Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on March 20, 2017, 11:22:14 AM
-
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
-
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
If a god exists and it was a decent sort of entity it would much prefer a good, upright atheist to a hateful Christian.
Religion certainly doesn't make a person better, in many cases and can make them much worse. I have a relative by marriage who was an ok guy until he got 'born again'. Sadly he changed for the worse. :o
-
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
In general, I think any God would prefer a good and selfless person over a cruel and selfish person. That is what human development and moving away from base tendencies is all about.
Christians have been told to focus on faith over everything else, perhaps because the people were simple and required a direct and uncomplicated rule. Perhaps options in terms of other gods at that time were even more iffy than the Christian God.
It is like saying that we should respect our parents. Which is fine under normal circumstances. If however our parents turn out to be cruel criminals...we should be able to disobey that law. But that requires a certain maturity of mind and an ability to understand complex morality.
It is like the Hindu 'Dharma'....which is extremely complex and could change with circumstances. Because of this, we have literally hundreds of stories which outline how we should behave under different circumstances. This could include telling lies, disobeying parents, killing people and so on...and still be morally upright.
-
John 3:16 answeres that.
-
Anchs,
John 3:16 answeres that.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"?
So "He'd" pick the hateful person who believed over the kind one who didn't then?
-
That's a difficult question for non-believers!
However, I'm just creeping in very quietly to whisper, could you please correct the speling in the topic title? synhetic Dave reads what's there thanks in advance.
-
Moderator Just to note if anyone sees that I have edited their post on this thread, it is as a result of the typo in the original title, as highlighted by Susan Doris.
-
Hi Susan,
That's a difficult question for non-believers!
However, I'm just creeping in very quietly to whisper, could you please correct the speling in the topic title? synhetic Dave reads what's there thanks in advance.
My apologies. NS seems to have corrected it now (thanks NS).
-
Hi Susan,
My apologies. NS seems to have corrected it now (thanks NS).
if you correct an OP title, it only corrects the OP and any replies to it after the correction.
-
Anchs,
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"?
So "He'd" pick the hateful person who believed over the kind one who didn't then?
Anchs,
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"?
So "He'd" pick the hateful person who believed over the kind one who didn't then?
-
Where does John say that God 'picks' anyone in this verse, please?
-
Anchs,
Where does John say that God 'picks' anyone in this verse, please?
Here: "that whosoever believeth in him should not...".
Seems fairly clear: "God" will allow those who believe not to "perish", whereas presumably "He" could have used a different measure - judging people by what they do rather than by what they believe for example.
-
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
I suspect neither if the requirements are to love God and love your neighbour as yourself. The atheist would be unlikely to love God nor the Christian to love his neighbour, if he is so full of hate.
-
ekim,
I suspect neither if the requirements are to love God and love your neighbour as yourself. The atheist would be unlikely to love God nor the Christian to love his neighbour, if he is so full of hate.
But what if the Christian "believeth" whether or not he loves his neighbour? If John is to be believed, the believing bit seems to be the clincher.
-
Anchs,
Here: "that whosoever believeth in him should not...".
Seems fairly clear: "God" will allow those who believe not to "perish", whereas presumably "He" could have used a different measure - judging people by what they do rather than by what they believe for example.
-
Well, in a more modern version (and nearer to the original, if a bit less poetic),
that bit reads
"....so that everyone who believes in Him will not die, but have eternal life"
and goes onto the next, less quoted, but equally important verse
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn it, but that the world should be saved through Him"
My reading is that it is not God, but man who is supposed to do the 'picking' and receive the consequences of that choice.
-
ekim,
But what if the Christian "believeth" whether or not he loves his neighbour? If John is to be believed, the believing bit seems to be the clincher.
To me, that's one of the difficulties with being a Christian. Do you believe and follow the words of Jesus, who wasn't a Christian, or believe and follow the words of a follower of, or commentator upon, Jesus?
-
Anchs,
Well, in a more modern version (and nearer to the original, if a bit less poetic),
that bit reads
"....so that everyone who believes in Him will not die, but have eternal life"
and goes onto the next, less quoted, but equally important verse
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn it, but that the world should be saved through Him"
My reading is that it is not God, but man who is supposed to do the 'picking' and receive the consequences of that choice.
Well, the extent to which I can "choose" to believe something without having sufficient reason to do so is debatable but - more to the point - surely it's still "God" who's choosing isn't it, ie choosing that criterion for everlasting life rather than a different one? Why would a just God not be indifferent to belief and instead judge someone by his actions?
That way at least kind people would have a better (or at least equal) chance than hateful ones who also just happened to believe something.
-
Doesn’t this show clearly that religion is purely man-made?
If we take God as being the entity that created everything in the Universe, why would he pick out a tiny planet revolving around a star which was one of billions in a galaxy which itself was one of many billions? Then why choose just one - of the billions of different species he had created - to take to live with him in Heaven?
And then to pick only those humans who believed in an illogical, highly dubious, story? Or, for that matter, those who are kind to their fellow man?
In both cases it shows that the whole thing was thought up by humans – and mainly by ancient tribes who were suppressed and needed something to hope for.
-
Anchs, Here: "that whosoever believeth in him should not...". Seems fairly clear: "God" will allow those who believe not to "perish", whereas presumably "He" could have used a different measure - judging people by what they do rather than by what they believe for example.
- But the whole point of 'Grace' is that there is nothing whatsoever we CAN do to earn God's love, or eternal life. God already loves us - nothing can change that. As for the rest? That was earned - but not by us. That's the whole message of the Gospel and the core of what it is to be Christian. Any 'works' we do are as a response to His grace, not to earn it.
-
ekim,
To me, that's one of the difficulties with being a Christian. Do you believe and follow the words of Jesus, who wasn't a Christian, or believe and follow the words of a follower of, or commentator upon, Jesus?
Dunno - but whether it was the words of Jesus or of a follower, it still seems a pretty idiosyncratic entry rule for the heavenly rewards to follow. More Kim Jong-un than a god of the omnis I'd have thought.
-
Anchs,
But the whole point of 'Grace' is that there is nothing whatsoever we CAN do to earn God's love, or eternal life.
Isn't John was saying the opposite of that - if you "believeth" then you can earn it, or at least earn the entry ticket whereas as those who don't cannot?
God already loves us - nothing can change that.
Even those who don't believe? Why then condemn them for their non-belief, especially if they've led kind and blameless lives?
As for the rest? That was earned - but not by us. That's the whole message of the Gospel and the core of what it is to be Christian. Any 'works' we do are as a response to His grace, not to earn it.
But why wouldn't this God precisely judge us on our works rather than on what we happen to believe about "Him" and His ways?
-
It is an invalid question. A ‘hateful Christian’ is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a hateful Christian. There might well be many individuals who claim to be Christians who are hateful people, but in God’s eyes they are not. They are no more than ‘wolves in sheep’s’ clothing’ Matthew 7:15-20 says, ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Or again continuing on to verses 21-23 in the same chapter. ‘Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
-
Hi DaveM,
It is an invalid question. A ‘hateful Christian’ is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a hateful Christian. There might well be many individuals who claim to be Christians who are hateful people, but in God’s eyes they are not. They are no more than ‘wolves in sheep’s’ clothing’ Matthew 7:15-20 says, ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Couple of problems there:
First, if John is to be believed then “proper” Christians or not, the entry ticket seems to be believing rather than behaving. Even if you are a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” doesn’t seem to make much difference for that purpose.
Second, there are in any case plenty of beliefs that could be said to be hateful that are within the mainstream canon of Christian belief – the treatment of gays and discrimination against women as examples. Your opinion on whether the “fruit” is god or bad is in other words subjective.
Or again continuing on to verses 21-23 in the same chapter. ‘Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Stirring stuff no doubt, but it still seems to bar the non-believer entirely. Why would not an atheist who was genuinely mistaken and who’d spent his life doing good works be allowed a dispensation at least?
-
-
Well, in a more modern version (and nearer to the original, if a bit less poetic),
that bit reads
"....so that everyone who believes in Him will not die, but have eternal life"
and goes onto the next, less quoted, but equally important verse
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn it, but that the world should be saved through Him"
My reading is that it is not God, but man who is supposed to do the 'picking' and receive the consequences of that choice.
And what about the next important verse:
[18] "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
Seems pretty unequivocal, and rather simplistic in its approach. You can't just 'choose' to believe (a topic well-thrashed out here and elsewhere). But according to this, if you don't, it may turn out rather unpleasantly for you.
The first epistle of John is similarly brutal, suggesting that those who don't acknowledge that Christ has come in the flesh are Antichrist and evil (though this text may be a blast against the Gnostics, who believed in Jesus, but as a purely spiritual entity (docetism))
-
DU,
And what about the next important verse:
[18] "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
Seems pretty unequivocal, and rather simplistic in its approach. You can't just 'choose' to believe (a topic well-thrashed out here and elsewhere). But according to this, if you don't, it may turn out rather unpleasantly for you.
Well observed. It's a pretty rigged game isn't it: "I made you such that you cannot just choose to believe something/if you don't believe it you're condemned a priori regardless of how good your actions and behaviour". Is this a just god we're talking about here or Fat Tony and the boys?
-
- But the whole point of 'Grace' is that there is nothing whatsoever we CAN do to earn God's love, or eternal life. God already loves us - nothing can change that. As for the rest? That was earned - but not by us. That's the whole message of the Gospel and the core of what it is to be Christian. Any 'works' we do are as a response to His grace, not to earn it.
And yet Matthew 25 says nothing about 'grace' - it's all about works (as is the 'straw' epistle of James). Sure, St Paul made the 'grace' idea central to his teaching, since he'd tried harder than most to keep the law, and failed. Christianity has over the centuries become a curious mishmash of these antithetical ideas. It produces some strange anomalies - Protestantism, which really bigged up the 'grace' idea, has also given birth to that humourless phenomenon "the Protestant work-ethic".
-
DU,
Well observed. It's a pretty rigged game isn't it: "I made you such that you cannot just choose to believe something/if you don't believe it you're condemned a priori regardless of how good your actions and behaviour". Is this a just god we're talking about here or Fat Tony and the boys?
I think we're talking about the various groups of Fat Tonys, Giovannis and Paulos who wrangled among themselves in the emerging Christian church, each with his own idea of God, and the significance of Jesus. In the end, it was largely Paul's Jesus who won out (and to a large extent John's), but the various bits and pieces have been juggled about with ever since.
-
Some nice points there, Dicky. It is striking how on the one hand, grace means that you can't earn salvation, and doing stuff is pointless, yet on the other hand, some Christians have a kind of zeal and earnestness, which suggests lots of trying and hard work. Kind of a split mentality.
I sort of get what they mean by grace, as you find this in some areas of Buddhism, that you can't reinvent what you are, or where you are, or what you are doing. Or as some say, life is living me, not v.v. On the other hand, capitalism teaches us that we can be/do anything. Well, I like being passive, I suppose.
I like Fat Tony a lot. I bet he loves his mum's pizza.
-
And yet Matthew 25 says nothing about 'grace' - it's all about works (as is the 'straw' epistle of James). Sure, St Paul made the 'grace' idea central to his teaching, since he'd tried harder than most to keep the law, and failed. Christianity has over the centuries become a curious mishmash of these antithetical ideas. It produces some strange anomalies - Protestantism, which really bigged up the 'grace' idea, has also given birth to that humourless phenomenon "the Protestant work-ethic".
You are presumably referring to the passage in Matthew 25 known as the Judgement of the Nations. But I suspect that your understanding of the implications of this passage is too shallow. It needs to be remembered that Christians do not come into judgement - they have already passed from death to life. Thus as there are no Christians present at this judgement, and since Christians are saved by grace and not by works. it is perhaps not surprising that grace does not feature here. But there are other profound conclusions which can be gleaned from this passage when considered in conjunction with a number of other key passages.
-
ekim,
Dunno - but whether it was the words of Jesus or of a follower, it still seems a pretty idiosyncratic entry rule for the heavenly rewards to follow. More Kim Jong-un than a god of the omnis I'd have thought.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'entry rule'. I don't think that we can be 100% certain that the recorded words of Jesus are verbatim or that those who wrote them understood what he was teaching, amongst other contaminants. However from what has been attributed to him, I would say that the message is not about rewards and punishment but more about accessing or surrendering to what is freely available. Heaven is within and is available to all no matter whether considered good or bad but to access it there needs to be a turning towards it and away from the many other outer substitutions, which is difficult and uncomfortable in the early stages.
-
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
Only God can answer that because only God knows us inside out and from start to finish.
-
ekim,
I'm not sure what you mean by 'entry rule'.
If you "believeth" you're in with a shout; if you don't, you're not. That's the entry rule.
I don't think that we can be 100% certain that the recorded words of Jesus are verbatim or that those who wrote them understood what he was teaching, amongst other contaminants. However from what has been attributed to him, I would say that the message is not about rewards and punishment but more about accessing or surrendering to what is freely available.
How is our inability to decide what we believe in compatible with something being "freely available", and why in any case would our belief rather than our actions be the determining criterion for an afterlife?
Heaven is within and is available to all no matter whether considered good or bad but to access it there needs to be a turning towards it and away from the many other outer substitutions, which is difficult and uncomfortable in the early stages.
No doubt that's your personal belief, but again why would there need to be a "turning towards it" at all rather than just doing lots of good and selfless things? Wouldn't a just god prefer that person over someone less good and less selfless, but who happened to have a specified belief?
-
Robinson,
Only God can answer that because only God knows us inside out and from start to finish.
That's the get out of jail free card of "it's a mystery" generally produced when stories about "God" are incoherent, contradictory, immoral, inconsistent etc and it doesn't wash.
-
Only God can answer that because only God knows us inside out and from start to finish.
I am a kind atheist and if your Christian god exists I renounce him , he is a monster .
-
You are presumably referring to the passage in Matthew 25 known as the Judgement of the Nations. But I suspect that your understanding of the implications of this passage is too shallow.
Which sounds like the Courtier's Reply.
It needs to be remembered that Christians do not come into judgement - they have already passed from death to life. Thus as there are no Christians present at this judgement, and since Christians are saved by grace and not by works. it is perhaps not surprising that grace does not feature here. But there are other profound conclusions which can be gleaned from this passage when considered in conjunction with a number of other key passages.
Which sounds like more argument from authority and tradition. How do you know that these self-referential passages in the Bible aren't contrived propaganda: how have you excluded this risk?
-
Gordon
he probably hasn't , otherwise he wouldn't have made that mistake.
-
Robinson,
That's the get out of jail free card of "it's a mystery" generally produced when stories about "God" are incoherent, contradictory, immoral, inconsistent etc and it doesn't wash.
Not really. All I'm saying is I don't claim to know the mind of God.
I may prefer a kindly atheist to a nasty believer but God is the ultimate judge. In my opinion.
-
Not really. All I'm saying is I don't claim to know the mind of God.
I may prefer a kindly atheist to a nasty believer but God is the ultimate judge. In my opinion.
So he's sort of like Simon Cowell?
-
I am a kind atheist and if your Christian god exists I renounce him , he is a monster .
I would hazard that the atheist who has feelings in this is feeling what Waugh describes as ''a twitch on the thread''
If one isnt particularly kind to Christians, since heaven will be full of them what possible beef could someone have with the Almighty for not letting them in.....and what motive would they therefore have for wanting in?
Jesus says ''The man who comes to me I shall in no ways turn away''.
-
I would hazard that the atheist who has feelings in this is feeling what Waugh describes as ''a twitch on the thread''
If one isnt particularly kind to Christians, since heaven will be full of them what possible beef could someone have with the Almighty for not letting them in.....and what motive would they therefore have for wanting in?
Jesus says ''The man who comes to me I shall in no ways turn away''.
Jesus?, are you referring to that well known fictional character?
-
Not really. All I'm saying is I don't claim to know the mind of God.
I may prefer a kindly atheist to a nasty believer but God is the ultimate judge. In my opinion.
what do you base your opinion on ,in this matter , Robinson?
-
So he's sort of like Simon Cowell?
I doubt he wears high waisted trousers.
-
Which sounds like more argument from authority and tradition. How do you know that these self-referential passages in the Bible aren't contrived propaganda: how have you excluded this risk?
Good Evening Gordon,
I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that. But just one comment.
This section of the Forum is titled the Christian Topic. For Christians, or certainly for this Christian, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are accepted as the highest authority governing what we believe. My interest in participating in this section of the forum is to comment on what I believe the Scriptures, as they stand, teach on the issue under discussion, my understanding of how they should be interpreted and to debate this with those who might take a different view. Being the Christian Topic I do not think this to be an unreasonable expectation.
Unfortunately much of the debate degenerates into discussion on issues such as what proof do you have that God exists or how do you know that the passage actually reflects the words of Jesus rather than being mere fabrications etc etc. I really have no interest in participating in discussions along such lines. For me they are sterile, endless and unrewarding.
So my apologies for not responding directly to your question.
-
I doubt he wears high waisted trousers.
though slopy shoulders possibly
-
Good Evening Gordon,
I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that. But just one comment.
This section of the Forum is titled the Christian Topic. For Christians, or certainly for this Christian, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are accepted as the highest authority governing what we believe. My interest in participating in this section of the forum is to comment on what I believe the Scriptures, as they stand, teach on the issue under discussion, my understanding of how they should be interpreted and to debate this with those who might take a different view. Being the Christian Topic I do not think this to be an unreasonable expectation.
Unfortunately much of the debate degenerates into discussion on issues such as what proof do you have that God exists or how do you know that the passage actually reflects the words of Jesus rather than being mere fabrications etc etc. I really have no interest in participating in discussions along such lines. For me they are sterile, endless and unrewarding.
So my apologies for not responding directly to your question.
You want the Faith Sharing Area, dear chap. Not the Christian Topic.
-
Good Evening Gordon,
I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that. But just one comment.
This section of the Forum is titled the Christian Topic. For Christians, or certainly for this Christian, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are accepted as the highest authority governing what we believe. My interest in participating in this section of the forum is to comment on what I believe the Scriptures, as they stand, teach on the issue under discussion, my understanding of how they should be interpreted and to debate this with those who might take a different view. Being the Christian Topic I do not think this to be an unreasonable expectation.
Unfortunately much of the debate degenerates into discussion on issues such as what proof do you have that God exists or how do you know that the passage actually reflects the words of Jesus rather than being mere fabrications etc etc. I really have no interest in participating in discussions along such lines. For me they are sterile, endless and unrewarding.
So my apologies for not responding directly to your question.
Not so subtly avoided, and given your stated position on discussion I'll just ignore the fallacies in your reply.
This is a Forum for the discussion of R&E, amongst other topics of interest, and it isn't a religious site. We have however provided a Faith Sharing Area where you can discuss your views without the inconvenience of challenge from those of us who aren't theists.
-
You want the Faith Sharing Area, dear chap. Not the Christian Topic.
Crazy as that sounds, Dave, but there is a strange phenomenon on this forum whereby The Christian Topic is where the atheists do the gatekeeping. So, for any discussion on Christian matters with fellow Christians you have to visit the Faith Sharing Area as Nearly Sane has mentioned. As you've probably noticed by now, you can barely get two Christians exchanging a comment on this Christian Topic board without interaction from t'other side. It was ever thus....
-
Crazy as that sounds, Dave, but there is a strange phenomenon on this forum whereby The Christian Topic is where the atheists do the gatekeeping. So, for any discussion on Christian matters with fellow Christians you have to visit the Faith Sharing Area as Nearly Sane has mentioned. As you've probably noticed by now, you can barely get two Christians exchanging a comment on this Christian Topic board without interaction from t'other side. It was ever thus....
No, atheists do not do any gate keeping. This is the same format that existed on the BBC website. This board like the Muslim board, or the Pagan board is for discussion.
-
No, atheists do not do any gate keeping. This is the same format that existed on the BBC website. This board like the Muslim board, or the Pagan board is for discussion.
Well, I tend to differ on the gatekeeping because that's how it must look to anyone not familiar with the original BBC format.
-
Well, I tend to differ on the gatekeeping because that's how it must look to anyone not familiar with the original BBC format.
So how is posting 'gatekept' by atheists?
-
So how is posting 'gatekept' by atheists?
Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.
-
Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.
So how is questioning gate keeping?
-
..
I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that.
..
Unfortunately much of the debate degenerates into discussion on issues such as what proof do you have that God exists or how do you know that the passage actually reflects the words of Jesus rather than being mere fabrications etc etc. I really have no interest in participating in discussions along such lines. For me they are sterile, endless and unrewarding.
On telling his disciples to go and spread the word, would Jesus have expected them to just give up when challenged to justify their position ? You will convince no-one if you aren't prepared to show your working.
-
Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.
'the god' of science
those few words are so revealing about your way of thinking and is so disappointing to any right thinking person . How did you get to this point , when did you loose your critical thinking abilities and was anyone else involved ?
-
On telling his disciples to go and spread the word, would Jesus have expected them to just give up when challenged to justify their position ? You will convince no-one if you aren't prepared to show your working.
don't hold your breath , torri.
-
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
'kind' athiest and an 'hateful' Christian... What kind of comparison do you see in that?
How does either state of being apply to just one or the other?
How do you apply being kind to atheism?
How do you apply being hateful to Christianity.
These are both states which are not mutually exclusive to Atheism or Christianity.
Being kind or hateful can apply to any person and it is not something which applies to either atheism or christianity in it's representation of one or the other.
I see no way of making such a question possible of an answer.
-
'kind' athiest and an 'hateful' Christian... What kind of comparison do you see in that?
How does either state of being apply to just one or the other?
How do you apply being kind to atheism?
How do you apply being hateful to Christianity.
These are both states which are not mutually exclusive to Atheism or Christianity.
Being kind or hateful can apply to any person and it is not something which applies to either atheism or christianity in it's representation of one or the other.
I see no way of making such a question possible of an answer.
There is plenty which is hateful about Christianity especially if you believe in the 'you must be 'saved', or burn in hell', sick dogma!
