We've all done it ourselves. Humans are emotional creatures who usually act first and think second. Acts like the Crusades were done for many reasons. Religion was the justification, and if there were no religion, another justification would have been conjured up.
Religious institutions as man made entities have, are, and always will be flawed. I've come to accept that, but it is insufficient cause for me not to believe. Although I understand if it is sufficient cause for others. That's just my viewpoint.
Rayse Valentino
04-30-11, 07:50 PM
Actually, most atheists just apply Occam's Razor- We don't needlessly multiply entities. If I can't tell the difference between a world with God and a world without, then I choose the latter position. People who 'can't reconcile' things are agnostics.
I always enjoy reading the argument that terrible things done in God's name don't taint him as a diety, but reflect poorly on the rest of us as a race. That's nice.
He didn't do it! We did! Right. Whatever lets you sleep at night, pal.
I've found that most people who reject religion or the notion of God do so
because they cannot reconcile certain characteristics or actions that they see
in sacred texts. They cannot understand a God that would perform miracles then
plagues in the same book. They cannot accept a God that asks for peace and war
all at the same time. It's not a far cry from citizens who refuse to vote
because they manage to find something they don't like about each of the
candidates. For the most part, it seems like those who are against religion
and/or God in this thread, cannot reconcile with the fact that man has done
quite a few horrible things in God's name
You're either a cafeteria Christian or a surprisingly oblivious person to choose to stand behind any of this.
You might be able to cherry pick what you choose to believe in when you're reading the Bible, but I find it very amusing you do so while also condemning those of us who openly say we're skeptics of it. Why? Because some of us have more integrity and pride then to lie to ourselves about things we don't agree with in order to believe in something because everyone else is?
Because I don't take things I blatantly reject as a measure of faith and trust that those ordained by God are better suited to teach me (i.e. spoon feed) what to believe? Or am I just a part of a group of terrible people who cannot find themselves able to honestly put themselves in a group of people that condone bigotry, segregation and a hive mind mentality?
Listen. Read your book once in awhile. Take more then a fucking glance at history and see what people have done with it. And if you're prepared to say that people are simply just evil, stupid creatures for some of the unspeakable things done in God's name, then I'd invite you to tell me who wrote, bound and mass produced this book for us.
That being said. Not all Christians or religious people are bad. As I've said before. Religion is a tool for people who use faith as a source of strength or a predominant factor in their character. I will always stand and defend those whose religion is kindness.
However, the shoe is also on the other foot. If you're ignorant enough to believe in religion in its entirety and force it onto others, you're no friend of mine.
The International
05-01-11, 06:31 PM
Wow, Saxon. You seem pretty angry right now. Nothing I said was intended to be malicious. Rayse didn't seem to think so. He corrected me and moved on.
You might be able to cherry pick what you choose to believe in when you're reading the Bible, but I find it very amusing you do so while also condemning those of us who openly say we're skeptics of it.Where in my post did I say that I only chose to believe certain parts of the Bible? Like I said before my intent wasn't malicious, and I don't believe I condemned anyone. No statement I made there was intended to be such and if anyone else interprets it as such I do apologize. I was simply going by my experience and the civil exchanges I've had with people on this very subject.
Or am I just a part of a group of terrible people who cannot find themselves able to honestly put themselves in a group of people that condone bigotry, segregation and a hive mind mentality?And there we have it. Your gripe is with the people. And like I said before I understand if it is sufficient cause for you to reject religion. However, if you're talking about situations like the KKK who bastardize my religion to further their agenda, then I would ask you to also acknowledge the achievements of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who used religion to help further the civil rights movement. At this point I'll acknowledge that you did point out that we are not all bad, and I appreciate that.
Listen. Read your book once in awhile.Done. Front to back in three different versions and two different languages. Yes there are things in there that I don't like and things in there that speak to me, and I chose to accept the whole package.