-
There is plenty which is hateful about Christianity especially if you believe in the 'you must be 'saved', or burn in hell', sick dogma!
That is your opinion however it does not answer the questions I actually asked the other person based on what they wrote. Your opinion is that of someone unlearned when it comes to the topic at hand.
-
DaveM,
I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that.
Lots of people know that they know that they know about countless gods that you think to be false. What makes your "knowing" right and their knowing wrong please?
-
That is your opinion however it does not answer the questions I actually asked the other person based on what they wrote. Your opinion is that of someone unlearned when it comes to the topic at hand.
Compared to the garbage you spout Sass, I think I am reasonably well informed! ::)
-
Sassy,
'kind' athiest and an 'hateful' Christian... What kind of comparison do you see in that?
How does either state of being apply to just one or the other?
How do you apply being kind to atheism?
How do you apply being hateful to Christianity.
These are both states which are not mutually exclusive to Atheism or Christianity.
Being kind or hateful can apply to any person and it is not something which applies to either atheism or christianity in it's representation of one or the other.
I see no way of making such a question possible of an answer.
You've missed the point. Two souls present themselves at the pearly gates, and St Peter looks at the first and says, "Well Mr Atheist, not feeling so clever now are we? Now then, let me just check the record...ah, very good. I see that you founded several orphanages, discovered a cure for male pattern baldness and gave away all your money to the poor and needy. Very well done!
OK, now to you Mr Theist – congrats by the way for backing the right horse all along. OK, let me just check the records...
...oh dear oh dear oh dear. It says there that you were a mean spirited son of a *****, stealing from the church collection, knocking the helmets off policemen, never once performing even a simple act of kindness. Tut tut tut...
OK, here's the good news though: it also says here that you Mr Theist "accepted Jesus as your saviour" so you can come right on in (oh, it's a no shoes policy here by the way - helps protect the Axminster you know.)
Right then Mr Atheist, your turn. Sadly, it's not such good news I'm afraid. See, you didn't believe in the salvation offer so I'm afraid it's no non-fattening pizza and endless re-runs of Songs of Praise for you my friend. Toasting fork time it is!"
Hence the question: why would your God arrange things this way rather than on the basis of merit?
-
That is your opinion however it does not answer the questions I actually asked the other person based on what they wrote. Your opinion is that of someone unlearned when it comes to the topic at hand.
unlearned! wow , the springs have just shot out of my irony meter :o
-
SweetPea,
Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.
First, science isn't a god because it rests on evidence and not faith.
Second, of course it's challenged - if it wasn't, then we'd have to accept as true any claim at all. Would you really want that?
-
-
Well, in a more modern version (and nearer to the original, if a bit less poetic),
that bit reads
"....so that everyone who believes in Him will not die, but have eternal life"
and goes onto the next, less quoted, but equally important verse
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn it, but that the world should be saved through Him"
My reading is that it is not God, but man who is supposed to do the 'picking' and receive the consequences of that choice.
Wow, how interesting.
ippy
-
If you "believeth" you're in with a shout; if you don't, you're not. That's the entry rule.
OK, that was from your quote from the words of John. I was endeavouring to distinguish them from my take on the words of Jesus, which I see as something different and more as his teaching of a method which might convert belief into actuality.
How is our inability to decide what we believe in compatible with something being "freely available", and why in any case would our belief rather than our actions be the determining criterion for an afterlife?
It might depend upon how desperate you are for what the belief offers. For instance if you were suffering from lack of water in a desert and somebody said, 'I know where there is some freely available water within 5 miles of where we are' would you believe him? In this case the belief would come first and the action or non action would follow. I would say that from the Jesus perspective it is more about life in the present 'I have come that you may have life more abundantly'.
No doubt that's your personal belief, but again why would there need to be a "turning towards it" at all rather than just doing lots of good and selfless things? Wouldn't a just god prefer that person over someone less good and less selfless, but who happened to have a specified belief?
It's not about my personal belief but more about my assessment of the Jesus teaching. I may be completely wrong. It would be difficult for me to answer a question upon a vague 'good and selfless person' but in the context of this discussion I would say such a person might well be acting from a loving centre in which case they are already where they need to be and belief has become redundant. The difficulty maybe that there will be many occasions when living circumstances can threaten to knock that person off that centre. I don't see it as a case of divine judgement attached to a carrot and stick response but more as a human judgement as to what is likely to entice a person to lose balance and fall off 'centre'.
-
ekim,
OK, that was from your quote from the words of John. I was endeavouring to distinguish them from my take on the words of Jesus, which I see as something different and more as his teaching of a method which might convert belief into actuality.
It might but it still leaves the question: why would signing up to a belief be a better way of selecting worthy recipients of an afterlife than judging them by their actions?
It might depend upon how desperate you are for what the belief offers. For instance if you were suffering from lack of water in a desert and somebody said, 'I know where there is some freely available water within 5 miles of where we are' would you believe him? In this case the belief would come first and the action or non action would follow. I would say that from the Jesus perspective it is more about life in the present 'I have come that you may have life more abundantly'.
That fails on several levels:
First, if you want to use that analogy then you’d have to add lots of others telling you to go in different directions for your drink. How would you choose one over the rest?
Second, you’re attempting an argument from consequences. How desperate you are for something to be true tells you nothing about whether it is true. Essentially you’re attempting Pascal’s wager here.
Third, the glass of water would be material and thus investigable. How would I investigate the truth or otherwise of a promise of an immaterial reward?
It's not about my personal belief but more about my assessment of the Jesus teaching. I may be completely wrong. It would be difficult for me to answer a question upon a vague 'good and selfless person' but in the context of this discussion I would say such a person might well be acting from a loving centre in which case they are already where they need to be and belief has become redundant.
Not if the quote form John is to believed – that person is out of the game a priori no matter how good his actions in the here and now.
The difficulty maybe that there will be many occasions when living circumstances can threaten to knock that person off that centre. I don't see it as a case of divine judgement attached to a carrot and stick response but more as a human judgement as to what is likely to entice a person to lose balance and fall off 'centre'.
That’s not the difficulty at all. Whether or not that person is “knocked off his centre” the difficulty here is this: when confronted with a non-believer who behaved well and a believer who behaved badly, why would a just god pick the latter over the former?
-
Believing in a God instills a sense of fear and obedience (especially in earlier days). This normally keeps people on the right track most of the time.
It is true that people who have faith do also indulge in many cruel acts, but this is usually a very small minority. In the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules faithfully and therefore also act morally.
-
In the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules faithfully and therefore also act morally.
Does following rules faithfully mean the same thing as acting morally?
If so, then it implies that a) the rules are morally sound and, b) the person following them is no longer a moral agent in their own right. This sounds like morality is being defined by authority.
-
It is true that people indulge in many cruel acts, but this is usually a small minority. In the majority of cases people tend to follow the rules, and therefore act morally.
I have amended that for you, as faithful or faithless, it does not seem to matter when it comes to the way a person behaves.
But I would suggest that your proposal that following the rules leads to acting morally may require a little more work to make it a convincing argument.
Following the rules can lead you into all sorts of problems. I'm pretty sure that in most churches you are supposed to accept the words of your priest, imam, vicar, rabbi or whatever. But really have you heard some of the rubbish and hatred that some of them come out with. You don't want to be following those rules. That way lies Waco.
-
Sriram,
Believing in a God instills a sense of fear and obedience (especially in earlier days). This normally keeps people on the right track most of the time.
Whether or not fear and obedience does that is moot, but how would you know what the “right track” is as opposed to whatever the doctrines of the god of choice happen to be?
It is true that people who have faith do also indulge in many cruel acts, but this is usually a very small minority.
But some would argue that oftentimes the tenets of religious faiths define and mandate those “cruel acts” – the treatment of homosexuals for example.
In the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules faithfully and therefore also act morally.
Wow, that “therefore” is a mother of a non sequitur. How on earth did you get from following the rules of a religion to acting morally? What if the rules themselves are immoral?
-
Anyone can be hateful (or hate-full) or kindly at given times in their lives. People change. Their personal ideology has little to do with it tho' if they have strong ethics or religion they will have highly developed consciences.
Christians - to which this was specifically addresssed- cannot honestly answer the question in the opening post; we will all have met both and know which we prefer. We cherish and forgive and then look at times in our lives when we've been less than good. But we are not God who sees us in our entirety. If posters don't believe in God they'll say that's a cop out but i don't think so, there are lots of non-religious people who will give others the benefit of the doubt even without thinking of eternal life. Think of those who work for people in prison.
Answer: we don't know,we do our best and believe everyone has good in them however obscured.
-
Robinson,
Anyone can be hateful (or hate-full) or kindly at given times in their lives. People change. Their personal ideology has little to do with it tho' if they have strong ethics or religion they will have highly developed consciences.
Christians - to which this was specifically addresssed- cannot honestly answer the question in the opening post; we will all have met both and know which we prefer. We cherish and forgive and then look at times in our lives when we've been less than good. But we are not God who sees us in our entirety. If posters don't believe in God they'll say that's a cop out but i don't think so, there are lots of non-religious people who will give others the benefit of the doubt even without thinking of eternal life. Think of those who work for people in prison.
Answer: we don't know,we do our best and believe everyone has good in them however obscured.
But the question concerns your take on a god who sets the entry test by what someone believes rather than by what they do.
"It's a mystery" is a cop out - I'm just asking for you opinion based on the reasoning available to you.
-
Blue, Gordon, Trent...
What Morality is ..is not what we are discussing here. Whether there is any absolute basis for Morality that would apply to all people is a separate discussion.....which we could have some other time.
Morality changes with time and community. It is based on tradition, culture and social requirements. Different communities across the world could have different moral values. Even within one religion like Christianity or Hinduism, different groups could have different moral values. So...I am not defining what Morality is in this discussion.
I am saying that once a group develops its moral values and behavioral norms, the best method of enforcing it is through authority. Its a simple parental system. God is the eternal father.
Once people believe that God is the all knowing father and He commands them to behave in certain ways then, that faith leads to fear which leads to respect which leads to obedience and which leads to moral behavior (as defined by that community). This is the way society was managed before the days of civil courts and secular law enforcement system. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....not because they have some innate moral wisdom.
-
Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....
Do they - you have hard evidence for this?
From a personal viewpoint and Blue alluded to this earlier - as a member of a minority that was unfairly discriminated against in the past partly on the basis of religious thought I find your attachment to this idea strange. Indeed some religious people have in the past used religion as a moral point in the argument for slavery - not all but some. Also religion has long been used as a way of subjugating women.
You say it's a simple parental system. What if Jack the Ripper is the father and Myra Hindley is the mother?
Oh and you mention the way society was managed before civil courts and secular law enforcement. You may think that those bygone days were some sort of halcyon period, I think if you look at it more detail you will find bloody, unjust and distinctly uncivil approaches to keeping the peace.
-
Blue, Gordon, Trent...
What Morality is ..is not what we are discussing here. Whether there is any absolute basis for Morality that would apply to all people is a separate discussion.....which we could have some other time.
Morality changes with time and community. It is based on tradition, culture and social requirements. Different communities across the world could have different moral values. Even within one religion like Christianity or Hinduism, different groups could have different moral values. So...I am not defining what Morality is in this discussion.
I am saying that once a group develops its moral values and behavioral norms, the best method of enforcing it is through authority. Its a simple parental system. God is the eternal father.
Once people believe that God is the all knowing father and He commands them to behave in certain ways then, that faith leads to fear which leads to respect which leads to obedience and which leads to moral behavior (as defined by that community). This is the way society was managed before the days of civil courts and secular law enforcement system. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....not because they have some innate moral wisdom.
stay away from young minds . You are dangerous.
-
Sriram,
What Morality is ..is not what we are discussing here. Whether there is any absolute basis for Morality that would apply to all people is a separate discussion.....which we could have some other time.
Morality changes with time and community. It is based on tradition, culture and social requirements. Different communities across the world could have different moral values. Even within one religion like Christianity or Hinduism, different groups could have different moral values. So...I am not defining what Morality is in this discussion.
I am saying that once a group develops its moral values and behavioral norms, the best method of enforcing it is through authority. Its a simple parental system. God is the eternal father.
Once people believe that God is the all knowing father and He commands them to behave in certain ways then, that faith leads to fear which leads to respect which leads to obedience and which leads to moral behavior (as defined by that community). This is the way society was managed before the days of civil courts and secular law enforcement system. Nothing wrong with that at all.
But that's not what you said. What you actually said was:
In the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules faithfully and therefore also act morally.
What you're saying now is effectively just, "in the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules faithfully and therefore follow the rules faithfully".
Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....not because they have some innate moral wisdom.
That's a huge claim, and almost certainly wrong. Our and many other species are inherently altruistic for good evolutionary reasons - co-operation, sharing, solidarity etc better ensure the success of the genome and these behaviours have over time become encoded as moral rules. Indeed there's some evidence that people will behave less morally well when, for example, they think they'll be let of the hook by making the right incantations and propitiations to their celestial headmaster.
-
Blue, Gordon, Trent...
Morality changes with time and community.
OK.
It is based on tradition, culture and social requirements.
Surely though the likes of 'social requirements', whatever these are, represent predetermined moral imperatives: if so, that raises two issues; a) the morality of those defining what these 'social requirements' are in the first place, and b) that compliance with these represents moral conduct.
Different communities across the world could have different moral values. Even within one religion like Christianity or Hinduism, different groups could have different moral values. So...I am not defining what Morality is in this discussion.
You seem to be defining morality as conformance with whatever the prevailing 'tradition, culture and social requirements' require.
I am saying that once a group develops its moral values and behavioral norms, the best method of enforcing it is through authority. Its a simple parental system. God is the eternal father.
Once people believe that God is the all knowing father and He commands them to behave in certain ways then, that faith leads to fear which leads to respect which leads to obedience and which leads to moral behavior (as defined by that community). This is the way society was managed before the days of civil courts and secular law enforcement system. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....not because they have some innate moral wisdom.
So your view seems to be that obeying authority defines appropriate moral conduct yet you also recognise the moral zeitgeist that involves variations in the content of 'tradition, culture and social requirements' - what scope is there for people to act as moral agents in their own right?
In addition, can it ever be moral for individuals to challenge what the local tradition, culture and social requirements require?
-
Gordon:"In addition, can it ever be moral for individuals to challenge what the local tradition, culture and social requirements require?"
Yes!
-
Gordon:"In addition, can it ever be moral for individuals to challenge what the local tradition, culture and social requirements require?"
Yes!
I have no doubt that Gordon thinks so too. It is a question about the implications of Sriram's position.
-
Gordon:"In addition, can it ever be moral for individuals to challenge what the local tradition, culture and social requirements require?"
Yes!
I agree: however Sriram seems to think conformance with requirements is the name of the game, hence my asking him this question.
-
I don't see what the difficulty is in understanding this.
Morality is based on time, community, tradition and culture. It could be different from region to region, and within the same religion. This obviously means that it also changes with time and social requirements and with mix and match. Cultures and religions evolve.
Morality is never constant...whether it is due to anyone challenging it or simply due to mixing of different cultures is a different matter. It can happen in many ways. I have already said how vegetarianism can tomorrow become a moral issue as more and more people become vegetarians.
Enforcing morality is normally through authority. And the ultimate authority in any traditional society is God. So...obedience to God translates to morality in most cases...in that society. What other people outside that community think of it is irrelevant.
-
...
Enforcing morality is normally through authority. And the ultimate authority in any traditional society is God. So...obedience to God translates to morality in most cases...in that society. What other people outside that community think of it is irrelevant.
But, as morality changes, there must be successful challenges to authority whether originating within or from outside the community.
-
Sriram,
Enforcing morality is normally through authority.
That's another tautology - for most people for most of the time no "enforcement" is necessary. We tend not to go round murdering each other not because we might be caught if we do, but for reasons of evolutionarily determined reciprocal altruism.
-
Sriram,
That's another tautology - for most people for most of the time no "enforcement" is necessary. We tend not to go round murdering each other not because we might be caught if we do, but for reasons of evolutionarily determined reciprocal altruism.
I have mentioned many times that humanity is a spectrum. At one end we have mentally and emotionally evolved people who have disciplined their base tendencies. At the other end we have people who are largely influenced only by their base tendencies ...and most other people are somewhere in between. So..it depends on where we are in the spectrum.
If police and courts disappear for a few years ...you will know how moral your society really is!!!
And...what do you mean...'tautology'?! Tautology means unnecessary repetition. You are arguing that enforcement is unnecessary!
Anyway...G'night!
-
You talk lot of sense sririam, from a believer-in-God point of view. Like your posts v much.
-
On telling his disciples to go and spread the word, would Jesus have expected them to just give up when challenged to justify their position ? You will convince no-one if you aren't prepared to show your working.
Hi Torridon,
Interesting question. Consider the following words of Jesus, 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words. as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. I tell you it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that city, So I think the short answer to your question - Yes.
-
Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.
The subject of this thread has bugger all to do with 'the god of science' (which in any case, as has been pointed out, is a complete misrepresentation in any case). The question concerns how a certain aspect of Christian belief, revealed through the scriptures, can be explained and justified.
Furthermore, it also calls into question matters of the epistemology of belief, as succinctly noted by bluehillside to DaveM:
Lots of people know that they know that they know about countless gods that you think to be false. What makes your "knowing" right and their knowing wrong please?
Again, sod all to do with 'science'. How do you know what you 'know'?
-
Sriram,
I have mentioned many times that humanity is a spectrum. At one end we have mentally and emotionally evolved people who have disciplined their base tendencies. At the other end we have people who are largely influenced only by their base tendencies ...and most other people are somewhere in between. So..it depends on where we are in the spectrum.
Your problem here is in ascribing negative connotations to our "base tendencies". Depending on how you define Homo sapiens, our species has been around for some 150,000 – 250,000 years during almost all of which there were no laws, no policemen, no courts, no apparatus of enforcement as you describe. Yet we survived to see these things emerge. How? Because it turns out that our "base tendencies" are in large part altruistic, as indeed they are in many other species that have been studies, from elephants to vampire bats. Try reading some Bill Hamilton who did a lot of the pioneering work in this area.
If police and courts disappear for a few years ...you will know how moral your society really is!!!
How it "really is" would be different no doubt and not one in which I'd much like to live I suspect, but in all likelihood it would revert to more tribal structures that would self-regulate, for example by expelling miscreants from the group.
And...what do you mean...'tautology'?! Tautology means unnecessary repetition. You are arguing that enforcement is unnecessary!
Anyway...G'night!
Tautology when you describe the same phenomenon in slightly different terms - for example when a while back by "morally" you actually meant, "following the rules" - as in, "people follow the rules, therefore they follow the rules". Of course enforcement is necessary at least to some degree for the societies we have just now, but without it we'd probably arrange those societies differently rather than slaughter each other to extinction.
-
Hi Torridon,
Interesting question. Consider the following words of Jesus, 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words. as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. I tell you it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that city, So I think the short answer to your question - Yes.
And the reason he was dismissive of attempts to make reasonable explanation of the evangelising points being made, is that Jesus thought that the End of the World was just round the corner, so time was very short. Well, the End of the World was not just round the corner, and Jesus was wrong. Perhaps you might like to make some attempt to justify your position, or are you still banking on the idea that the 'End is nigh' and therefore blabbing on about your unexamined beliefs is sufficient 'witness'?
-
Robinsosn,
You talk lot of sense sririam...
No he doesn't. For the most part he attempts new age mush in place of rational thinking.
-
DaveM,
Interesting question. Consider the following words of Jesus, 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words. as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. I tell you it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that city, So I think the short answer to your question - Yes.
So effectively you're telling us that we should just take your word for it rather than provide challenges that could show you to be wrong.
Fine. Can I interest you in this bridge I have for sale?
-
You are presumably referring to the passage in Matthew 25 known as the Judgement of the Nations. But I suspect that your understanding of the implications of this passage is too shallow. It needs to be remembered that Christians do not come into judgement - they have already passed from death to life. Thus as there are no Christians present at this judgement, and since Christians are saved by grace and not by works. it is perhaps not surprising that grace does not feature here. But there are other profound conclusions which can be gleaned from this passage when considered in conjunction with a number of other key passages.
There is absolutely nothing in the passage that indicates that this judgment does not apply to the whole of humanity. What you are doing is trying to reconcile the Pauline view of salvation by faith as a sine qua non, and apply it to a passage that directly contradicts that view. It may indeed be a view that has been traditionally accepted in your church, but that does not make it a particularly well-researched view derived from objective critical scholarship.
The gospels are composed to a large extent of what are known as 'pericopes' - collections of sayings, possibly made by the historical Jesus, possibly derived from other oral traditions. There is no hard-and-fast order in which these have been arranged (as can be seen from the differences between their arrangement in the three synoptic gospels). Trying to make a prophetic sequence out of them by trying to fit them into the completely different theological musing of St Paul is to my mind a fool's errand, irrespective of the innumerable different sects that have tried to do so.
-
You talk lot of sense sririam, from a believer-in-God point of view. Like your posts v much.
you have just condemned yourself, on this board at least.
-
And the reason he was dismissive of attempts to make reasonable explanation of the evangelising points being made, is that Jesus thought that the End of the World was just round the corner, so time was very short. Well, the End of the World was not just round the corner, and Jesus was wrong. Perhaps you might like to make some attempt to justify your position, or are you still banking on the idea that the 'End is nigh' and therefore blabbing on about your unexamined beliefs is sufficient 'witness'?
You are wrong on all counts. As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.
-
You are wrong on all counts. As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.
Leaving aside the obvious fallacy you've just committed, how do you know Jesus actually said this?
-
It might but it still leaves the question: why would signing up to a belief be a better way of selecting worthy recipients of an afterlife than judging them by their actions?
OK I can see I'm not getting through to you, probably because I am not explaining what I mean well enough. I'll have one more go and leave it as your opening post was addressed to Christians which means a bias towards doctrine. I am suggesting that your ideas of Christian doctrine need to be suspended when viewing my replies and to make it clearer I am not a Christian and neither was Jesus.
That fails on several levels:
First, if you want to use that analogy then you’d have to add lots of others telling you to go in different directions for your drink. How would you choose one over the rest?
Second, you’re attempting an argument from consequences. How desperate you are for something to be true tells you nothing about whether it is true. Essentially you’re attempting Pascal’s wager here.
Third, the glass of water would be material and thus investigable. How would I investigate the truth or otherwise of a promise of an immaterial reward?
First comment: All analogies are imperfect and are not meant to deal with all the variables that a scientific experiment might. In this case it is a simple choice. There is only you and one other and it is you who has to make the judgement call based upon whether you believe the other person and the strength of your motivation to, for example, sustain your life.
Second comment: I am not attempting any argument as this is about a potential life experience not a head bound intellectual exercise, but, as regards consequences, in this analogy, yes you will only know the truth or otherwise by trusting the other person and making the journey. If you stay where you are you will die in your ignorance.
Third comment: If we are talking about a 'heavenly state of being' then it might be through the experience of inner overwhelming joy or blissfulness, timelessness, fulfilment, enlivenment etc. It is an enduring first hand experience rather than a second hand transient intellectual concept.
Not if the quote form John is to believed – that person is out of the game a priori no matter how good his actions in the here and now.
Then don't believe John.
That’s not the difficulty at all. Whether or not that person is “knocked off his centre” the difficulty here is this: when confronted with a non-believer who behaved well and a believer who behaved badly, why would a just god pick the latter over the former?
God knows! ;)
-
You are wrong on all counts. As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.
There are no actual records of what Jesus said. All is hear-say and written down only quite a bit later, having been translated, re-translated, etc..
One hears so often so many Bishops, Revs and others stating what Jesus said. None of them ever remembers to say, 'we believe that..'and they get away with it too. I wish more presenters would challenge them, at least occasionally.
-
Hi Torridon,
Interesting question. Consider the following words of Jesus, 'Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words. as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. I tell you it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that city, So I think the short answer to your question - Yes.
This makes little sense to me.
Why would Jesus, himself prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to save souls, expect his disciples to give up so easily ?
Even less sense, is the implication that all people in the same city would be judged, as if of a single mind and character.
-
You are wrong on all counts. As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.
So, Dicky is wrong, why, because he is mistaken, apparently. This is somewhat reminiscent of your earlier, I know, why because I know that I know. I see a pattern emerging here; the common denominator being an unwillingess to engage, settling instead for a bland dismissive attitude.
-
You are wrong on all counts. As Jesus once said to His critics, 'You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God'.
I find it absolutely amazing that you know what Jesus actually said , how can you possibly know this ?
-
ekim,
OK I can see I'm not getting through to you, probably because I am not explaining what I mean well enough. I'll have one more go and leave it as your opening post was addressed to Christians which means a bias towards doctrine. I am suggesting that your ideas of Christian doctrine need to be suspended when viewing my replies and to make it clearer I am not a Christian and neither was Jesus.
Well fine, but the question remains: would whatever god you do believe in favour the hateful theist who believed the offer, or the kind atheist who didn’t?
First comment: All analogies are imperfect and are not meant to deal with all the variables that a scientific experiment might. In this case it is a simple choice. There is only you and one other and it is you who has to make the judgement call based upon whether you believe the other person and the strength of your motivation to, for example, sustain your life.
But to work an analogy must bear some relationship to the reality it’s attempting to model. DaveM for example told us that he knows because he knows because he knows. That’s nice for him, but lots of other people with lots of different beliefs think they know because they know because they know too – so your analogy requires several such people all claiming to know the way to the glass of water.
Second comment: I am not attempting any argument as this is about a potential life experience not a head bound intellectual exercise, but, as regards consequences, in this analogy, yes you will only know the truth or otherwise by trusting the other person and making the journey. If you stay where you are you will die in your ignorance.
But that is Pascal’s wager – “it’s a free bet so you might as well take it. If the offer is real, happy days; if it isn’t, you’re no worse off than you are now” etc. It fails for several reasons that have been well-rehearsed on this mb, and whether you meant to or not that is the argument you’re making.
Third comment: If we are talking about a 'heavenly state of being' then it might be through the experience of inner overwhelming joy or blissfulness, timelessness, fulfilment, enlivenment etc. It is an enduring first hand experience rather than a second hand transient intellectual concept.
It might be. And there might be tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri. Anything might be. What we’re trying to get here is to what's more probably is than isn’t.
Then don't believe John.
I don’t. As I understand it though, lots of Chrsitians do – hence the question.
God knows!
Oh great – why not have just said “don’t know” in the first place? ;)
-
There is absolutely nothing in the passage that indicates that this judgment does not apply to the whole of humanity. What you are doing is trying to reconcile the Pauline view of salvation by faith as a sine qua non, and apply it to a passage that directly contradicts that view. It may indeed be a view that has been traditionally accepted in your church, but that does not make it a particularly well-researched view derived from objective critical scholarship.
Sorry but you are incorrect. Perhaps you should start by looking at that other famous judgement - the Great White Throne Judgement found in Revelation 20. If you look at this chapter you will see that there is a first resurrection when the believers are raised. These we are told are blessed and their reward is to reign with Christ. Then a thousand years later the rest of the dead, i.e. those who are not believers are raised. Now I have no dogmatic position on whether this 1000 years should be taken literally or merely viewed as a long period. But here the Scriptures have a clear separation between believers and others. And it is only who are part of the second resurrection, those who are not believers who appear at this judgement. And the basis for the judgement handed down to them? On the basis of what they had done! This is a judgement according to works. Not surprising there are no Christians here, we already have been granted salvation and that by grace and not works.
Once this judgement is correctly understood we discover perhaps the most important truth emerging from this passage. There are those whose names do appear in the book of life and they are granted salvation. The implications of that are worth thinking about.
Now the Judgement of the Nations found in Matthew 25 is set on the contest of the Olivet Discourse. Jesus Olivet teachings are found in Matthew 24 & 25, Mark 13 portion of Luke 17 and Luke 21. If one takes the time to study these carefully (preferable together with many other passages on eschatology) one comes to the inevitable conclusion that there are no Christians here either and thus, once again nor surprising it is again a judgement by works and not grace.
-
There are no actual records of what Jesus said. All is hear-say and written down only quite a bit later, having been translated, re-translated, etc..
One hears so often so many Bishops, Revs and others stating what Jesus said. None of them ever remembers to say, 'we believe that..'and they get away with it too. I wish more presenters would challenge them, at least occasionally.
Evening Susan,
There is a little booklet written quite a few years ago by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the finest Christian scholars of recent times. It is entitled, 'The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?' Well worth a read if you can get it in a format suited to your situation.
-
Evening Susan,
There is a little booklet written quite a few years ago by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the finest Christian scholars of recent times. It is entitled, 'The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?' Well worth a read if you can get it in a format suited to your situation.
Can you cite one objective fact about Christ from that book? No doubt there are documents wwhich are reliably dated to the first century AD, but by the time anything came to be written down the narrative had been passed on orally and as we all know all such stories are embellished by the tellers. There's a booktitled 'Nation' by Sir Terry Pratchett which illustrates, particularly in the last few chapters, how such things happen.
-
Just read your posts Sriram, bugger it, I was going to rob several banks, collect the usual protection money, do a few more murders and I thought that was enough for this week, just planed some good frauds for next week.
Good job I read your posts Sriram, I thought the above was the norm until you explained that the various religions don't approve, I wouldn't have known otherwise.
Good job the various religions instruct us about these things, the sort off things we couldn't possibly work out for ourselves.
Well I never?
Regards ippy.
-
If one more forum atheist backswivels onto science or tries to justify his position on religion by means of methodological naturalism I think I'm going to Upchuck.
-
Sorry but you are incorrect. Perhaps you should start by looking at that other famous judgement - the Great White Throne Judgement found in Revelation 20. If you look at this chapter you will see that there is a first resurrection when the believers are raised. These we are told are blessed and their reward is to reign with Christ. Then a thousand years later the rest of the dead, i.e. those who are not believers are raised. Now I have no dogmatic position on whether this 1000 years should be taken literally or merely viewed as a long period. But here the Scriptures have a clear separation between believers and others. And it is only who are part of the second resurrection, those who are not believers who appear at this judgement. And the basis for the judgement handed down to them? On the basis of what they had done!
So your answer to the question posed in the OP is the the hateful Christians get preferential treatment.
-
If one more forum atheist backswivels onto science or tries to justify his position on religion by means of methodological naturalism I think I'm going to Upchuck.
on you go you silly upchucker.
-
Evening Susan,
There is a little booklet written quite a few years ago by the late Prof FF Bruce, one of the finest Christian scholars of recent times. It is entitled, 'The New Testament Documents - Are they Reliable?' Well worth a read if you can get it in a format suited to your situation.
I'm guessing he didn't use the scientific method when he wrote that booklet!
-
Compared to the garbage you spout Sass, I think I am reasonably well informed! ::)
You mean you it is reasonable to assume you are deluded too. :P ;D
-
If one more forum atheist backswivels onto science or tries to justify his position on religion by means of methodological naturalism I think I'm going to Upchuck.
There's a nice restaurant there, run by big Hughie, I hear that the Clam Chunder is popular.
-
You talk lot of sense sririam, from a believer-in-God point of view. Like your posts v much.
Thanks a lot Robbie! :)
If you are interested, please try my blog at the link to the left. There are several articles I have written that you may like. Start with the earlier ones.
And never mind these guys on here. They are just harmless, insecure chaps trying hard to find meaninglessness in a meaningful world! :D
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I'm guessing he didn't use the scientific method when he wrote that booklet!
I just love your posts. They are so erudite and profound and make such a major contribution towards enhancing the quality of discussion on this Forum.
-
So your answer to the question posed in the OP is the the hateful Christians get preferential treatment.
No. As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance. That claim remains unchallenged. It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.
-
No. As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance. That claim remains unchallenged. It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.
You talk of some 'only one' before whom, presumably, you expect to stamd and be judged? Do you feel you are subservient to this 'one'? Do you feel confident that your life will have qualified you to be let in?
If someone named Peter is there to ask you questions, would you dispute the decision if it was not to your liking? He is/was an ordinary person, after all, and therefore you are equally human.
P.S. Your first post was approx. 210 words which tended to hide meaning.
-
No. As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance. That claim remains unchallenged. It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.
I would argue that there is no such thing as a hateless christian either. All christians are humans and all humans experience both love and hate in some degree. We can all try to live our lives by a 'love your neighbour' injunction, and we all fail to some or other degree, being human, being realistic, being pragmatic. What we do in reality is to try to get along without impinging on other people's territory.
I suppose some infinitely wise judge could tot up the credits and debits of a person's whole life taking into account mitigating factors, but I don't see how a person could be judged on their beliefs as these change over time. A person's beliefs are only valid for a moment in time and it would be less easy to measure a person's beliefs over a lifespan to come up with some sort of average belief.
-
If you look at this chapter you will see that there is a first resurrection when the believers are raised. These we are told are blessed and their reward is to reign with Christ. Then a thousand years later the rest of the dead, i.e. those who are not believers are raised. Now I have no dogmatic position on whether this 1000 years should be taken literally or merely viewed as a long period. But here the Scriptures have a clear separation between believers and others. And it is only who are part of the second resurrection, those who are not believers who appear at this judgement. And the basis for the judgement handed down to them? On the basis of what they had done! This is a judgement according to works. Not surprising there are no Christians here, we already have been granted salvation and that by grace and not works.
So, basically, this god of yours is giving believers a free pass. In other words, your god is unjust. Doubly so as it has given us no evidence and no rational reasons to actually become believers.
It appears to be a very nasty fairytale.
-
I just love your posts. They are so erudite and profound and make such a major contribution towards enhancing the quality of discussion on this Forum.
that's very kind of you DaveM, I Think we are going to get along fine.
This is how it works ,you make religious claims and I ask you to prove it.
Up to now, in the history of human kind, no -one has ever been able to . So, you're on a looser to start with , however I look forward to watching you tie yourself in knots attempting to . Good luck.
btw I'm prepared and willing to change my mind as soon as you do .
-
No. As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance. That claim remains unchallenged.
Not so - I challenged you the other day to explain on what basis you've excluded the risks of these scriptures containing propaganda for Jesus - you declined to accept the challenge.
It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.
All very circular and self-referential, as well as being yet another fallacious argument from authority. However, unless you can meaningfully exclude the risks of human artifice then these 'scriptures' are indistinguishable from fiction.
-
You talk of some 'only one' before whom, presumably, you expect to stamd and be judged? Do you feel you are subservient to this 'one'? Do you feel confident that your life will have qualified you to be let in?
If someone named Peter is there to ask you questions, would you dispute the decision if it was not to your liking? He is/was an ordinary person, after all, and therefore you are equally human.
P.S. Your first post was approx. 210 words which tended to hide meaning.
Hi Susan, Some interesting questions. Let me try and respond as best as I can but, with your final comment in mind, perhaps I should split the answers across several posts.
First it comes as a surprise to many that Christians do not get judged (John 5:24). The Greek word Jesus uses here for judgement can be written phonetically as 'krisis; a word used to convey the concept of legal trials, of verdicts and judgements and sentences. Christians have already been declared 'not guilty' and do not stand before any such heavenly tribunal.
When Paul says (in Romans and Corinthians) that we must, 'all appear before the 'judgement of seat Christ' he uses a very different Greek word, the 'Bhema Seat'. Here Paul is using an illustration from the ancient Greek Games where the Bhema Seat was the podium where athletes where awarded their prizes. So Christians are assessed for rewards and not put on trial for judgement and potential condemnation. So while a man called Peter may be surprised to find me being allowed in free of charge he will already have seen sufficient other examples as not to ask questions.
Enjoy your day.
-
So, basically, this god of yours is giving believers a free pass. In other words, your god is unjust. Doubly so as it has given us no evidence and no rational reasons to actually become believers.
It appears to be a very nasty fairytale.
Also a response to Walters post #116.
Several years ago I posted the following on the old BBC board, Perhaps it is worth repeating it here.
As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!) From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.
For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic. And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.
For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.
The gulf between these two world views is so great that it becomes extremely difficult to find any common ground as a starting point for meaningful discussion. Which, unfortunately, is perhaps why mud-slinging and the exchange of veiled personal insults are so often the norm, rather than engaging in good vigorous debate, an exercise which frequently becomes virtually impossible.
-
Hi Susan, Some interesting questions. Let me try and respond as best as I can but, with your final comment in mind, perhaps I should split the answers across several posts.
First it comes as a surprise to many that Christians do not get judged (John 5:24). The Greek word Jesus uses here for judgement can be written phonetically as 'krisis; a word used to convey the concept of legal trials, of verdicts and judgements and sentences. Christians have already been declared 'not guilty' and do not stand before any such heavenly tribunal.
When Paul says (in Romans and Corinthians) that we must, 'all appear before the 'judgement of seat Christ' he uses a very different Greek word, the 'Bhema Seat'. Here Paul is using an illustration from the ancient Greek Games where the Bhema Seat was the podium where athletes where awarded their prizes. So Christians are assessed for rewards and not put on trial for judgement and potential condemnation. So while a man called Peter may be surprised to find me being allowed in free of charge he will already have seen sufficient other examples as not to ask questions.
Enjoy your day.
all very interesting but before any of it can be taken seriously you will have to show how you know any of it is true and not just a delightful fairy story for five year olds.
-
that's very kind of you DaveM, I Think we are going to get along fine.
This is how it works ,you make religious claims and I ask you to prove it.
Up to now, in the history of human kind, no -one has ever been able to . So, you're on a looser to start with , however I look forward to watching you tie yourself in knots attempting to . Good luck.
btw I'm prepared and willing to change my mind as soon as you do .
Horrors no!! The thought of me arguing for atheism and you responding with passionate reasoning for the claims of Christianity is more than I can handle. Time to be out of here and settle for several cups of strong coffee to recover my equilibrium.
-
Also a response to Walters post #116.
Several years ago I posted the following on the old BBC board, Perhaps it is worth repeating it here.
As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!) From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.
For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic. And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.
For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.
The gulf between these two world views is so great that it becomes extremely difficult to find any common ground as a starting point for meaningful discussion. Which, unfortunately, is perhaps why mud-slinging and the exchange of veiled personal insults are so often the norm, rather than engaging in good vigorous debate, an exercise which frequently becomes virtually impossible.
In that case why don't you start all your statements with
'this is what I believe to be true but I have no way of verifying it ' and be honest about it .
Otherwise all you are doing is repeating something you've read in an old book as if it is fact. And you do it with such authority that the hard of thinking might be fooled by it and you wouldn't want that would you?
-
Horrors no!! The thought of me arguing for atheism and you responding with passionate reasoning for the claims of Christianity is more than I can handle. Time to be out of here and settle for several cups of strong coffee to recover my equilibrium.
ive just re-read my post and it is misleading.
what I meant to say is, if you can produce evidence I will change my mind.
As you are aware , there is no evidence for me to produce .
-
DaveM,
No. As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance. That claim remains unchallenged.
That’s not true – it was challenged, but you ignored the challenges. First, as a general concept “hate” is in some cases mandated (“love the sinner, hate the sin” etc); and second the definition of “hate” is fluid in any case – for example I find a much of Christian homophobia, misogyny etc to be hateful.
It is a contradiction in terms. The Scriptures I provided then make it quite clear that on 'that day' they will find themselves counted amongst the unbelievers in the sight of the only One who is qualified to, and has the authority to, pronounce judgements.
Here’s the Scripture you provided:
“If you look at this chapter you will see that there is a first resurrection when the believers are raised. These we are told are blessed and their reward is to reign with Christ. Then a thousand years later the rest of the dead, i.e. those who are not believers are raised. Now I have no dogmatic position on whether this 1000 years should be taken literally or merely viewed as a long period. But here the Scriptures have a clear separation between believers and others. And it is only who are part of the second resurrection, those who are not believers who appear at this judgement. And the basis for the judgement handed down to them? On the basis of what they had done! This is a judgement according to works. Not surprising there are no Christians here, we already have been granted salvation and that by grace and not works.”
So according to you beliefs the first lot are “raised” and get a free pass even though the only criterion for their inclusion seems to be that they were believers. There’s no mention that I can see of excluding the nasty believers from that group. Your god then hangs around for an indeterminate amount of time (why?), then digs up the rest and “judges” them by some unspecified means.
And you think that to be a morally good way to carry on?
Really?
-
As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!) From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.
Well not all maths has anything to do with the real world. However, the key point is that axioms are self-evident (or just things you want to explore the properties of, but I digress). Euclidean geometry, for example, has axioms that you can draw a straight line between any two points and that all right angles are equal.
For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic. And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.
Yes, but why would you regard a god concept (one of the many) to be self-evident?
And, of course, if you start interpreting everything in terms of the existence of a god, without critically evaluating it, then you will become more convinced. It's the faith doublethink: for example - pray and whatever happens is interpreted as the answer.
For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.
For myself, it's just that I can see no reason at all to think that there is any god.
-
DaveM,
Also a response to Walters post #116.
Several years ago I posted the following on the old BBC board, Perhaps it is worth repeating it here.
As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!) From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.
And perhaps not. It’s a bad analogy because it’s an attempt at the going nuclear argument (see here for why it’s a bad argument: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/kaboom-going-nuclear-in-argument)
In short, that maths, religion and for that matter leprechaunism all rest on axioms does not give those axioms epistemic equivalence, first because the argument reduces all claims to guessing (ie, it says nothing about the likelihood of a god), and second because only the first of these creates a probabilistic model of reality.
For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic. And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.
As indeed do Muslims, and as indeed did believers in the Roman gods, the Norse gods, the Sumerian gods…
Finding “purpose and sense in the world” is no doubt lovely for those who need it, but belief in pretty much anything can do that. What you can’t do though is to commit the fallacy of reification – ie, assume that your psychological response to a belief says anything about whether that belief is true.
For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.
No it isn’t. My a-theism just means “without gods”, just as your a-leprechaunism means “without leprechauns” (and for the same reasons by the way). Atheists don’t say that god(s) don’t exist, but rather that there’s no good reason to proceed as if they do. There’s a big difference between those two positions.
The gulf between these two world views is so great that it becomes extremely difficult to find any common ground as a starting point for meaningful discussion. Which, unfortunately, is perhaps why mud-slinging and the exchange of veiled personal insults are so often the norm, rather than engaging in good vigorous debate, an exercise which frequently becomes virtually impossible.
Well, once you understand what the atheist “world view” actually entails perhaps the common ground should be reason. I have a shed load of it to bring to the table – your challenge would be to find some of your own to bridge the gap from your “faith” to something other than guessing.
Good luck with it though!
-
Also a response to Walters post #116.
Several years ago I posted the following on the old BBC board, Perhaps it is worth repeating it here.
As a teenager attending my first maths lecture I can still remember being very impressed by the lecturer commencing the course with a statement that all maths was built upon four axioms, which could not be proved, but were assumed to be true as they were self-evident. (Maybe even this has changed since!) From then on everything could be rigorously proven and the more we could do this and see the results as valid in helping describe and understand the world around us, the more confident we could become of the validity of our initial axiomatic assumptions.
For those of us who are Christians the existence of God is axiomatic. And the more we build our lives on this fact the more we find purpose and sense in this world, and the more certain we become of the validity of that axiom.
For the atheist the non-existence of God seems to be taken as axiomatic.
The gulf between these two world views is so great that it becomes extremely difficult to find any common ground as a starting point for meaningful discussion. Which, unfortunately, is perhaps why mud-slinging and the exchange of veiled personal insults are so often the norm, rather than engaging in good vigorous debate, an exercise which frequently becomes virtually impossible.