Take more then a fucking glance at history and see what people have done with it.Once again your problem seems to be with the people who practice the religion. I never said that we were evil creatures either. I did, however, elude to the clear fact that we are flawed. And I will also say that people will hand over too much responsibility to God for good and bad things.
Not all Christians or religious people are bad.But they are ignorant, right? You said it yourself.
If you're ignorant enough to believe in religion in its entirety...Did I just take that out of context? That's what you did with my post, and I don't appreciate it. However, given your OOC activity as of late it doesn't surprise me. You're a great writer. I'd love to see you actually play instead of popping in to make a provocative statement here and there. The intention seems to be to instigate arguments, but I could be wrong.
Occam's Razor is a pretty weak device. Several centuries ago, we couldn't tell the difference between a world with bacteria and a world without, but, beyond all logic, the stuff remains...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Continuance of an argument without obvious end of agreement however, is a clear sign that no finality will be found.
Live your life by your own devices, and be content knowing you have lived well.
Lord Anglekos
05-02-11, 10:33 AM
Continuance of an argument without obvious end of agreement however, is a clear sign that no finality will be found.
Live your life by your own devices, and be content knowing you have lived well.
Now this is something I can agree with. Religion is an ultimately pointless matter to discuss, always.
Rayse Valentino
05-02-11, 04:04 PM
Occam's Razor is a pretty weak device. Several centuries ago, we couldn't tell the difference between a world with bacteria and a world without, but, beyond all logic, the stuff remains...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Oh man, you should've used a more vague example, because I got this on lock.
To start, here's another way to state Occam's Razor: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
Remember what the leading theory was before bacteria? A little something called the Four Humors. "Essentially, this theory held that the human body was filled with four basic substances, called four humors, which are in balance when a person is healthy."
So then what happened? Oh right, they discovered bacteria. Now, you had two competing theories. Bacteria was observable through one of them newfangled microscopes, so it definitely existed. The four humors technically existed (blood exists after all), so the question was: Which of these theories was correct? If we apply Occam's Razor, the simplest explanations came overwhelmingly from bacteria. You could keep both to 'teach the controversy' as some suggest we do for creationism, but people back then understood the importance of Occam's Razor, or at least the type of thought that is associated with it.
Another way Occam's Razor is stated is as follows: "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."
So you can see how this applies to God. It has nothing to do with absence of evidence, but choosing the simplest of the two theories. "If the concept of a God does not help to explain the universe better, then the idea is that atheism should be preferred."
I admit that due to countless interpretations of what your various deities do you for and how they assist the natural world, applying the razor is tricky business, so you can go around it by claiming that believing in God is a leap of faith and that your belief should be independent of reason. I choose not to make this leap of faith for your deity or any of the countless others, if you go that route. Otherwise, I apply the razor.
When evaluated to their fullest logical extent, I believe you'll find that belief in all things or any things is a leap of faith. But I'm not really interested in starting a debate on skepticism. The point is merely that tossing the word faith into an argument, or using it as a means to denounce a belief system, is helplessly futile if not entirely self defeating.
In any event, you seem to have missed my previous point. Being of course that Occam's Razor really only works in combination with empirical evidence or, in the least, strong inductive/deductive reasoning. It only works when you can actually see or understand what it is you're using it to evaluate. Even then it's not a sound method for actually ascertaining truth. I can't say that, based upon Occam's Razor, the Sun must be a flaming chariot because the tri-alpha process is far more complex. We understand nuclear fusion, and we've seen it take place. Much like the discovery of bacteria, one day we will all witness God, and then there will be no further doubts.
Rayse Valentino
05-03-11, 02:47 PM
Since you've separated your belief in God from the realm of reason and science, you are using your faith alongside the razor. They do not have to be in conflict unless you claim there is evidence of God.
That said, I agree with your last statement. Clearly when your deity reveals himself to us, I will become a fervent believer. Until then, I see no reason to complicate my view of the world.
edit: Also it doesn't take a 'leap of faith' to accept observable evidence but w/e.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.