Seems to me that you are investing an awful lot on unverified assumptions. I don't think that 'no god' is axiomatic for atheists, rather that 'god' is a positive claim that need justification, and it seems to me that most people in the world merely bypass that need to examine one's assumptions, partly because, as you note, belief tends to become a self fulfilling or self validating experience; the main reason for this being that such beliefs have been growing in depth and breadth for millennia and they become entire epistemic cultural subworlds which most people find good enough to satisfy their curiosity and their need for an existential narrative that provides meaning and context for their lives. For the most part, that is OK, I think; it only becomes a problem when people preach their faith as true for all, seemingly without acknowledging that the entire edifice derives from an unverified base assumption.
-
Crazy as that sounds, Dave, but there is a strange phenomenon on this forum whereby The Christian Topic is where the atheists do the gatekeeping. So, for any discussion on Christian matters with fellow Christians you have to visit the Faith Sharing Area as Nearly Sane has mentioned. As you've probably noticed by now, you can barely get two Christians exchanging a comment on this Christian Topic board without interaction from t'other side. It was ever thus....
Indeed...
I seem to remember on another forum a while back, an attempt to get round this problem was to have an Atheism section. There was nothing there!
I think bluehillside must have been bored when he started this thread. No Hope to argue against. No Vlad. Alan Burns appears to have stopped posting. Yet he persists with his ridiculous equivalent of asking someone to swim from A to B, not allowing them to use any kind of swimming stroke and then gleefully claiming that it is impossible to swim from A to B.
Oh dear. :( I've used another analogy. Bluehillside, Gordon, SusanDoris, Walter: Please don't trample over each other in your rush to respond with any alleged refutations.
-
Sword,
Indeed...
I seem to remember on another forum a while back, an attempt to get round this problem was to have an Atheism section. There was nothing there!
I think bluehillside must have been bored when he started this thread. No Hope to argue against. No Vlad. Alan Burns appears to have stopped posting. Yet he persists with his ridiculous equivalent of asking someone to swim from A to B, not allowing them to use any kind of swimming stroke and then gleefully claiming that it is impossible to swim from A to B.
Oh dear. :( I've used another analogy. Bluehillside, Gordon, SusanDoris, Walter: Please don't trample over each other in your rush to respond with any alleged refutations.
To the contrary, you can use any kind of swimming stroke you like. So far though, you've never managed to propose one. And no, "it's magic innit" is not a swimming stroke.
-
On telling his disciples to go and spread the word, would Jesus have expected them to just give up when challenged to justify their position ? You will convince no-one if you aren't prepared to show your working.
You may be interested in these verses from Matthew 10:
13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
Reading the Gospels, I would suggest that Jesus showed a lot of working, e.g. backing up what He said by numerous miracles. This was not enough for some. When confronted by the miracles, they accused Him of doing his works by the power of Satan, not God! Their attitude is an object lesson in the impossibility of someone with the wrong worldview being able to understand. They had their own worldview of what the Messiah should be, Jesus didn't accord with that and so regardless of what He did, they were never going to accept him.
-
'the god' of science
those few words are so revealing about your way of thinking and is so disappointing to any right thinking person.
A euphemism for someone who thinks like you.
How did you get to this point?
Perhaps when she critically thought about what she heard
when did you loose your critical thinking abilities
She didn't! :)
and was anyone else involved ?
God perhaps? (correct me if I'm wrong SweetPea)
-
You may be interested in these verses from Matthew 10:
13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
Reading the Gospels, I would suggest that Jesus showed a lot of working, e.g. backing up what He said by numerous miracles. This was not enough for some. When confronted by the miracles, they accused Him of doing his works by the power of Satan, not God! Their attitude is an object lesson in the impossibility of someone with the wrong worldview being able to understand. They had their own worldview of what the Messiah should be, Jesus didn't accord with that and so regardless of what He did, they were never going to accept him.
The gospels were written well after Jesus was dead and gone. It could be, like many present day magicians, the guy was good at sleight of hand which took in the more gullible members of his audience. Certainly not everyone who saw Jesus perform rated him, even his own family appeared sceptical.
-
Reading the Gospels...
Why should we take those stories seriously?
This shouldn't be hard, if there is a god who wants us to believe, why is it hiding?
-
Sword,
Reading the Gospels, I would suggest that Jesus showed a lot of working, e.g. backing up what He said by numerous miracles. This was not enough for some. When confronted by the miracles, they accused Him of doing his works by the power of Satan, not God! Their attitude is an object lesson in the impossibility of someone with the wrong worldview being able to understand. They had their own worldview of what the Messiah should be, Jesus didn't accord with that and so regardless of what He did, they were never going to accept him.
What makes you think that the “wrong worldview” here isn’t actually the assumption that non-contemporaneous, multiply translated and subsequently edited accounts of “miracles” from the religious narrative to which you just happen to be most enculturated and for which there’s no corroborative evidence of any kind are necessarily true nonetheless?
-
Not so - I challenged you the other day to explain on what basis you've excluded the risks of these scriptures containing propaganda for Jesus - you declined to accept the challenge.
All very circular and self-referential, as well as being yet another fallacious argument from authority. However, unless you can meaningfully exclude the risks of human artifice then these 'scriptures' are indistinguishable from fiction.
Afternoon Gordon.
Let’s take a step back on this thread. It was started by bhs who directed a question aimed, in the first instance, at Christians and requesting responses from them. Now bhs is an atheist to the best of my knowledge. So the question could be paraphrased as, ‘Let’s assume for argument sake that this ‘figment of the imagination’ Christian God exists. Would Christians on this Board then care to answer as to whether this non-existent deity’s of theirs would respond more favourably to a kind atheist or a hateful Christian.
Now if you specifically ask Christians to give their thoughts on an aspect of their faith, then you must expect them to base their replies on what they consider to be their primary source of information – the scriptures of the OT & NT. The fact that you think this source to be no more than the unreliable, inaccurate ramblings of a largely uneducated, ignorant nomadic people from 2000-3000 years ago is neither here nor there. For the purpose of the discussion it also needs to be accepted, for arguments sake, that these are valid writings on which the Christian can base his/her answers. How else do you expect the Christians to inform you of their views unless you are prepared to allow to refer to, what for them, is their primary reference source for information?
But what happens? As soon as a Christians does this and particularly if the answer throws a bit of a curved ball at you? You pull out your favourite ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card and cry ‘Foul’. Your response is that it is not permissible to quote Scripture like that unless cast iron proof can be forthcoming to show that the text has not been added to, or modified, or enhanced in any way to suit man’s purposes.
Now if I started a post with dire warnings of the consequences of unbelief for atheists and quoted several passages in support, you may have some justification to tell me that you reject my claims as you considered the basis for my arguments to be unproven.
But when the atheist directs a question at Christians and then rejects the use of Scriptures by the believers in reply, I rapidly start losing interest in the debate. You cannot expect meaningful debate if you insist on tilting the playing fields so far in your favour.
-
Just read your posts Sriram, bugger it, I was going to rob several banks, collect the usual protection money, do a few more murders and I thought that was enough for this week, just planed some good frauds for next week.
Good job I read your posts Sriram, I thought the above was the norm until you explained that the various religions don't approve, I wouldn't have known otherwise.
Good job the various religions instruct us about these things, the sort off things we couldn't possibly work out for ourselves.
Well I never?
Regards ippy.
Well ippy...its nice that you are actually discussing my points instead of merely trolling me around. Welcome change!
About your points above....I had started a thread some months back about 'Role of Religions'.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12949.0
I believe that we (many of us...not everybody) have today reached a level of mental discipline and altruism only because of the teachings of religions and the discipline enforced by religions all these centuries. If religions did not exist we would today still be savages, fighting with one another with no sense of universal brotherhood or humanism or self control.
So...you have to thank religions for the discipline enforced on earlier generations ...such that today you have enough self control and sense of justice that you will not commit a fraud or a murder. But having said that, without law enforcement of today, how long this self discipline will last...no one can say.
We all need supervision....even today!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
DaveM,
Let’s take a step back on this thread. It was started by bhs who directed a question aimed, in the first instance, at Christians and requesting responses from them. Now bhs is an atheist to the best of my knowledge.
Yup.
So the question could be paraphrased as, ‘Let’s assume for argument sake that this ‘figment of the imagination’ Christian God exists. Would Christians on this Board then care to answer as to whether this non-existent deity’s of theirs would respond more favourably to a kind atheist or a hateful Christian.
Not really, but no matter.
Now if you specifically ask Christians to give their thoughts on an aspect of their faith, then you must expect them to base their replies on what they consider to be their primary source of information – the scriptures of the OT & NT. The fact that you think this source to be no more than the unreliable, inaccurate ramblings of a largely uneducated, ignorant nomadic people from 2000-3000 years ago is neither here nor there. For the purpose of the discussion it also needs to be accepted, for arguments sake, that these are valid writings on which the Christian can base his/her answers. How else do you expect the Christians to inform you of their views unless you are prepared to allow to refer to, what for them, is their primary reference source for information?
Nope. This is an approach you take a lot – essentially the reification fallacy again. The question wasn’t, “what does a book you think to be “holy” have to say about X?” at all. I may as well have asked what The Big Book of Leprechaunology has to say about the musical tastes of the wee green folk. Rather it’s a question about how Christians would go about squaring inconsistencies in their beliefs – in this case, a just god who appears to act unjustly.
But what happens? As soon as a Christians does this and particularly if the answer throws a bit of a curved ball at you? You pull out your favourite ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card and cry ‘Foul’. Your response is that it is not permissible to quote Scripture like that unless cast iron proof can be forthcoming to show that the text has not been added to, or modified, or enhanced in any way to suit man’s purposes.
Wrong again. You can quote Scripture if you want to, but that says nothing to the question on the table. When Scripture says believers get privileged treatment over non-believers regardless of their actions, that on the face of things seems to contradict the notion of a just God. The “get out of jail free” point is in response to the “it’s a mystery” reply to that question.
Now if I started a post with dire warnings of the consequences of unbelief for atheists and quoted several passages in support, you may have some justification to tell me that you reject my claims as you considered the basis for my arguments to be unproven.
Yes.
But when the atheist directs a question at Christians and then rejects the use of Scriptures by the believers in reply, I rapidly start losing interest in the debate. You cannot expect meaningful debate if you insist on tilting the playing fields so far in your favour.
First, as in most team sports the sides change ends at half time tilting the playing field makes no difference to the outcome 8)
Second, it’s not tilted in any case for the reasons I’ve just explained. For me the interesting conversation is about why people believe as they do, not about what the content of their beliefs happens to be (ie, Scripture). You seem to want only to cut and paste bits of your “holy” text. As others have pointed out, there is a faith sharing area for that kind of thing. What would be more interesting here though would be if you were prepared to talk about why you think these things to be true, especially when they present you with inconsistencies and contradictions.
-
Sriram,
I believe that we (many of us...not everybody) have today reached a level of mental discipline and altruism only because of the teachings of religions and the discipline enforced by religions all these centuries. If religions did not exist we would today still be savages, fighting with one another with no sense of universal brotherhood or humanism or self control.
Why would you think that? How on earth do you think we survived for so long before religions finally showed up at the equivalent to five minutes to midnight?
Do you really not think that, at best, what religions did was to codify behaviours that had become embedded over the millennia?
-
I believe that we (many of us...not everybody) have today reached a level of mental discipline and altruism only because of the teachings of religions and the discipline enforced by religions all these centuries. If religions did not exist we would today still be savages, fighting with one another with no sense of universal brotherhood or humanism or self control.
So...you have to thank religions for the discipline enforced on earlier generations ...such that today you have enough self control and sense of justice that you will not commit a fraud or a murder. But having said that, without law enforcement of today, how long this self discipline will last...no one can say.
I'm not so sure about that. Take Buddhism, for instance, it features no reliance on any sky-born extra-terrestrial judger, someone to be feared, looking down and evaluating our behaviour; and Buddhists are often among the most gentle and peaceful of peoples.
-
DaveM,
Nope. This is an approach you take a lot – essentially the reification fallacy again. The question wasn’t, “what does a book you think to be “holy” have to say about X?” at all. I may as well have asked what The Big Book of Leprechaunology has to say about the musical tastes of the wee green folk. Rather it’s a question about how Christians would go about squaring inconsistencies in their beliefs – in this case, a just god who appears to act unjustly.
Two questions. First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?
Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?
-
I'm not so sure about that. Take Buddhism, for instance, it features no reliance on any sky-born extra-terrestrial judger, someone to be feared, looking down and evaluating our behaviour; and Buddhists are often among the most gentle and peaceful of peoples.
torridon, Blue,
I think you misunderstand Buddhism. Only the Theravada teaches no God, no Atma etc. But more on that some other time.
Almost all religions, including the Mahayana Buddhism have a God of some sort (not necessarily Jehovah type) or a spiritual objective of some sort that regulates and enforces discipline.
Without the centuries of such discipline and such enforced love, altruism, charity, brotherhood....humans would never have learned to live together or trust anyone beyond their immediate geographical, linguistic and racial groups.
Religion is the first and the most powerful institution that has made people feel a kinship beyond such natural boundaries. In fact this is largely true even today.
-
Two questions. First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?
Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?
Would you use the Harry Potter books as an information source? Much of the Bible is as fanciful as those books.
-
But when the atheist directs a question at Christians and then rejects the use of Scriptures by the believers in reply, I rapidly start losing interest in the debate. You cannot expect meaningful debate if you insist on tilting the playing fields so far in your favour.
I'm happy to take these scriptures seriously provided that you can show that they are free of bias, mistake, exaggeration or propaganda - the claim that they are reliable is yours to demonstrate.
If your position seems to be that the Bible is true because it is the Bible is circular, and also represents special pleading, confirmation bias and arguments from authority/tradition. It may be true for you, but that would be the relativist fallacy unless you can show (as opposed to claim) that it is equally true for me too.
-
Would you the Harry Potter books as an information source? Much of the Bible is as fanciful as those books.
Well I am eagerly awaiting bhs' reply on his information sources. I sincerely hope he does not quote Harry Potter as the information source for his belief in an unjust God!
-
Two questions. First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?
Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?
what about critical thinking, employment of the scientific method , experimentation, peer reviewed papers and an accepted conclusion .
That's what I would do.
-
I'm happy to take these scriptures seriously provided that you can show that they are free of bias, mistake, exaggeration or propaganda - the claim that they are reliable is yours to demonstrate.
If your position seems to be that the Bible is true because it is the Bible is circular, and also represents special pleading, confirmation bias and arguments from authority/tradition. It may be true for you, but that would be the relativist fallacy unless you can show (as opposed to claim) that it is equally true for me too.
I think you are missing the point. If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions. You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.
-
I think you are missing the point. If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions. You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.
You can't use the Bible as an accurate information source as much of it can't be verified.
-
Two questions. First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?
Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?
Surely the point is that what you have said, based on your holy book, appears to make your god manifestly unjust. How do you believe that your god is just at the same time as believing what you think your holy book is telling you?
-
I think you are missing the point. If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions. You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.
By all means use them on a personal basis as they stand but at least accept that as they stand the risks of mistake, exaggeration, lies and propaganda remain unaddressed. The problem is though that some Christians, although not necessarily yourself Dave, expect the rest of us to take these scriptures seriously.
The Bible may be an information source - the concern is whether or not it be considered as a credible information source in view of the risks I've mentioned: I think not.
-
what about critical thinking, employment of the scientific method , experimentation, peer reviewed papers and an accepted conclusion .
That's what I would do.
Good idea. It would be very helpful if you could perhaps provide an example demonstrating how you would use this approach to prove, say, a beautiful sunset. (Or don't you do beautiful sunsets?). Or perhaps to convince me that a work of modern art (ugh) really is superb and worth spending a lot of money on
-
DaveM,
Two questions. First what is the information source you use on which to base your claims that God appears to act unjustly?
As I understand, two claims of Christianity are:
1. There is a just God; and
2. This God so arranges things that those who believe His "offer" are privileged over those who don't regardless of the behaviours of either group.
Prima facie those two statements appear to be contradictory. My question therefore is about that contradiction, not about the texts that set it out.
Second if you deny me the right as a Christian to use the Scriptures as my information source, which sources do you suggest I use?
You've missed the point – you're answering a question about why you believe what you believe by telling me what you believe. "Scripture says" as your answer is just circular reasoning: "a book says its claims are true/it's in the book so it must be true/a books says its claims are true etc..."
Lots of books make lots of claims about lots of truths - what makes yours so special, especially when its claims are mutually inconsistent?
-
Good idea. It would be very helpful if you could perhaps provide an example demonstrating how you would use this approach to prove, say, a beautiful sunset. (Or don't you do beautiful sunsets?). Or perhaps to convince me that a work of modern art (ugh) really is superb and worth spending a lot of money on
Oh c'mon Dave - you surely know that 'beauty' is no more than subjective opinion.
-
DaveM,
I think you are missing the point. If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions. You might as well ask Gabriella to provide answers on what she believes on issues pertaining to Islam, and then rule out her use of the Koran as information source.
No, you are: you're being asked a why question, not a what question. Specifically, why would a just god privilege one group over another for their beliefs rather than for their actions?
-
DaveM,
Good idea. It would be very helpful if you could perhaps provide an example demonstrating how you would use this approach to prove, say, a beautiful sunset. (Or don't you do beautiful sunsets?). Or perhaps to convince me that a work of modern art (ugh) really is superb and worth spending a lot of money on
Are you asking for proof of the sunset or for proof of the fact that some find it beautiful? It's easily done either way.
Assuming for now the latter, what you're doing here is conflating an objective claim of fact ("God") with a subjective claim of opinion ("beautiful").
Doesn't work does it.
-
DaveM,
Are you asking for proof of the sunset or for proof of the fact that some find it beautiful? It's easily done either way.
Assuming for now the latter, what you're doing here is conflating an objective claim of fact ("God") with a subjective claim of opinion ("beautiful").
Doesn't work does it.
Unfortunately, as so often happens on this Board, I believe the thinking behind my post is pretty clear but find it being misinterpreted. Whether by design or due to the fact that English as used here has diverge considerable from the UK I wouldn't be knowing. But I have already spent too much time on this Board for one day and a list of more essential things to be is building up. So for the moment I will leave it at that.
-
DaveM,
Unfortunately, as so often happens on this Board, I believe the thinking behind my post is pretty clear but find it being misinterpreted. Whether by design or due to the fact that English as used here has diverge considerable from the UK I wouldn't be knowing. But I have already spent too much time on this Board for one day and a list of more essential things to be is building up. So for the moment I will leave it at that.
That's disappointing. The English you used and that was used in reply was plain enough I'd have thought for there to be no ambiguity. You attempted an analogy that failed is all because of the qualitative difference between the comparables. Where's the misinterpretation?
For what it's worth, you strike me as potentially one of the more thoughtful theists here so I'd be interested to hear what you have to say. Just now though we're talking past each other because you assume your beliefs and want to discuss them as givens, whereas I want to question your assumptions.
-
#129
Yet he persists with his ridiculous equivalent of asking someone to swim from A to B, not allowing them to use any kind of swimming stroke and then gleefully claiming that it is impossible to swim from A to B.
Sword,
To the contrary, you can use any kind of swimming stroke you like. So far though, you've never managed to propose one. And no, "it's magic innit" is not a swimming stroke.
It's not like I had to wait long for you to illustrate what I said, is it?
Your opening post:
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
A question which assumes the Christian God, therefore anything that is said about Him in the Bible.
DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true. So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible
If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.
Anyway, I see that he will be ceasing his input (at least for now), so congratulations on alienating yet another Christian poster. Run along now and celebrate that your so-called questions remain unanswered by any Christian. Fortunately for Christians here, their faith is in God, not arguments about Him.
-
Unfortunately, as so often happens on this Board, I believe the thinking behind my post is pretty clear but find it being misinterpreted. Whether by design or due to the fact that English as used here has diverge considerable from the UK I wouldn't be knowing. But I have already spent too much time on this Board for one day and a list of more essential things to be is building up. So for the moment I will leave it at that.
I think it is more the case that your thinking is muddled, Dave, in using 'prove' in relation to subjective opinion - all that can be 'proved' is that you have a subjective opinion regarding a sunset: but 'beauty' is not an attribute of the sunset in question.
-
DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true. So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible
If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.
Look up! The point is sailing majestically about 30,000ft over your head. ::)
How do you reconcile a just god with one that favours believers over non-believers, regardless of their actions? The bible (apparently) says that both are true.
-
Sword,
It's not like I had to wait long for you to illustrate what I said, is it?
What you actually said was:
“Yet he persists with his ridiculous equivalent of asking someone to swim from A to B, not allowing them to use any kind of swimming stroke and then gleefully claiming that it is impossible to swim from A to B.”
To which I replied:
“To the contrary, you can use any kind of swimming stroke you like. So far though, you've never managed to propose one. And no, "it's magic innit" is not a swimming stroke.”
What exactly do you think has been illustrated?
Your opening post:
Quote
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
A question which assumes the Christian God, therefore anything that is said about Him in the Bible.
All it “assumes” is that some people believe in a particular god, and moreover that they believe this god’s wishes and intentions to be written in a book.
DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true. So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible
If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.
You’ve missed the point entirely. At no point did I ask him what the Bible says, so there’s no need to challenge what he says it says. I’ve taken the positions “just god” and “believers get special treatment” as givens. What I actually asked was how this apparent inconsistency could be squared.
Anyway, I see that he will be ceasing his input (at least for now), so congratulations on alienating yet another Christian poster.
If someone feels alienated because he can’t answer a question that’s a matter for him. My advice to him and to you though would be that it’s a bad idea to hang on to a mistake just because you’ve invested a lot of time in making it.
Run along now and celebrate that your so-called questions remain unanswered by any Christian.
A question doesn’t become a “so-called question” by dint of you being unable to answer it, and there’s nothing to celebrate. Would have been nice though if someone could at least have attempted to answer it.
Fortunately for Christians here, their faith is in God, not arguments about Him.
Which is lovely for them no doubt and no business of mine provided of course they don’t overreach by claiming their personal beliefs to be true for anyone else too, or indeed by expecting their beliefs to be privileged over any other guesses.
-
DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true.
If he, or you, can't demonstrate the Bible is free of mistake, exaggeration or lies then it can't be regarded as reliable. So, how have you excluded these risks?
So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible
You can indeed use the Bible - but unless you can exclude the risks I mentioned then your conclusions may not be reliable and, as such, are best discounted.
If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.
Don't be silly - if there are reasons to think the Bible is unreliable, bearing in mind its proponents haven't addressing the risks that it could be unreliable, then what it says is indistinguishable from fiction. In addition your suggestion that the Bible can only be challenged by what is said in the Bible is self-referential circularity built on a fallacious argument from authority.
Anyway, I see that he will be ceasing his input (at least for now), so congratulations on alienating yet another Christian poster. Run along now and celebrate that your so-called questions remain unanswered by any Christian. Fortunately for Christians here, their faith is in God, not arguments about Him.
That is indeed your problem: lots of faith but no credible arguments.
-
#129
It's not like I had to wait long for you to illustrate what I said, is it?
Your opening post:
A question which assumes the Christian God, therefore anything that is said about Him in the Bible.
DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true. So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible
If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.
Anyway, I see that he will be ceasing his input (at least for now), so congratulations on alienating yet another Christian poster. Run along now and celebrate that your so-called questions remain unanswered by any Christian. Fortunately for Christians here, their faith is in God, not arguments about Him.
You should NEVER accept anything as true, which can't be verified like much of the stuff in the Bible.
-
torridon, Blue,
I think you misunderstand Buddhism. Only the Theravada teaches no God, no Atma etc. But more on that some other time.
Almost all religions, including the Mahayana Buddhism have a God of some sort (not necessarily Jehovah type) or a spiritual objective of some sort that regulates and enforces discipline.
Without the centuries of such discipline and such enforced love, altruism, charity, brotherhood....humans would never have learned to live together or trust anyone beyond their immediate geographical, linguistic and racial groups.
Religion is the first and the most powerful institution that has made people feel a kinship beyond such natural boundaries. In fact this is largely true even today.
I think you have morality and religion the wrong way round. Religions codify morality, as Blue puts it I think, that requires social morality as a prerequisite. Having a moral conscience is ubiquitous in humans with the exception of some individuals with some or other disorder such as psychopaths. Religiousness on the other hand is not ubiquitous, it is widespread, but not ubiquitous. Religiousness requires a higher order of cognition than mere moral conscience. It was the agricultural revolution that saw humans learning to live together and to tolerate neighbours from different tribes. Being tied to particular plots of land necessitated the development of villages and communities that transcended tribal allegiances. I think religions have also played a part as you suggest, but the imperatives of the need for prosperity, security and trade have been the real drivers of how we evolved from lives based on narrow tribal loyalties to become community minded citizens.
-
One last time then as what I am suggesting is outside of the scope of this topic.
Well fine, but the question remains: would whatever god you do believe in favour the hateful theist who believed the offer, or the kind atheist who didn’t?
I am neither a theist nor an atheist but my view of the Christian God would be that it expresses disinterested love to all and I base this on this paraphrase of Matt 5 (45-48):
"Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends so that those who curse you are blessed, those who hate you are loved and those who persecute you are commended to God so that you may be recognized as an expression of the Divine. Otherwise you are no better than a despised tax collector if you select to give only to those who give to you. Imitate God, be complete, just as God is."
So as far as I can see there is no judgement based upon a balance sheet of credits and debits, belief and disbelief, but more about a transformed heart and mind which is in tune with a divine benevolence by following a straight and narrow path to attain this. In other words you are your own judge based upon a decision to follow the 'straight and narrow' or the 'wide path' leading to separation from the divine.
But to work an analogy must bear some relationship to the reality it’s attempting to model. DaveM for example told us that he knows because he knows because he knows. That’s nice for him, but lots of other people with lots of different beliefs think they know because they know because they know too – so your analogy requires several such people all claiming to know the way to the glass of water.
But that is Pascal’s wager – “it’s a free bet so you might as well take it. If the offer is real, happy days; if it isn’t, you’re no worse off than you are now” etc. It fails for several reasons that have been well-rehearsed on this mb, and whether you meant to or not that is the argument you’re making.
I was trying to simplify the analogy because you only selected one belief system. You have multiple choices to look for the water. You can trust your companion, you can remain where you are, you can leave your companion and choose your own path to the north or south or east or west because you believe you know better. The point I was making is that the truth or otherwise of the result will come from the experience not from the belief or a lot of metaphysical debate.
It might be. And there might be tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri. Anything might be. What we’re trying to get here is to what's more probably is than isn’t.
If you look at what I said, it wasn't about 'tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri', it was about inner experiences of overwhelming joy or blissfulness, timelessness, fulfilment, enlivenment etc. As it will be a personal experience to you it is unlikely that an assessment of probability will work. Sometimes we have to just experiment with a method ourselves and see what happens rather than expect others to pay for a scientifically based probability assessment. Jesus promoted his method, other religious initiators have promoted theirs.
-
Hi Blue
As I understand, two claims of Christianity are:
1. There is a just God; and
2. This God so arranges things that those who believe His "offer" are privileged over those who don't regardless of the behaviours of either group.
Prima facie those two statements appear to be contradictory. My question therefore is about that contradiction, not about the texts that set it out.
Ok, then to my mind there are only three logical answers to your challenge
a) "he picks the believer, obviously. This is God's justice you moron, not some simpering, liberal, lily-livered human justice. Get over it and shut the hell up"
b) "You have a point... that Is a contradiction, but listen I have many reasons for my personal belief in God so rather than dismantle so much of what gives my life meaning, I'm just going to accept that I don't know and hope that God is merciful and would welcome both people in the name of true forgiveness"
c) "good question, but listen, scripture is not infallible and there are many ways to understand the message of Jesus, rather than through what is an unhelpful binary examination of who is in and who is out of heaven"
Now, it seems to me that you have had versions of all three of these answers over the course of the thread, and all three you (or others) have dismissed. 'A' simply reinforces your point, 'B' is a cop-out and 'C' ignores the plain meaning of the scripture (an argument used by fundamentalist believers I might add). You apparently set the rules here.
Fair enough
but it leaves me wondering what the point is. It seems like you would rather wrestle over religious theory than actually engage with the human dimension that originates those theories. You treat these ideas as if they are somehow detached from human life and emotion, which I find confusing. A less generous person might suspect that all you are interested in is intentionally laying traps to demonstrate the error of religious belief, which sounds entertaining but is ultimately hollow.
I might be wrong about all that, but reading the entire thread has left a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth, and I think this is why: Not that you are wrong, but simply that no one has said anything of any value. For my money any of those three answers is valid, but the interest lies in what they say about the people who give them, rather than a posited god that you nor I believe in anyway. 'A' is pretty horrific, not much else to say about that. 'B' is honest in its doubt, which at least takes courage and marks someone as willing to be flexible in how their personal beliefs interface with the real world. 'C' is the most interesting because it attempts to keep religion relevant within the wider modern context, rather than just the personal.
But I already know what your going to say - that these claims must be challenged if people ask for special treatment based on religion like seats in the Lords, lessons in our schools blah, blah blah. As if that justifies your own dogmatic position that drives you to repeat the same narrow questions over and over and over again. Its reductive. Like god, you present your own poisoned chalice, challenging people to agree with you or be paraded as fools. Either way you win. And that, in the end, is what makes this so unbearably dull.
I suspect what comes next is a pedantic evisceration of my post, point by point. Well, who am I to deny you your fun?
Enjoy
-
No. As I pointed out in my very first post on this topic the 'hateful Christian' does not exist -not in Christ's eyes which is the only verdict of importance.
Really. You don't get out much, do you.
That claim remains unchallenged. It is a contradiction in terms.
No, really it isn't.
-
ekim,
One last time then as what I am suggesting is outside of the scope of this topic.
OK…
I am neither a theist nor an atheist but my view of the Christian God would be that it expresses disinterested love to all and I base this on this paraphrase of Matt 5 (45-48):
"Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends so that those who curse you are blessed, those who hate you are loved and those who persecute you are commended to God so that you may be recognized as an expression of the Divine. Otherwise you are no better than a despised tax collector if you select to give only to those who give to you. Imitate God, be complete, just as God is."
So as far as I can see there is no judgement based upon a balance sheet of credits and debits, belief and disbelief, but more about a transformed heart and mind which is in tune with a divine benevolence by following a straight and narrow path to attain this. In other words you are your own judge based upon a decision to follow the 'straight and narrow' or the 'wide path' leading to separation from the divine.
Leaving aside for now whether the “straight and narrow” should be as the Bible describes or something else, this God’s “unconditional love” doesn’t though seem to extend to His entrance criterion for an afterlife. DaveM has favoured us with a quote that tells us the believers get first dibs by dint just of being believers, after which from somewhere between straight away and a 1,000 years it seems (why do the superstition stories so often favour round numbers I wonder - 40 days and 40 nights etc?) the non-believers are dug up or something, when they are judged by some unspecified means.
Hence the question: why does belief get you the gold card, whereas non-belief means you travel coach regardless of the behaviour of each group?
I was trying to simplify the analogy because you only selected one belief system. You have multiple choices to look for the water. You can trust your companion, you can remain where you are, you can leave your companion and choose your own path to the north or south or east or west because you believe you know better. The point I was making is that the truth or otherwise of the result will come from the experience not from the belief or a lot of metaphysical debate.
Well if there is an “experience” then yes, as Pascal tells us. One of several problems there though is that though most of these gods are pretty insecure and thin-skinned. Following the wrong one is a big deal it seems punishable with all sorts of unmentionable tortures, so guessing at the path to the water one of them suggests carries risk too - namely that the real one is even more p***ed off than He would have been if you’d followed Him, or indeed if you'd done nothing.
I tell you, it’s a minefield!
If you look at what I said, it wasn't about 'tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri', it was about inner experiences of overwhelming joy or blissfulness, timelessness, fulfilment, enlivenment etc.
No, it was about what might be. What you filled that “might be” space with is a different matter.
As it will be a personal experience to you it is unlikely that an assessment of probability will work. Sometimes we have to just experiment with a method ourselves and see what happens rather than expect others to pay for a scientifically based probability assessment. Jesus promoted his method, other religious initiators have promoted theirs.
But what would you look for or investigate? Let’s say I think really, really hard about Jesus, about Mohammed and about Colin the Nabob of the Leprechauns and – lo and behold – each time I feel all snuggly and transcendent when I do it.
What would that tell me? What it would tell me is that the act of contemplation gave me an altered mental state, but it would tell me nothing whatever about whether the object of that contemplation was in fact real.
Now compare that with a materialistic proposition – that jumping out of a 20th storey window will bring you to a sticky end for example. You can test this claim and, regardless of your background, your culture, or your opinions the result will be the same and so on that basis we can construct a probabilistic model of gravity being real.
Can you see the difference here?
-
Now compare that with a materialistic proposition – that jumping out of a 20th storey window will bring you to a sticky end for example. You can test this claim and, regardless of your background, your culture, or your opinions the result will be the same and so on that basis we can construct a probabilistic model of gravity being real.
Oh no. serious problems trying to use methodological materialism to justify a position on religion.
It has nothing to say about it as you have kindly demonstrated over the years.
-
Samuel,
Ok, then to my mind there are only three logical answers to your challenge
a) "he picks the believer, obviously. This is God's justice you moron, not some simpering, liberal, lily-livered human justice. Get over it and shut the hell up"
And yet we’re told it’s for the poor sap to do the picking. All this God does apparently is to decide on the test that will afford different outcomes for each pick.
b) "You have a point... that Is a contradiction, but listen I have many reasons for my personal belief in God so rather than dismantle so much of what gives my life meaning, I'm just going to accept that I don't know and hope that God is merciful and would welcome both people in the name of true forgiveness"
Fair enough. If it makes no sense but you like it anyway, that’s no-one’s business but your own. Provided you don’t try to evangelise for it, you won’t be challenged on it.
c) "good question, but listen, scripture is not infallible and there are many ways to understand the message of Jesus, rather than through what is an unhelpful binary examination of who is in and who is out of heaven"
Oooff: “Scripture is not infallible” eh? You’ll get no argument from me, but I suspect that some here won’t be comfortable with relegating it to an early, crude and perhaps hit-and-miss attempt at moral philosophy.
Now, it seems to me that you have had versions of all three of these answers over the course of the thread, and all three you (or others) have dismissed. 'A' simply reinforces your point, 'B' is a cop-out and 'C' ignores the plain meaning of the scripture (an argument used by fundamentalist believers I might add). You apparently set the rules here.
I set nothing; logic does.
Fair enough
Really, no.
…but it leaves me wondering what the point is. It seems like you would rather wrestle over religious theory than actually engage with the human dimension that originates those theories. You treat these ideas as if they are somehow detached from human life and emotion, which I find confusing. A less generous person might suspect that all you are interested in is intentionally laying traps to demonstrate the error of religious belief, which sounds entertaining but is ultimately hollow.
Not at all. I’d be genuinely intrigued to hear an argument for “God” that isn’t hopeless. It doesn’t do any harm either when the likes of Alan Burns come here just to evangelise to remind him that building a house on sand is a bad idea.
I might be wrong about all that,…
You are.
…but reading the entire thread has left a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth, and I think this is why: Not that you are wrong, but simply that no one has said anything of any value. For my money any of those three answers is valid, but the interest lies in what they say about the people who give them, rather than a posited god that you nor I believe in anyway. 'A' is pretty horrific, not much else to say about that. 'B' is honest in its doubt, which at least takes courage and marks someone as willing to be flexible in how their personal beliefs interface with the real world. 'C' is the most interesting because it attempts to keep religion relevant within the wider modern context, rather than just the personal.
But I already know what your going to say - that these claims must be challenged if people ask for special treatment based on religion like seats in the Lords, lessons in our schools blah, blah blah. As if that justifies your own dogmatic position that drives you to repeat the same narrow questions over and over and over again. Its reductive. Like god, you present your own poisoned chalice, challenging people to agree with you or be paraded as fools. Either way you win. And that, in the end, is what makes this so unbearably dull.
Blimey. Ok...I respect your opinions here, and I have no particular issue with some of it. I also think though that truth matters (even in Trump times) and that claims of fact like “God” should be examined and tested before they are accepted.
Is that so bad?
I suspect what comes next is a pedantic evisceration of my post, point by point. Well, who am I to deny you your fun?
Enjoy
I’ll leave you to judge whether it’s pedantic, but if you think something can be eviscerated why post it? As it happens, while I don’t share your beliefs I found your thoughts to be some of the more stimulating I’ve seen. Thank you.
-
Vlad,
Oh no. serious problems trying to use methodological materialism to justify a position on religion.
It has nothing to say about it as you have kindly demonstrated over the years.
Sadly though, nor does anything else. Unless that is you've taken time out during your brief sojourn finally to figure out a way to distinguish your religious beliefs from just guessing about stuff?
-
Vlad,
Sadly though, nor does anything else. Unless that is you've taken time out during your brief sojourn finally to figure out a way to distinguish your religious beliefs from just guessing about stuff?
Since you are bothering people on the issue of distinguishing religious beliefs from ''just guessing'' perhaps you could explain what you mean by it.....
and why religious beliefs? Isn't that just special pleading on your part.
If I had to guess a belief I might not choose the ones I have derived by encounter and response which up to now are so poorly explained by those people who for some reason best known to themselves start guffing on about science.
Who knows I might even have settled on yours.
-
Well ippy...its nice that you are actually discussing my points instead of merely trolling me around. Welcome change!
About your points above....I had started a thread some months back about 'Role of Religions'.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12949.0
I believe that we (many of us...not everybody) have today reached a level of mental discipline and altruism only because of the teachings of religions and the discipline enforced by religions all these centuries. If religions did not exist we would today still be savages, fighting with one another with no sense of universal brotherhood or humanism or self control.
So...you have to thank religions for the discipline enforced on earlier generations ...such that today you have enough self control and sense of justice that you will not commit a fraud or a murder. But having said that, without law enforcement of today, how long this self discipline will last...no one can say.
We all need supervision....even today!
Cheers.
Sriram
I just picked up your post and carried on having a read through the rest, untill I noticed torridon's post 163, a well laid down explaination of how we humans arrived where we are today and it's also more or less where the evidence lies about the foundations of where and how our moral and ethical ideas originate.
None of the religious subscribers here or anywhere else have managed to supply any material that could be used as anything near to substantive supporting evidence for any of these, many, god or gods ideas
The whole idea of the various religions are to me so obviously man made, I see it mainly because life would be just the same as it is now without a god of any kind and there's no good reason to think there is such a thing as a god.
I susspect a lot of so called followers of the various gods have invested some considerable time and effert into the various proceedings involved worshipping them etc, they, even after the penny has droped don't like to admit as much.
How can anyone that thinks they have god presented in human form with the head of a blue elephant, expect to be taken seriously?
What's the point of having a discussion with someone that thinks a blue elephant headed human, figures in any way with day to day life?
Regards ippy
-
Indeed...
I seem to remember on another forum a while back, an attempt to get round this problem was to have an Atheism section. There was nothing there!
........
Thanks, SwordOfTheSpirit, for understanding what I was trying to express. At one time, I thought it may be an idea to have a 'peanut gallery' running alongside the threads on the Christian Topic, and then Christians would at least have a chance to have some discussion amongst themselves and t'other side could shout from the gallery. What intrigues me is the constant interest by those not interested in God to continue day after day, weeks turning into months and years, with conversations that get them nowhere.
Thanks, also for this rebuttal:
Quote from: Walter on March 21, 2017, 07:28:24 AM
'the god' of science
those few words are so revealing about your way of thinking and is so disappointing to any right thinking person.
A euphemism for someone who thinks like you.
How did you get to this point?
Perhaps when she critically thought about what she heard
when did you loose your critical thinking abilities
She didn't! :)
and was anyone else involved ?
God perhaps? (correct me if I'm wrong SweetPea)
Not wrong, SwordOfTheSpirit.... spot-on..
First time I've been able to get back to this thread, in a couple days, due to being without the internet and busy, busy with zee grandchildren. And to Blue.... will no longer derail the thread ('twas only in answer to DaveM's confusion). As you were.... as they say..
-
Your post is good sweetpea and so is Swordofthespirit's, I'm in agreement but others would say the Faith Sharing Area is the place for Christians to talk about their faith - & for people of other faiths.
What I do not understand is why a thread was started, addressed specifically to Christians & inviting answers from Christians, with the purpose of shouting down everything they say? Especially when it was a question that cannot be answered satisfactorily from a non-Christian point of view & the author must have known that.
-
I just picked up your post and carried on having a read through the rest, untill I noticed torridon's post 163, a well laid down explaination of how we humans arrived where we are today and it's also more or less where the evidence lies about the foundations of where and how our moral and ethical ideas originate.
None of the religious subscribers here or anywhere else have managed to supply any material that could be used as anything near to substantive supporting evidence for any of these, many, god or gods ideas
The whole idea of the various religions are to me so obviously man made, I see it mainly because life would be just the same as it is now without a god of any kind and there's no good reason to think there is such a thing as a god.
I susspect a lot of so called followers of the various gods have invested some considerable time and effert into the various proceedings involved worshipping them etc, they, even after the penny has droped don't like to admit as much.
How can anyone that thinks they have god presented in human form with the head of a blue elephant, expect to be taken seriously?
What's the point of having a discussion with someone that thinks a blue elephant headed human, figures in any way with day to day life?
Regards ippy
ippy,
You're off at a tangent and haven't understood a word of what i have written. Let us leave it at that!
-
You may be interested in these verses from Matthew 10:
13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
Reading the Gospels, I would suggest that Jesus showed a lot of working, e.g. backing up what He said by numerous miracles. This was not enough for some. When confronted by the miracles, they accused Him of doing his works by the power of Satan, not God! Their attitude is an object lesson in the impossibility of someone with the wrong worldview being able to understand. They had their own worldview of what the Messiah should be, Jesus didn't accord with that and so regardless of what He did, they were never going to accept him.
So why should anyone be judged upon their ability to understand ? Would a just, wise and loving god condemn people who cannot understand string theory ?
-
Since you are bothering people on the issue of distinguishing religious beliefs from ''just guessing'' perhaps you could explain what you mean by it.....
and why religious beliefs? Isn't that just special pleading on your part.
Come on Vlad, this has been explained so many times - are you really too dim to get the argument, even if you find fault with it?
One more time: the world is full of people who make unfalsifiable and unverifiable claims; this includes, but is not limited to, religious claims. Many of these claims (especially religions) are mutually exclusive, so they cannot possibly all be true. So, how can anybody distinguish any of these claims from guessing, mistake, wishful thinking, and so on?
If I had to guess a belief I might not choose the ones I have derived by encounter and response which up to now are so poorly explained by those people who for some reason best known to themselves start guffing on about science.
The point being that what you describe as "encounter and response" was an experience of some kind (I'm assuming that you aren't claiming a physical encounter with physical evidence). As stated before, religious experiences are not uncommon - neither are they confined to one religion. So how do you know that you have the correct interpretation of your experience and that others, from other religions, do not? And how on Earth are the rest of us supposed to evaluate it along with all the other unfalsifiable and unverifiable claims?
-
Your post is good sweetpea and so is Swordofthespirit's, I'm in agreement but others would say the Faith Sharing Area is the place for Christians to talk about their faith - & for people of other faiths.
What I do not understand is why a thread was started, addressed specifically to Christians & inviting answers from Christians, with the purpose of shouting down everything they say? Especially when it was a question that cannot be answered satisfactorily from a non-Christian point of view & the author must have known that.
Should I infer from that last part that if it cannot be answered by a non-Christian then it can be answered by a 'Christian? If so, what is the answer?
The other question that is being avoided is: what about all the other religions and gods you do not believe in; by what method do you know yours is the right one?
-
The question was answered but " it was a question that cannot be answered satisfactorily from a non-Christian point of view".
The rest of your post isn't relevant to this thread and is also something that has been asked before even in my time on this board, again not answered satisfactorily from the point of view of non-Christians & about which Christians don't always agree.
-
Robinson,
What I do not understand is why a thread was started, addressed specifically to Christians & inviting answers from Christians, with the purpose of shouting down everything they say?
It wasn't. "Shouting down" would entail something like, "shut up, I'm not listening to you". In fact what's happened is that the answers have been listened to, and their inconsistencies challenged. That's how dialogue works.
Especially when it was a question that cannot be answered satisfactorily from a non-Christian point of view & the author must have known that.
"The author" knew no such thing. A group of people appear to believe two things that are mutually inconsistent, and arguably contradictory. Why would they not be able to consider that paradox and respond to it?
-
Robinson,
The question was answered but " it was a question that cannot be answered satisfactorily from a non-Christian point of view".
What makes you think it's been answered satisfactorily from any point of view?
The rest of your post isn't relevant to this thread and is also something that has been asked before even in my time on this board, again not answered satisfactorily from the point of view of non-Christians & about which Christians don't always agree.
But the question remains nonetheless: if I'm confronted with ten believers in ten different religious faiths on what basis should I privilege the opinion of any one over those of the other nine?
-
Vlad,
Since you are bothering people on the issue of distinguishing religious beliefs from ''just guessing'' perhaps you could explain what you mean by it.....
and why religious beliefs? Isn't that just special pleading on your part.
If I had to guess a belief I might not choose the ones I have derived by encounter and response which up to now are so poorly explained by those people who for some reason best known to themselves start guffing on about science.
Who knows I might even have settled on yours.
Some got there before me very competently in his Reply 177.
-
torri,
So why should anyone be judged upon their ability to understand ? Would a just, wise and loving god condemn people who cannot understand string theory ?
Quite. In this country at least too we generally don't allow people to enter into contracts until they're 18. How I wonder does the "if you believe you're in, if you don't though...etc" deal work for those who are not competent or mature enough to sign up? Is there a special procedure - parents or guardians given power of attorney or something? I think we should be told!
-
But what would you look for or investigate? Let’s say I think really, really hard about Jesus, about Mohammed and about Colin the Nabob of the Leprechauns and – lo and behold – each time I feel all snuggly and transcendent when I do it.
What would that tell me? What it would tell me is that the act of contemplation gave me an altered mental state, but it would tell me nothing whatever about whether the object of that contemplation was in fact real.
Now compare that with a materialistic proposition – that jumping out of a 20th storey window will bring you to a sticky end for example. You can test this claim and, regardless of your background, your culture, or your opinions the result will be the same and so on that basis we can construct a probabilistic model of gravity being real.
Can you see the difference here?
Oh yes, I can see the difference and it illustrates the difficulty in suspending the habit of trying to treat the 'inner' as a material object for investigation and forming a subjective model of the result. It is also based upon the assertion that the only 'reality' is a physical one because that is the only one the mind can form a model of and provide evidence for. I doubt whether anybody is interested in my take on the Jesus method because most seem more concerned in either sustaining a belief or destroying or belittling a belief. However I would suggest that it is based upon the word used in the New Testament 'metanoia', which in my view is badly translated as 'repent'. In this context there is the physical objective world, beyond that the metaphysical subjective thinking, model making 'world' and beyond that meta (beyond) noia (mind). So to take your points 'investigation of something, thinking hard, feeling snuggly, altered mental state, objects of contemplation' are terms that do not belong to metanoia. It has more to do with conscious stillness in the midst of the subjective and objective distractions. So I would say 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand' is an invitation to find that space now and sustain the connection, not when you are dead.
Here endeth the first lesson. ;)
-
ippy,
You're off at a tangent and haven't understood a word of what i have written. Let us leave it at that!
I'll assume you didn't read torri's post on this thread.
So you're telling me that the people that originated these "religions", didn't adopt any and every idea that was already there as useful editions of ideas for them to add to their portfolio of spurious claims of superior moral and ethical integrity.
Like I said after having invested some considerable time and effort into the promotion of blue elephant man, I suppose it would involve some loss of face to admit how pointless the idea was, even when the penny has dropped, in the first place.
Why do people believe such obvious rubbish? It's not only stretching the imagination in the first place, there's not even a shred of evidence that would support the magical, mystical and superstitional base of any religion and no the ideas were formed inside the heads of mankind by survival/evolution first and then Mr ju ju man when he found he was able to manipulate his fellows via ju ju-religion like ideas, they both came out of the same cook book; it's so obvious?
Regards ippy
-
ekim,
Oh yes, I can see the difference and it illustrates the difficulty in suspending the habit of trying to treat the 'inner' as a material object for investigation and forming a subjective model of the result.
But the problem is that oftentimes those who have an “inner” (ie, subjective) experience also claim it to have an objective cause, and therefore a truth for other people too. And then they proceed accordingly.
It is also based upon the assertion that the only 'reality' is a physical one because that is the only one the mind can form a model of and provide evidence for.
No it isn’t. There may be any number of other realities – indeed, for what it’s worth I think there probably are other realities. Rather materialism allows us to construct a model of reality that’s distinguishable from just guessing about stuff, and it has nothing to say to conjectures about the non-material. Trouble is though, nor does anything else.
I doubt whether anybody is interested in my take on the Jesus method because most seem more concerned in either sustaining a belief or destroying or belittling a belief. However I would suggest that it is based upon the word used in the New Testament 'metanoia', which in my view is badly translated as 'repent'. In this context there is the physical objective world, beyond that the metaphysical subjective thinking, model making 'world' and beyond that meta (beyond) noia (mind). So to take your points 'investigation of something, thinking hard, feeling snuggly, altered mental state, objects of contemplation' are terms that do not belong to metanoia. It has more to do with conscious stillness in the midst of the subjective and objective distractions.
So I would say 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand' is an invitation to find that space now and sustain the connection, not when you are dead.
Here endeth the first lesson.
All very lovely no doubt, but here’s the problem with it: there are many people of many faiths who claim different facts for their beliefs that are also we're told obtained by contemplation etc. You can feel as much “conscious stillness" as you like, but as soon as you make claims of objectively true causal phenomena – “Kingdom of heaven”, “connection” etc – you’re in trouble. If you stick to, “I feel all tingly when I think about this stuff”, that’s fine; the minute you jump to, “therefore this stuff is causing me to feel all tingly” then you overreach.
Here endeth the second lesson.
-
All very lovely no doubt, but here’s the problem with it: there are many people of many faiths who claim different facts for their beliefs that are also we're told obtained by contemplation etc. You can feel as much “conscious stillness" as you like, but as soon as you make claims of objectively true causal phenomena – “Kingdom of heaven”, “connection” etc – you’re in trouble. If you stick to, “I feel all tingly when I think about this stuff”, that’s fine; the minute you jump to, “therefore this stuff is causing me to feel all tingly” then you overreach.
Yes, that's what happens when the thinking mind buts in and tries to think about it as 'stuff' and make images or models of the experience, or retrofit it to religious scripture. There are also the dangers of ego inflation from the experience which is probably what Satan's temptations of Jesus was meant to warn against. After all you can't have a Heaven full of egos can you, it's bad enough on Earth.
-
ekim,
Yes, that's what happens when the thinking mind buts in and tries to think about it as 'stuff' and make images or models of the experience, or retrofit it to religious scripture. There are also the dangers of ego inflation from the experience which is probably what Satan's temptations of Jesus was meant to warn against. After all you can't have a Heaven full of egos can you, it's bad enough on Earth.
Well fine so far as it goes, but how then should we treat claims of fact (“God”, "Satan" etc) made by those who do think their objects have caused their experiences if not for, “you’re just guessing about stuff”?
-
ekim,
Well fine so far as it goes, but how then should we treat claims of fact (“God”, "Satan" etc) made by those who do think their objects have caused their experiences if not for, “you’re just guessing about stuff”?
How does it matter whether we use Internet Explorer or Google to connect to the internet? It all the same.
The deities and images don't matter....its the connection and the inner transformation that is important.
-
Sriram,
How does it matter whether we use Internet Explorer or Google to connect to the internet? It all the same.
It doesn't. The analogy fails though because we can establish that there is an internet. With religious claims on the other hand all there is is the narrative that there's a connection to something, but no means to establish whether there actually is something to connect to.
The deities and images don't matter....its the connection and the inner transformation that is important.
They matter a lot when some want to claim them to be real, and to proceed accordingly in ways that affect others.
-
Sriram,
It doesn't. The analogy fails though because we can establish that there is an internet. With religious claims on the other hand all there is is the narrative that there's a connection to something, but no means to establish whether there actually is something to connect to.
They matter a lot when some want to claim them to be real, and to proceed accordingly in ways that affect others.
Well...there are billions of people who understand the connection and transformation.
I agree that some people might get extremely attached to their specific images and deities...leading to fanaticism. But as long as that does no harm...it is ok.
But I think in course of time (due to globalization) these people will also realize that specific images are not very important and they will then focus on the inner transformation. All paths lead to the same goal.
-
Sriram,
Well...there are billions of people who understand the connection and transformation.
No, there are billions of people who have explanatory narratives for the world and their experiences of it that often focus on a bewildering variety of causal agencies. That tells you nothing about the reality or otherwise of those agencies, but a lot about our pattern- and explanation-seeking nature.
I agree that some people might get extremely attached to their specific images and deities...leading to fanaticism. But as long as that does no harm...it is ok.
But if we accept the benign god stories, how then should we deal with the malign one as both types rely on the same rationale of "faith"?
But I think in course of time (due to globalization) these people will also realize that specific images are not very important and they will then focus on the inner transformation. All paths lead to the same goal.
If that “goal” is contemplative bliss or some such achieved by meditation, yoga etc then fine. When the goal though is to connect with an objectively true god though that’s a different matter.
-
Well...there are billions of people who understand the connection and transformation.
Who would they be? I mean, are you trying to co-opt everybody who has a religion, however much they disagree with each other and you? If not, what specific subset do you think "understand"?
All paths lead to the same goal.
I think there may be billions who disagree.
But then, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy - so how can we actually evaluate these claims?
-
Sriram,
No, there are billions of people who have explanatory narratives for the world and their experiences of it that often focus on a bewildering variety of causal agencies. That tells you nothing about the reality or otherwise of those agencies, but a lot about our pattern- and explanation-seeking nature.
But if we accept the benign god stories, how then should we deal with the malign one as both types rely on the same rationale of "faith"?
If that “goal” is contemplative bliss or some such achieved by meditation, yoga etc then fine. When the goal though is to connect with an objectively true god though that’s a different matter.
It doesn't have to tell us anything about the experience. The experience is an end in itself.
Our 'need to understand' does put its foot in and try to make some rational sense out of it...but that is really an interruption and does nothing except 'interrupt'.
Anything can be benign or malign depending on the person concerned. It depends on the level or development and extent of transformation in the person. For some people the image or deity becomes a powerful meme and starts fighting for survival and replication. In some others it remains just a preferred image.
In Hinduism we call this the 'Ishta Devta'...or preferred deity of an individual. No harm in that.
Why is connecting with an objective 'God' or Higher Self any more harmful than just experiencing bliss?
-
#168
Now compare that with a materialistic proposition – that jumping out of a 20th storey window will bring you to a sticky end for example. You can test this claim and, regardless of your background, your culture, or your opinions the result will be the same and so on that basis we can construct a probabilistic model of gravity being real.
Oh no. serious problems trying to use methodological materialism to justify a position on religion.
It has nothing to say about it as you have kindly demonstrated over the years.
Welcome back Emergence!
-
#173, #174
Sweetpea & Robinson: Thanks, You're welcome!
What I do not understand is why a thread was started, addressed specifically to Christians & inviting answers from Christians, with the purpose of shouting down everything they say? Especially when it was a question that cannot be answered satisfactorily from a non-Christian point of view & the author must have known that.
From what I can see, it's because his faith lies in arguments against the existence of God. If what the Bible says is true then it falsifies his faith, so at all costs he must try and assert that what is claimed is false. It is not a quest to establish truth, but reasons to justify disbelief.
If you were to critically examine the worldview used as the foundation for his arguments, you would find that it is replete with all the kinds of fallacies and logical contradictions that are levelled against religious belief. It's one reason that any attempt to get him to justify his own worldview results in allegations of shifting the burden of proof/negative proof fallacy/etc., .... If you've ever read any of Emergence's posts, he's done on a number on them time and time again.
-
If you were to critically examine the worldview used as the foundation for his arguments, you would find that it is replete with all the kinds of fallacies and logical contradictions that are levelled against religious belief.
Such as....?
-
So why should anyone be judged upon their ability to understand ? Would a just, wise and loving god condemn people who cannot understand string theory ?
People aren't judged upon their ability to understand. John 3 v 16:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
-
From what I can see, it's because his faith lies in arguments against the existence of God.
Then, as usual, you see wrongly: it is the failure or arguments for God that is the notable issue, by dint of them being either incoherent or fallacious.
If what the Bible says is true then it falsifies his faith, so at all costs he must try and assert that what is claimed is false. It is not a quest to establish truth, but reasons to justify disbelief.
'If' - so you'll effortlessly explain how you've excluded the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies in the Bible: on you go!
If you were to critically examine the worldview used as the foundation for his arguments
We've already dispensed with the 'worldview' nonsense.
you would find that it is replete with all the kinds of fallacies and logical contradictions that are levelled against religious belief.
You still don't get it: nothing need be 'levelled against religious belief' - all that need be done is show the arguments for religious belief (advanced by the likes of yourself) are incoherent or fallacious, which is where you are undone.
It's one reason that any attempt to get him to justify his own worldview results in allegations of shifting the burden of proof/negative proof fallacy/etc., ....
I see you still don't understand fallacies.
If you've ever read any of Emergence's posts, he's done on a number on them time and time again.
In your dreams, Sword - thanks for the laugh though.
-
People aren't judged upon their ability to understand. John 3 v 16:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
A god of love would not penalise anyone for not believing in it if there is no verifiable evidence it exists, which of course there isn't.
-
floo - "A god of love would not penalise anyone for not believing in it "
Agree with that.
sword of spirit - "People aren't judged upon their ability to understand"
Also agree with that, some can't understand no matter how they try.
-
Then, as usual, you see wrongly: it is the failure or arguments for God that is the notable issue, by dint of them being either incoherent or fallacious.
And that, as always is your opinion. If the premise(s) for the arguments are themselves incoherent or fallacious, the charge of incoherent/fallacious will be itself incoherent/fallacious.
-
If the premise(s) for the arguments are themselves incoherent or fallacious, the conclusions themselves will be fallacious.
Indeed - and we see that in some theist arguments. Mind you, many here (AB for example) don't seem to be able to distinguish between premises and conclusions, while others (Vlad, for example) don't seem to want to even try to produce an argument and just spend endless posts ritually slaughtering straw men...
-
People aren't judged upon their ability to understand. John 3 v 16:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Well now you are just contradicting yourself. This scripture suggests that people who are able to understand will get eternal life. Implication : those that cannot understand do not; the fate for them being 'worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah' according to your previous scripturelet.
-
And that is your opinion. If the premise(s) for the arguments are themselves incoherent or fallacious, the conclusions themselves will be fallacious.
You have shot yourself in the foot, since this is exactly the problem with arguments for Gods advanced by you theist chappies.
So, you'll now illustrate your point by citing a specific argument made by a non-theist such as myself against God, as opposed to being a rebuttal of an argument for God, and what fallacy was involved.
On you go!
-
And that, as always is your opinion. If the premise(s) for the arguments are themselves incoherent or fallacious, the charge of incoherent/fallacious will be itself incoherent/fallacious.
That may win the prize for the most condensed Moebius strip of wrongness that I have ever seen. Can you tell the viewers at home what your preparation was to produce this high density mince?
-
Can you cite one objective fact about Christ from that book? No doubt there are documents wwhich are reliably dated to the first century AD, but by the time anything came to be written down the narrative had been passed on orally and as we all know all such stories are embellished by the tellers. There's a booktitled 'Nation' by Sir Terry Pratchett which illustrates, particularly in the last few chapters, how such things happen.
Hi Susan, My apologies for taking so long to respond to your request. Apart from having other things to attend to I also invariably have great problems in actually accessing the Board,
After much thought I concluded that a short one or two line extract of quotes was of little value. So with much trepidation I attach a lo----ng slightly edited extract from the FF Bruce book that I referred to. It is taken from a section which deals with comparing the quality of the historical evidence for the validity of the Gospels to that for much secular history dating from around the same period. I am hoping you can perhaps get some assistance from someone in working your way through it.
My source material goes back a few years and there may well be later findings which have added to our knowledge since then. But I believe the following examples remain valid.
First a brief synopsis of the dates given for the manuscripts for ancient secular history.
For Caesars Gallic Wars there are several extant manuscripts in our possession but only nine or ten are good and the oldest of these is dated some 900 years later than Caesars day.
Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC – 17 AD) only 35 survive; these are known to us by no more than 20 manuscripts of any consequence, only one of which and that containing fragments of Books iii & iv, is as old as the fourth century AD.
Of the 14 books of the Histories of Tacitus (c AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the 16 books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two manuscripts, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh century AD.
The Histories of Thucydides (c 460 – 400 BC) is known to us from eight manuscripts, the earliest belonging to c 900 AD and a few papyrus scraps dating to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c 448 – 428 BC) Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest date of their works which are of any use to us are over 1 300 years later than the originals.
But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect. The two well-known manuscripts; the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are dated at around 350 AD. However, there are considerable numbers of fragments of copies of the NT books dated in the period AD 100 – AD 200. An example is a fragment of John’s Gospel, which was and I presume still is held in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. This is dated circa AD 130, indicating that the fourth Gospel was already in circulation in Egypt by then, strong support for an early date for its writing. And there are many other examples.
The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri consists of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contain most of the New Testament writings. One of these containing the four Gospels and Acts belongs to the first half of the third century, while another containing Paul’s letters to churches and Hebrews dates at around 200 AD.
Another example is some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts at not later than AD 150 which contains paraphrases of several of the accounts found in the four Gospels.
Attestation of another kind is provided by quotations from the NT in many early writings. The letter sent by Clement, bishop of Rome about AD 96 to the Corinthian church contains quotations from the synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter. In letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch as he journeyed to his martyrdom in AD 115 there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Polycarp, the last living linked to the Apostles, in a letter to the Philippians c 120 AD quotes from the synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians,1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John.
So certainly for those of us who are believers, safe to say that in terms of both quality and quantity of the historical evidence, the NT is far superior to that for ancient secular history. Do you happily accept the validity of ancient secular history (which I do) but then reject the NT writings as myth and fairy tales? Well that is your call
-
#173, #174
Sweetpea & Robinson: Thanks, You're welcome!
From what I can see, it's because his faith lies in arguments against the existence of God. If what the Bible says is true then it falsifies his faith, so at all costs he must try and assert that what is claimed is false. It is not a quest to establish truth, but reasons to justify disbelief.
If you were to critically examine the world-view used as the foundation for his arguments, you would find that it is replete with all the kinds of fallacies and logical contradictions that are levelled against religious belief. It's one reason that any attempt to get him to justify his own world-view results in allegations of shifting the burden of proof/negative proof fallacy/etc., .... If you've ever read any of Emergence's posts, he's done on a number on them time and time again.
People that don't believe in gods etc, aren't trying to assert belief in anything or trying to make believers or anyone else believe in anything other than well evidenced ideas, which they are welcome to pull down with any well found evidence to the contrary and if such evidence is found to hold up under challenge, if that happens then we all change.
I haven't seen any similar option offered up by the various religions, they all it seems to me, rely on authority, assertion or things like dogma, take your pick.
The simplest litmus test would be if any one of the religions found something that proves that there is in fact one of your god figures that really does actually exist, don't you think the, ever present, media would have let us know with a never ending commentary about it and since that hasn't happened, I think the fact we haven't heard anything should, on its own, be telling you something, don't you?
I'm not asserting anything to you, so which one of these things I'm not asserting to you do you want to attack first?
ippy
-
Oh yes, I can see the difference and it illustrates the difficulty in suspending the habit of trying to treat the 'inner' as a material object for investigation and forming a subjective model of the result. It is also based upon the assertion that the only 'reality' is a physical one because that is the only one the mind can form a model of and provide evidence for. I doubt whether anybody is interested in my take on the Jesus method because most seem more concerned in either sustaining a belief or destroying or belittling a belief. However I would suggest that it is based upon the word used in the New Testament 'metanoia', which in my view is badly translated as 'repent'. In this context there is the physical objective world, beyond that the metaphysical subjective thinking, model making 'world' and beyond that meta (beyond) noia (mind). So to take your points 'investigation of something, thinking hard, feeling snuggly, altered mental state, objects of contemplation' are terms that do not belong to metanoia. It has more to do with conscious stillness in the midst of the subjective and objective distractions. So I would say 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand' is an invitation to find that space now and sustain the connection, not when you are dead.
Here endeth the first lesson. ;)
Yes an interesting issue. Strong’s offers the following options for the meaning of mêtanôêô – to think differently or afterwards, to reconsider (=repent). Se we are called upon to reconsider our thinking and our ways, to think differently about our way of life and, in the Biblical context, to return to God’s ways.
When we reflect on this in conjunction with Jesus call to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand we also need to go to the Lord’s Prayer and perhaps rethink what Jesus is saying. The first petition in this prayer is, ‘Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven’. What does this say? That we recognise that God’s Kingdom is already established in heaven and there His perfect will is being done. So we are praying that the situation as it is in heaven will also prevail on earth, this real physical place where the Kingdom did prevail initially, until man messed it up. We are praying for God’s perfect will to again be established on earth so that we may again live in the fullness of the Kingdom in a real physical sense.
For students of eschatology, both those of the post and premillennial persuasions, this situation will again prevail on earth during the Millennium. The only question is whether it will be ushered in through the efforts of the Church or through the agency of the Lord Himself.
Here endeth the second lesson. :P
-
And that, as always is your opinion. If the premise(s) for the arguments are themselves incoherent or fallacious, the charge of incoherent/fallacious will be itself incoherent/fallacious.
You are on form today, Sword - I see you've edited the original of the above that I quoted earlier, which read 'And that is your opinion. If the premise(s) for the arguments are themselves incoherent or fallacious, the conclusions themselves will be fallacious.' to the above.
So, you turned a coherent point into an incoherent one - well done you!
You surely must be running out of feet to shoot yourself in. P.S. if you are going to cite fallacies you'd do well to understand them first.
-
Sorry but you are incorrect. Perhaps you should start by looking at that other famous judgement - the Great White Throne Judgement found in Revelation 20. If you look at this chapter you will see that there is a first resurrection when the believers are raised. These we are told are blessed and their reward is to reign with Christ. Then a thousand years later the rest of the dead, i.e. those who are not believers are raised.
I find it extraordinary that you have to quote from Revelation to justify your position, but I note that even on this point your interpretation of the two resurrections that various sects differ considerably in their interpretations. But the Book itself: it has such a chequered history, with some Church fathers considering it canonical and others not, and not finally admitted to the western canon until very late. The Orthodox Church still does not consider it primary scripture, but keeps it 'under the desk', as if it were some kind of dangerous pornography. Furthermore, there was no complete text of the original Greek for the best part of 1500 years. Most ironically of all, Martin Luther himself - the man who made 'salvation by faith' a central concern of his reforms, considered the text "neither apostolic nor inspirational". And this is the text you feel obliged to quote as supporting your ideas! You are of course entitled to think the Bible (as we now have it) is the inspired and inerrant word of God, though this shows a monumental disregard for critical scholarship.
Now, I take on board Gordon's and Susan's reservations about the inability to be certain about the authenticity of the scriptures which have come down to us, even to the extent of being none too sure of whether there was a historical Jesus at all. I personally don't go so far as that, since I do believe there was a wandering preacher called Jesus who had a specific world view and teaching, and that this can to some extent be gleaned from the synoptics and a bit from Paul's letters. All this is buried underneath the private beliefs of each evangelist, and who and what they had come to think Jesus was. As far as I can see, he was an apocalyptic preacher who thought that the final judgment of the world would occur within a few decades, and this view is substantiated in text after text which can be compared. Matthew 25 itself alludes to this in the verse which refers to the Son of Man coming in judgment - a text which invites direct comparison with Matt 16: 27,28 -
"27] For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
[28] Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
The imminence of this judgment (which of course did not occur) is quite explicit in verse 28.
Matthew 24 ('The Olivet Discourse' or 'The Little Apocalypse') also refers to this imminent event coming within 'this generation'.
Finally, as regard there being two resurrections, Jesus is recorded in Matt 22 as saying there will be just one:
30]" For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
Matt 22
All this is by way of a digression from bluehillside's query as to whether blackguards can get a free pass to heaven simply by believing (as the quoted text in John seems to suggest) and whether the altruistic non-believers are simply condemned. If you take the whole Bible as divinely inspired and inerrant, then this text seems unequivocal. Except that it is contradicted elsewhere, and I mean contradicted, not supplemented with sub-clauses and addendums.
-
I think you are missing the point. If you do not want Christians to use the Scriptures, as they stand, to provide answers to issues pertaining to the Christian faith, then don't ask the questions.
It would be nice to get certain Christians to realise that the scriptures as they stand nowadays have certainly not always so stood. The discrepancies in the manuscripts that we have are huge. We don't have originals (the John Rylands fragment only amounts to a few words). We don't have copies of copies of copies of the originals. All we have are copies made many centuries later, and they differ from each other in thousands of instances. Even if research has provided us with something like what the original evangelists' words may have been, there's no guarantee that these texts are authentic. Don't start me on what we're supposed to think about 'inerrancy' when Jesus himself is recorded as misquoting the Old Testament!
What on earth were previous generations of Christians supposed to believe when they didn't have the benefit of the researches of modern scholarship and its quest for authentic texts? Well, since most of them couldn't read, they believed what their priests told them.....
-
ekim,
Well fine so far as it goes, but how then should we treat claims of fact (“God”, "Satan" etc) made by those who do think their objects have caused their experiences if not for, “you’re just guessing about stuff”?
That's a difficult topic because the language used is steeped in ancient history and much of it is mythical in the sense of attempts to convey an inner experience by analogy, metaphor, parable etc. Many of the words have changed status over the years from their original intention and translating them from one language to another adds to the difficulty. There is also the tendency to personify words like God and Satan which doesn't help. The word 'god', I believe, came from a Germanic source which meant 'that which is invoked' and so possibly related to whatever the individual had need of, e.g. power, peace, love, wisdom, etc. Spiritual practices of the uninitiated were difficult to sustain, perhaps personification helped them to focus and in this respect having one God with all the qualities is much easier than them being spread over many gods. Satan represented the forces of opposition, resistance, division and temptation which are detrimental to spiritual progress. So as far as the Christians are concerned, you might be seen as one of Satan's little helpers.
-
DavidM has addressed your questions. Yet rather than accepting his biblically-based answers, you are asking him to prove that they are true. So you are effectively asking him to swim from A to B, whilst denying him the right to use any kind of swimming stroke, i.e. What does the Christian God think about xxx, but you cannot use the Bible
If you wanted to challenge anything he wrote, show where from the bible that anything he said is wrong. That would be in the spirit of any meaningful attempt at discussion from the opening post.
Anyway, I see that he will be ceasing his input (at least for now), so congratulations on alienating yet another Christian poster. Run along now and celebrate that your so-called questions remain unanswered by any Christian. Fortunately for Christians here, their faith is in God, not arguments about Him.
No one is denying DaveM reference to the Bible - but such an approach is in itself at best self-referential, if one could find effective corroboration for his views there. I suggest that you find a host of contradictory views there, and it would be nice to find a few Christians facing up to the challenge of these contradictions, rather than offering a fanciful interpretation (not likely to be believed by every branch of Christianity in any case). For myself, as I hope you can see - I'm happy for you to use the Bible to make your points, but as far as I can see you seem naively (no doubt blissfully) unaware of centuries of biblical scholarship and objective criticisim.
Blue's question is perfectly legitimate - and very clear - and I think you are rather giving yourself airs when you appear to be speaking for all Christians.
I have no particular beef with Christians 'having faith in God', but you seem to want to have your cake and eat it, by referring to a book which you consider to be inerrant. At best, the Bible is a book of 'words about God' not 'the Word of God' - for as I've argued in the posts above, there's no certainty about there being an authentic text in any case.
-
floo - "A god of love would not penalise anyone for not believing in it "
Agree with that.
sword of spirit - "People aren't judged upon their ability to understand"
Also agree with that, some can't understand no matter how they try.
What is it that 'some can't understand'?
ETA Be specific, please.
-
Satan represented the forces of opposition, resistance, division and temptation which are detrimental to spiritual progress. So as far as the Christians are concerned, you might be seen as one of Satan's little helpers.
ekim
Your post is a nice attempt to represent Christian beliefs in terms of a pluralist, perhaps universalist, religious approach. However, the evolution of Satan as personification of evil can be traced fairly clearly through the Old Testament (where he scarcely appears at all), through the Apocrypha, right up to his almost dualist representation in John's Gospel. One thing that constantly annoys me when Christians start speaking as if all Christians had a uniform belief is precisely on this question of the Devil. No doubt there are millions who still believe in Satan as a real evil entity - others adopt a more metaphorical approach such as yourself. I don't see that there can be any kind of unified faith when there are differences in belief as momentous as this.
-
Sriram,
It doesn't have to tell us anything about the experience. The experience is an end in itself.
Our 'need to understand' does put its foot in and try to make some rational sense out of it...but that is really an interruption and does nothing except 'interrupt'.
Anything can be benign or malign depending on the person concerned. It depends on the level or development and extent of transformation in the person. For some people the image or deity becomes a powerful meme and starts fighting for survival and replication. In some others it remains just a preferred image.
In Hinduism we call this the 'Ishta Devta'...or preferred deity of an individual. No harm in that.
Why is connecting with an objective 'God' or Higher Self any more harmful than just experiencing bliss?
But the problem here is this: if we afford "faith" a status greater than just guessing then we unhorse ourselves when dealing with any faith claim. The 9/11 hijackers were pious men - they knew they were right because their faith told them so. How then should we rebut that when we afford exactly the same "method" respect when the outcome happens to be benign?
-
Sword,
Welcome back Emergence!
Vlad returned with exactly the same mistake he's had rebutted countless times and then run away from the rebuttal? Why?
-
Sriram,
But the problem here is this: if we afford "faith" a status greater than just guessing then we unhorse ourselves when dealing with any faith claim. The 9/11 hijackers were pious men - they knew they were right because their faith told them so. How then should we rebut that when we afford exactly the same "method" respect when the outcome happens to be benign?
People who kill will do so for any reason. Religion, race, country, wealth, ego, anything...
Some people just don't like others being different or having different life styles. They get insecure and start becoming violent. It is a psychological problem. Not a faith problem. Religion is just an excuse.
There are thousands of people who use religion and faith to help people. Why don't you appreciate that?
-
People who kill will do so for any reason. Religion, race, country, wealth, ego, anything...
Some people just don't like others being different or having different life styles. They get insecure and start becoming violent. It is a psychological problem. Not a faith problem. Religion is just an excuse.
There are thousands of people who use religion and faith to help people. Why don't you appreciate that?
No true Scotsman - House!!!!
-
Sword,
From what I can see, it's because his faith...
You need to be careful with conflating the commonplace meaning of "faith" (ie, confidence based on experience and reason) with the religious one (ie, the magic dust that gets you from assertion to fact with nothing in between) but ok...
... lies in arguments against the existence of God.
Actually it's in arguments that falsify the arguments made for god(s) - a very different matter. It could be that there is a god/gods, only no-one has yet thought up a cogent argument to demonstrate that.
If what the Bible says is true then it falsifies his faith...
Leaving aside that "what the Bible says" is often incoherent and internally contradictory, then it would falsify nothing as there's no postive claim that it's necessarily wrong.
This atheism defintion thing really has got you foxed hasn't it.
...so at all costs he must try and assert that what is claimed is false.
Certainly not at all costs, and I leave the assertions to you (see above for examples) and your pals. Reason and argument though are not assertions.
It is not a quest to establish truth, but reasons to justify disbelief.
So you assert. Why do you think that?
If you were to critically examine the worldview used as the foundation for his arguments, you would find that it is replete with all the kinds of fallacies and logical contradictions that are levelled against religious belief.
So you assert again. All you have to do now is to demonstrate that to be the case. It is of course entirely possible that I've made logically false arguments, but so far at least you've not been able to identify one. On the other hand, it's been trivially easy to identify yours (your repeated "world view" error for example).
How do you think this helps you?
It's one reason that any attempt to get him to justify his own worldview results in allegations of shifting the burden of proof/negative proof fallacy/etc., ....
I have no idea what you think my "world view" to be, nor why you think it needs to be justified. If an argument for "God" can be shown to be a bad argument then it can be shown to be a bad argument. That's the beginning and end of it.
Oh, and pointing out that some people shift the burden of proof, attempt the NPF etc isn't just "allegation" - it's identifying where they've gone wrong and explaining why.
If you've ever read any of Emergence's posts, he's done on a number on them time and time again.
Yes, and correctly so. I'm an equal opportunity falsifier - whether it's Vlad or anyone else who goes wrong, I'll point it out. Cock-eyed optimist that I am, I live in hope that when I do maybe one day he/they will return with something worth considering. Oddly though, you and he share the characteristic of ignoring the rebuttal and repeating the mistake - presumably in the hope that your interlocutor will eventually give up and go away.
-
Sword,
And that, as always is your opinion. If the premise(s) for the arguments are themselves incoherent or fallacious, the charge of incoherent/fallacious will be itself incoherent/fallacious.
Pardon?
You might want to revisit that thought, whatever it was supposed to be.
You're welcome.
-
DaveM,
Hi Susan, My apologies for taking so long to respond to your request. Apart from having other things to attend to I also invariably have great problems in actually accessing the Board,
After much thought I concluded that a short one or two line extract of quotes was of little value. So with much trepidation I attach a lo----ng slightly edited extract from the FF Bruce book that I referred to. It is taken from a section which deals with comparing the quality of the historical evidence for the validity of the Gospels to that for much secular history dating from around the same period. I am hoping you can perhaps get some assistance from someone in working your way through it.
My source material goes back a few years and there may well be later findings which have added to our knowledge since then. But I believe the following examples remain valid.
First a brief synopsis of the dates given for the manuscripts for ancient secular history.
For Caesars Gallic Wars there are several extant manuscripts in our possession but only nine or ten are good and the oldest of these is dated some 900 years later than Caesars day.
Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC – 17 AD) only 35 survive; these are known to us by no more than 20 manuscripts of any consequence, only one of which and that containing fragments of Books iii & iv, is as old as the fourth century AD.
Of the 14 books of the Histories of Tacitus (c AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the 16 books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two manuscripts, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh century AD.
The Histories of Thucydides (c 460 – 400 BC) is known to us from eight manuscripts, the earliest belonging to c 900 AD and a few papyrus scraps dating to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c 448 – 428 BC) Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest date of their works which are of any use to us are over 1 300 years later than the originals.
But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect. The two well-known manuscripts; the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are dated at around 350 AD. However, there are considerable numbers of fragments of copies of the NT books dated in the period AD 100 – AD 200. An example is a fragment of John’s Gospel, which was and I presume still is held in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. This is dated circa AD 130, indicating that the fourth Gospel was already in circulation in Egypt by then, strong support for an early date for its writing. And there are many other examples.
The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri consists of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contain most of the New Testament writings. One of these containing the four Gospels and Acts belongs to the first half of the third century, while another containing Paul’s letters to churches and Hebrews dates at around 200 AD.
Another example is some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts at not later than AD 150 which contains paraphrases of several of the accounts found in the four Gospels.
Attestation of another kind is provided by quotations from the NT in many early writings. The letter sent by Clement, bishop of Rome about AD 96 to the Corinthian church contains quotations from the synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter. In letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch as he journeyed to his martyrdom in AD 115 there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Polycarp, the last living linked to the Apostles, in a letter to the Philippians c 120 AD quotes from the synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians,1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John.
So certainly for those of us who are believers, safe to say that in terms of both quality and quantity of the historical evidence, the NT is far superior to that for ancient secular history. Do you happily accept the validity of ancient secular history (which I do) but then reject the NT writings as myth and fairy tales? Well that is your call
That's fascinating stuff. How though do you make the jump from, "stuff people wrote down" to, "the claims claims of supernatural doings are therefore true"?
-
Sriram,
People who kill will do so for any reason. Religion, race, country, wealth, ego, anything...
Some people just don't like others being different or having different life styles. They get insecure and start becoming violent. It is a psychological problem. Not a faith problem. Religion is just an excuse.
There are thousands of people who use religion and faith to help people. Why don't you appreciate that?
NS beat me to the punch there, and you've missed the point in any case. The extent to which people do good things just because of their faith(s) is moot (I happen to think it's an asymmetric game as we're inherently mostly altruistic in any case) but, either way, I'm concerned with the method (such as it is) of "faith" rather than with its outcomes. Good, middling or horrific, my point is that if we privilege faith over just guessing then we have no choice but to afford it the same privilege for any outcome.
Thus when a suicide bomber says, "I know I'm right because that's my faith" how should we challenge him when we respect what the local vicar does because of his faith? In other words, how should we reason someone out of a position he hasn't reasoned his way in to?
-
ekim,
That's a difficult topic because the language used is steeped in ancient history and much of it is mythical in the sense of attempts to convey an inner experience by analogy, metaphor, parable etc. Many of the words have changed status over the years from their original intention and translating them from one language to another adds to the difficulty. There is also the tendency to personify words like God and Satan which doesn't help. The word 'god', I believe, came from a Germanic source which meant 'that which is invoked' and so possibly related to whatever the individual had need of, e.g. power, peace, love, wisdom, etc. Spiritual practices of the uninitiated were difficult to sustain, perhaps personification helped them to focus and in this respect having one God with all the qualities is much easier than them being spread over many gods. Satan represented the forces of opposition, resistance, division and temptation which are detrimental to spiritual progress. So as far as the Christians are concerned, you might be seen as one of Satan's little helpers.
Yes, but that’s not the issue under discussion. Either you think that the contemplation of certain narratives leads to an altered mind state of some kind that says nothing to whether the objects of the stories actually exist “out there”, or you think the deep contemplation is a reliable means of identifying objectively real phenomena (regardless of how you describe them).
It’s a binary choice. The former I’m relaxed about; absent any means of verification, the latter seems to me to be indistinguishable from just guessing.
-
DaveM,
That's fascinating stuff. How though do you make the jump from, "stuff people wrote down" to, "the claims claims of supernatural doings are therefore true"?
Strangely though it may seem to you, with the greatest of ease.
-
DaveM,
Strangely though it may seem to you, with the greatest of ease.
Yes it does seem strange to me - bizarre even, not least because (presumably) you don't allow the same latitude to supernatural stories from other religious traditions.
Why would say, my writing down, "I saw David Copperfield saw a woman in half and reconnect her today" be a less accurate account of what actually happened for a future reader than the equivalent stories from your choice of texts?
-
ekim,
Yes, but that’s not the issue under discussion. Either you think that the contemplation of certain narratives leads to an altered mind state of some kind that says nothing to whether the objects of the stories actually exist “out there”, or you think the deep contemplation is a reliable means of identifying objectively real phenomena (regardless of how you describe them).
It’s a binary choice. The former I’m relaxed about; absent any means of verification, the latter seems to me to be indistinguishable from just guessing.
A bit of both. It says nothing as to whether the scriptural concepts e.g. God, Heaven exist 'out there' and it is a useful method of identifying real phenomena e.g. peace, love, hate, resistance 'in there'.
-
Hi Susan, My apologies for taking so long to respond to your request.
No problem. I have referred back to my post which asked if you can cite one objective fact about Christ. I have listened carefully through your post. I did not question whether any of the books of the Bible, Old or New Testaments, had been written, nor whether the people whose writings have been studied (translated, re-translated, transcribed, etc) existed. I do not know why you quoted so many BC writings, unless it was to show that there is corroborated history from those times and that is not disputed, and no-one doubts for instance that Caesar fought and wrote about his wars. Even if they do doubt such a thing, a religion was not started in his name and no faith beliefs are required in that case.
You quote dates and the earliest in AD is 96 AD. Bearing in mind the few people who could read or write, and the fact that those writing about this preacher known as Jesus were already convinced of the story being passed down by those who had invested in the new belief, it is not surprising that the assertions made in some were biased.
By the time other writings appear, however minimal, well over a century had passed and you have only to think of the difference in life from just 100 years ago to consider how information would have changed. Nowadays we are morelikely to have correct information, but it is not guaranteed.
So certainly for those of us who are believers, safe to say that in terms of both quality and quantity of the historical evidence, the NT is far superior to that for ancient secular history. Do you happily accept the validity of ancient secular history (which I do) but then reject the NT writings as myth and fairy tales? Well that is your call
I see bluehillside has read and responded to your post and thaty you use the phrase, ‘with the greatest of ease’. Please elaborate.
Oh, and I repeat my original question. Can you cite an objective fact about Christ?
-
But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect. The two well-known manuscripts; the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are dated at around 350 AD. However, there are considerable numbers of fragments of copies of the NT books dated in the period AD 100 – AD 200. An example is a fragment of John’s Gospel, which was and I presume still is held in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. This is dated circa AD 130, indicating that the fourth Gospel was already in circulation in Egypt by then, strong support for an early date for its writing. And there are many other examples.
The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri consists of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contain most of the New Testament writings. One of these containing the four Gospels and Acts belongs to the first half of the third century, while another containing Paul’s letters to churches and Hebrews dates at around 200 AD.
Another example is some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts at not later than AD 150 which contains paraphrases of several of the accounts found in the four Gospels.
Attestation of another kind is provided by quotations from the NT in many early writings. The letter sent by Clement, bishop of Rome about AD 96 to the Corinthian church contains quotations from the synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews and 1 Peter. In letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch as he journeyed to his martyrdom in AD 115 there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Polycarp, the last living linked to the Apostles, in a letter to the Philippians c 120 AD quotes from the synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians,1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John.
So certainly for those of us who are believers, safe to say that in terms of both quality and quantity of the historical evidence, the NT is far superior to that for ancient secular history. Do you happily accept the validity of ancient secular history (which I do) but then reject the NT writings as myth and fairy tales? Well that is your call
That there may be Christian manuscripts more ancient than many secular manuscripts is hardly significant, since most of the ancient manuscripts of Europe were preserved by the Christian Church in any case. The fact that we have a few manuscripts from a century or so after Christ does nothing to invalidate Susan's point about objective facts, nor blue's about moving from what a manuscript says to belief in the supernatural claims it makes.
However, your belief is based on even more shifting sands than this, since you base your belief on a canon and accepted text which only arrived on the scene fairly late. The first mention of a canon of scripture which you hold to be 'inerrant' is that formed by Athanasius in the 4th century. The Codex Sinaiticus (which you cite) contains the long scripture "The Shepherd of Hermas", no longer considered to be canonical. Yet it was once. Whence your source of divine truth? On a collection of writings that have happened in recent times to have been bound together between two covers?
In your belief in the inerrancy of scripture, have you even considered the fact that the early manuscripts were written in one case only, with no punctuation and no space between the letters?
Let me give you an instance of the problem in English:
lastnightisawabundanceonthetable.
Well, did I see 'abundance on the table' - or did I see 'a bun dance on the table'? Given the Christian propensity to believe in supernatural events, I suppose the latter might be a distinct possibility.
-
Vlad,
Some got there before me very competently in his Reply 177.
Yes he is rather a Bluehillside mini me isn't he....and comes out with the same poor arguments.
-
It's a sort of never mind the truth, feel the weight approach.
So that leads to an explanation that I used some time ago:
Do I think that Julius Caesar was Imperator of Rome? Almost certainly and there isn't just documents that cover this and to pretend that it is would be dishonest. (I'm looking at you, Alpha Course!!)
Do I think Jc crossed the Rubicon and said 'whoops, there go the dice!'. Deeply cynical, reads like propaganda.
Do I think he was descended from Venus? Er no.
-
However, your belief is based on even more shifting sands than this, since you base your belief on a canon and accepted text which only arrived on the scene fairly late. The first mention of a canon of scripture which you hold to be 'inerrant' is that formed by Athanasius in the 4th century. The Codex Sinaiticus (which you cite) contains the long scripture "The Shepherd of Hermas", no longer considered to be canonical. Yet it was once. Whence your source of divine truth? On a collection of writings that have happened in recent times to have been bound together between two covers?
I would suggest you go and read the same FF Bruce on the Canon of Scripture. You might learn a thing or two.
-
Vlad,
Yes he is rather a Bluehillside mini me isn't he....and comes out with the same poor arguments.
Presumably after all these years of ducking and diving you'll be along soon then to demonstrate that one of those arguments is "poor"?
Can't wait!
-
DaveM,
I would suggest you go and read the same FF Bruce on the Canon of Scripture. You might learn a thing or two.
Just to follow up on Susan's point, as you don't seem to be one of the knuckle draggers here I'd be genuinely interested to know how you "easily" jump from, "it was written down" to "that means the accounts of supernatural events are true", especially as there are countless written accounts of miracles from other faiths that you don't think to be true.
-
DaveM,
Just to follow up on Susan's point, as you don't seem to be one of the knuckle draggers here I'd be genuinely interested to know how you "easily" jump from, "it was written down" to "that means the accounts of supernatural events are true", especially as there are countless written accounts of miracles from other faiths that you don't think to be true.
There are no knuckle draggers here, only people massaging their hands with the pavement.
-
NS,
There are no knuckle draggers here, only people massaging their hands with the pavement.
As the man with a dicky back said after a visit to the chiropractor, I stand corrected ;)
-
DaveM,
Yes it does seem strange to me - bizarre even, not least because (presumably) you don't allow the same latitude to supernatural stories from other religious traditions.
Why would say, my writing down, "I saw David Copperfield saw a woman in half and reconnect her today" be a less accurate account of what actually happened for a future reader than the equivalent stories from your choice of texts?
In an earlier post NS suggested that I should probably be on the Faith Sharing Section. Well generally I have no problem posting on this section but, apart from derailing this thread, a discussion on miracles and the supernatural is one I would choose to discuss there under the rules specific to that thread.
However, the main thrust of my post on the manuscripts was an attempt to demonstrate that from the perspective of ‘normal’ historical events the source data for the NT documents is superior to that for secular events of the same period. This gives confidence in the historical reality of individuals like Jesus, Peter, Paul and others, to at least the general import of the words attributed to them, and also to events such as the Missionary Journeys. Indeed to reject these while accepting the purely secular history accounts makes no sense to me.
Finally two comments of a more personal nature. First to thank you for the kind comments you made in post #156. Much appreciated.
Second although I have been involved here since the days of the old BBC Board you will see that I am still short of 600 posts in total. This for the simple reason that I do not find much time to participate, despite being fully retired. I am actively involved in much Christian work. In addition I live in a most beautiful part of the world with a superb climate and magnificent mountains, beaches, flora and fauna. My great love is hiking and whenever the opportunity arises, and while I am still able, I head off into the mountains. So my frequent absences are not from pique or irritation but simply because I am occupied with more important priorities.
With that I will wish you goodnight as it is nearly bedtime here at the southern tip of Africa.
-
God's own country indeed, sounds wonderful.
-
Note I did not say that DaveM should be on the FSA but that if he wanted to discuss faith with fellow Christians that was the place to do it, and that challenge from anyone is allowed and fine on The Christian Topic.
-
Do I think that Julius Caesar was Imperator of Rome? Almost certainly
You almost certainly think Julius Caesar was Imperator of Rome? I would have thought if anybody was certain of what you think, it would be you :)
Anyway, the title of first Roman Emperor is normally attributed to Caesar's successor: Augustus.
-
However, the main thrust of my post on the manuscripts was an attempt to demonstrate that from the perspective of ‘normal’ historical events the source data for the NT documents is superior to that for secular events of the same period.
This is absolutely false. For example, some of the events of Julius Caesar's life (to borrow Nearly Sane's example) are attested by multiple contemporary sources. Not only do we have Caesar's own writings but writings by others including Cicero who was his political enemy. We even know what he looked like from near contemporary busts and coins that were struck while he was running Rome.
Evidence for the NT events doesn't even come close.
-
You almost certainly think Julius Caesar was Imperator of Rome? I would have thought if anybody was certain of what you think, it would be you :)
Anyway, the title of first Roman Emperor is normally attributed to Caesar's successor: Augustus.
Imperator is nor Emperor
-
Imperator is nor Emperor
Yes it is. However, I concede that in the time of Julius Caesar it meant something else and he was given that title in 60 BCE.
Have you decided whether you are certain of your thoughts yet?
-
Yes it is. However, I concede that in the time of Julius Caesar it meant something else and he was given that title in 60 BCE.
Have you decided whether you are certain of your thoughts yet?
And I would concede that by the time he was Imperator for life then it is so close to the basis for Octavian's ascension that it is difficult to see any difference.
The lack of certainty is simply the idea that we can be certain of nothing absolutely. The almost certain is about as close as I think we can be in on history. It means it would be bizarre to disagree.
-
In an earlier post NS suggested that I should probably be on the Faith Sharing Section. Well generally I have no problem posting on this section but, apart from derailing this thread, a discussion on miracles and the supernatural is one I would choose to discuss there under the rules specific to that thread.
That sounds like you'd prefer to discuss the miracle/supernatural claims in the Bible with those who already believe these claims to be true - thus avoiding challenges to these claims that would be disallowed in FSA..
However, the main thrust of my post on the manuscripts was an attempt to demonstrate that from the perspective of ‘normal’ historical events the source data for the NT documents is superior to that for secular events of the same period.
Not sure about that, and anyway it isn't the 'normal' events that are significant though, is it? Even if these events were true they are trivially true: to extrapolate from these 'normal' Biblical events being true to presuming that the miracle/supernatural ones are also true by association isn't justified: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and all that entails.
This gives confidence in the historical reality of individuals like Jesus, Peter, Paul and others, to at least the general import of the words attributed to them, and also to events such as the Missionary Journeys. Indeed to reject these while accepting the purely secular history accounts makes no sense to me.
The NT accounts are primarily anecdotal, of uncertain provenance, seemingly contain the risks of mistakes or lies or propaganda that you guys seem reluctant to acknowledge and have little or no non-Biblical corroboration. So, I suspect your 'confidence' is largely due to your confirmation bias.
-
Vlad,
Presumably after all these years of ducking and diving you'll be along soon then to demonstrate that one of those arguments is "poor"?
Can't wait!
Where to start. He and you missed the point of my post. Your special pleading that religion is some kind of failed world view because it is a belief.
He repeats as you do in the notion that I reject the spiritual experience of those in other religions. I don't although I might disagree in doctrine. He therefore caricatures people of religion.
He shares IMHO a seeming inability to distinguish what one believes with what one knows.
There is also backswivelling, for a reason which escapes me, into a comparison of empirical evidence with religion. That certainly is a poor argument.
-
This is absolutely false. For example, some of the events of Julius Caesar's life (to borrow Nearly Sane's example) are attested by multiple contemporary sources. Not only do we have Caesar's own writings but writings by others including Cicero who was his political enemy. We even know what he looked like from near contemporary busts and coins that were struck while he was running Rome.
Evidence for the NT events doesn't even come close.
Hear, hear!
-
. Not only do we have Caesar's own writings
But under the practice of historical analysis operated by many atheists, own writings must be viewed with suspicion and any histories written after the event must be discarded.
Also of course Cicero's writing supports the existence of Caeser ........they are both Romans...................
Of course the above fallacies wouldn't be my approach. But it does outline that atheists ought to examine what ancient writings they are prepared to accept and why.
-
Where to start. He and you missed the point of my post. Your special pleading that religion is some kind of failed world view because it is a belief.
There was no such special pleading. Any belief (about external, true for everybody, intersubjective reality) that comes with no means for testing its likely truth is equally flawed. As I said: how do we distinguish truth from mistake, wishful thinking and so on?
He repeats as you do in the notion that I reject the spiritual experience of those in other religions. I don't although I might disagree in doctrine. He therefore caricatures people of religion.
I don't think anybody doubts that people have "spiritual experiences", in fact that was part of my point. The problem is people have many, mutually exclusive, interpretations.
He shares IMHO a seeming inability to distinguish what one believes with what one knows.
Knowledge in the sense of justified true belief? So how is the distinction relevant? As already indicated, the problem here is finding any way at all to evaluate the likely truth of your interpretation of your experience along with similar claims.
There is also backswivelling, for a reason which escapes me, into a comparison of empirical evidence with religion. That certainly is a poor argument.
The only comparison is that there is a means to assess claims that provide empirical evidence. What's so complicated?
-
The only comparison is that there is a means to assess claims that provide empirical evidence. What's so complicated?
If you want an answer for why it's ''complicated''. ask any logical positivist.
-
If you want an answer for why it's ''complicated''. ask any logical positivist.
::)
So, you totally ignore the substance of what I said and start wittering about another -ism.
-
Vlad,
Where to start.
You could try being honest.
He and you missed the point of my post.
What point?
Your special pleading that religion is some kind of failed world view because it is a belief.
That’s not what “special pleading” means, and it fails epistemically not because it's a belief but because it’s a logically unsupportable belief.
He repeats as you do in the notion that I reject the spiritual experience of those in other religions.
I have no idea what you think about the “spiritual” experiences of others. I do know though that when those experiences lead them to believe in different gods to your own, then you think them to be mistaken.
I don't although I might disagree in doctrine. He therefore caricatures people of religion.
As ever, your “therefore” is a non sequitur. We were talking about you, not “people of religion” in general, though it is true to say that for the most part believers in one god tend to discount the beliefs of others in their gods
He shares IMHO a seeming inability to distinguish what one believes with what one knows.
No he doesn’t – that’s your inability. Time and again you tell us you have a “relationship” etc without once bothering to put in the hard yards that would take you from that personal belief to objective knowledge.
There is also backswivelling, for a reason which escapes me, into a comparison of empirical evidence with religion. That certainly is a poor argument.
Then stop doing it. When theists attempt to play on materialism’s ground, they must expect to be met in like terms – and to lose. If you want to posit the immaterial though (leaving aside for now the incoherence of the thought) then if you don’t want to frame it in materialistic terms (finally) think of another method to distinguish your claims from guessing.
Presumably now you’ll stick with your standard operating practice and ignore this point-by-point rebuttal and instead fly off in a different direction using more terms you don’t understand.
-
DaveM,
In an earlier post NS suggested that I should probably be on the Faith Sharing Section. Well generally I have no problem posting on this section but, apart from derailing this thread, a discussion on miracles and the supernatural is one I would choose to discuss there under the rules specific to that thread.
To be fair, I think NS was replying to comments from Christians about why they shouldn’t quote Scripture in answer to questions. Trading quotes is proper to the FSA, but I see no problem with discussing here why people think as they do.
However, the main thrust of my post on the manuscripts was an attempt to demonstrate that from the perspective of ‘normal’ historical events the source data for the NT documents is superior to that for secular events of the same period. This gives confidence in the historical reality of individuals like Jesus, Peter, Paul and others, to at least the general import of the words attributed to them, and also to events such as the Missionary Journeys. Indeed to reject these while accepting the purely secular history accounts makes no sense to me.
What makes you think them to be superior, and what would “secular” history as opposed to any other kind of history be in any case? Surely for this purpose history is history – people write down what other people did, and sometimes why they did it. That some of the characters happen to feature in religious beliefs is a secondary matter – either someone called Paul put the milk bottles out on a Tuesday morning or he didn’t.
The leap though is to go from that to, “and then he jumped on his unicorn and flew to the moon”. To paraphrase, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Finally two comments of a more personal nature. First to thank you for the kind comments you made in post #156. Much appreciated.
You’re welcome.
Second although I have been involved here since the days of the old BBC Board you will see that I am still short of 600 posts in total. This for the simple reason that I do not find much time to participate, despite being fully retired. I am actively involved in much Christian work. In addition I live in a most beautiful part of the world with a superb climate and magnificent mountains, beaches, flora and fauna. My great love is hiking and whenever the opportunity arises, and while I am still able, I head off into the mountains. So my frequent absences are not from pique or irritation but simply because I am occupied with more important priorities.
With that I will wish you goodnight as it is nearly bedtime here at the southern tip of Africa.
Now that sounds as close to wonderful as I can imagine. I did go to South Africa on business once – I remember Jo’burg being one of the scariest and Cape Town one of the most wonderful places I’d ever seen. The biltong picnic on Table Top Mountain was pretty cool, as was wine country (Constantia and Stellenbosch). Long time ago now though.
All best.
-
#218
Welcome back Emergence!
Vlad returned with exactly the same mistake he's had rebutted countless times and then run away from the rebuttal? Why?
I’m taking your use of the word rebuttal as a euphemism for “ he disagreed with you”
I could equally say, “you responded with exactly the same mistake you’ve had rebutted by him countless times, and then run away from the rebuttal?” Why?
-
#253
There is also backswivelling, for a reason which escapes me, into a comparison of empirical evidence with religion. That certainly is a poor argument.
Then stop doing it. When theists attempt to play on materialism’s ground, they must expect to be met in like terms – and to lose.
You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind. Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to non-material claims?
Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg652477#msg652477)
Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything! When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.
-
#253
You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind. Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to non-material claims?
Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg652477#msg652477)
Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything! When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.
No, it doesn't assume it can be applied to everything and this has been pointed out to you before but hey let's twist again.
If you make a claim that isn't subject to it, you need a methodology (I have a strange sense of deja ecrit). Until you provide one, it's just guessing. And again, already written, the vague hand waving over the term induction some time ago, showed you understand neither the term methodology nor the term induction.
-
Sword
I don't think it's about 'not allowing the non-natural' at all. Many people would be delighted if someone could demonstrate this, but as far as I can see, nobody has. It's true that plenty of people talk about it, but that is not a demonstration.
I don't think it's even about truth, but something more pragmatic - can you show it to me?
-
#253
You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind. Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to non-material claims?
You misunderstand yet again: he isn't, hence lots of us nasty atheists keeping asking you for a method that applies to your non-material claims. What are characteristics of this 'theist's ground' and what method have you used to identify and quantify these?
Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg652477#msg652477)
If you are referencing Vlad's approach to 'philosophical naturalism' then you are even more naive than I thought!
Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything!
It can be only be applied to that which is amenable to investigation via methodological naturalism - if this 'everything' you speak of involves stuff you think is non-natural then you'll need a method suited to that: got one?
When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.
When used outside of its scope it is being misused, but those here who understand methodological naturalism - which excludes you - do recognise it limits, hence we're always asking you guys for details of the method needed for the non-natural stuff you claim. Your lack of understanding of fallacies is glaringly obvious, since you end with a textbook example of the begging the question fallacy (plus it is a straw man).
If you've been posting this kind of stuff elsewhere I can't believe that somebody hasn't already pointed out to you just how limited your grasp of philosophical matters is.
-
If you've been posting this kind stuff elsewhere I can't believe that nobody has already pointed out to you just how limited your grasp of philosophical stuff is.
I bet you're right.
(I was going to write more, containing the word'arrogance', but decided against!)
-
Sword,
I’m taking your use of the word rebuttal as a euphemism for “ he disagreed with you”
No – the logic disagreed with him. Until and unless he finds a way to engage with and counter-argue that logic, the rebuttal remains.
I could equally say, “you responded with exactly the same mistake you’ve had rebutted by him countless times, and then run away from the rebuttal?” Why?
Flat wrong again. You seem to think that someone asserting “2+2=5” and someone else taking to time to explain why 2+2≠5 is mere difference of opinion.
It isn’t.
You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind.
No, you have. Some theists will attempt to use materialistic terms to validate their beliefs. When they do this, they lose.
Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to claims of the non-material?
First, it’s not my materialism – it’s just materialism.
Second, materialism assumes no such thing. It’s just indifferent to claims of the supernatural because they offer nothing with which the tools of materialism can engage. That’s why neither I nor anyone else here tries to apply it to non-material claims.
The problem for those who would make those claims though is that they have no method to put in its place so as to distinguish their claims from just guessing.
Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread
Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything!
Why are you lying about this?
When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.
Even for you this is particularly dim. Celestial teapots and the like are arguments in logic (itself a naturalistic phenomenon by the way) used to rebut bad attempts at logic made by theists (“you can’t disprove it, therefore it’s true” etc). For that purpose, they’re fine.
Have you any sense how far out of your depth you are here?
Anything?
-
bluehillside #261
I think the response to the final question in your post is' no idea at all'.
-
it fails epistemically not because it's a belief but because it’s a logically unsupportable belief.
That's a positive assertion and I look forward to it's justification......perhaps when Darwinian evolution gets round to supplying future porcines with wings.
-
#253
You have the problem the wrong way round. It is materialism playing on theists’ ground! Round pegs into square holes come to mind. Your materialism assumes the nature of that which it is investigating, so why are you applying it to non-material claims?
Vlad: On your question, I think that perhaps one reason is due to something you were highlighting a while back…philosophical naturalism! See e.g. your #1066 on the Karma thread (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg652477#msg652477)
Bluehillside would swear blind that he is not doing this (i.e. only involved in methodological naturalism), but he is, because his methodological naturalism assumes that it can be applied to everything! When used outside of its scope, it cannot be anything but philosophical because it has to come up with ways to avoid all the errors, fallacies and logical contradictions that emerge as a result, hence the need to talk about celestial teapots, pixies, leprechauns, etc. The goal is not to establish truth, but to establish a kind of truth that doesn’t allow for anything non-natural.
Hi Sword.
Yes you've caught the gist. There is on the part of some a retreat back into the halo of methodological materialism whenever the going gets tough...........a case of ''Philosophising? Not me governor!''.
-
You misunderstand yet again: he isn't, hence lots of us nasty atheists keeping asking you for a method that applies to your non-material claims. What are characteristics of this 'theist's ground' and what method have you used to identify and quantify these?
If you are referencing Vlad's approach to 'philosophical naturalism' then you are even more naive than I thought!
It can be only be applied to that which is amenable to investigation via methodological naturalism - if this 'everything' you speak of involves stuff you think is non-natural then you'll need a method suited to that: got one?
When used outside of its scope it is being misused, but those here who understand methodological naturalism - which excludes you - do recognise it limits, hence we're always asking you guys for details of the method needed for the non-natural stuff you claim. Your lack of understanding of fallacies is glaringly obvious, since you end with a textbook example of the begging the question fallacy (plus it is a straw man).
If you've been posting this kind of stuff elsewhere I can't believe that somebody hasn't already pointed out to you just how limited your grasp of philosophical matters is.
Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality. There is therefore no warrant or virtue making it central to arguments about Religion.
Nearly Sane states the obvious by inferring it is the only methodology there is and somehow that has assumed the status of ''The knock down argument''. Perhaps someone can explain how that has gone from an amusing non sequitur to cause celebre of atheism around here?
-
Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality.
You were doing o.k. until you mentioned morality.
Yourself and Sword make a lovely pair: brothers in confusion, perhaps.
-
Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality. There is therefore no warrant or virtue making it central to arguments about Religion.
Nearly Sane states the obvious by inferring it is the only methodology there is and somehow that has assumed the status of ''The knock down argument''. Perhaps someone can explain how that has gone from an amusing non sequitur to cause celebre of atheism around here?
Enough of the pointless and gratuitous slaughtering of armies of straw men! Nobody is claiming that we need to use any sort of materialism to asses your claims - but we do need some way of doing so, if they are to be taken seriously.
So, have you come up with any way at all to assess claims of gods, so that they can be distinguished from mistakes or guessing and so on?
-
Vlad,
As you’ve gone for a trifecta of wrongness I’ll rebut them in one go.
That's a positive assertion and I look forward to it's justification......perhaps when Darwinian evolution gets round to supplying future porcines with wings.
The logical unsupportability of your claims is shown every time you attempt them and they’re rebutted. That you ignore, lie about or mischaracterise those rebuttals does not diminish their force.
Hi Sword.
Yes you've caught the gist. There is on the part of some a retreat back into the halo of methodological materialism whenever the going gets tough...........a case of ''Philosophising? Not me governor!''.
No he hasn’t. I corrected him on this error in a previous post.
Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God…
The claim “God”, but yes – finally you’re getting it!
…or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God …
Again, the claim “God” but you’re doing well so far…
…or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality.
Aw no – it was going so well too! How on earth would you find a logical path from the claim “God” to morality?
There is therefore no warrant or virtue making it central to arguments about Religion.
No-one does. When some people makes materialist claims about their “God” though, then they must expect the tools of science to shoot them down Deepak.
Nearly Sane states the obvious by inferring it is the only methodology there is and somehow that has assumed the status of ''The knock down argument''. Perhaps someone can explain how that has gone from an amusing non sequitur to cause celebre of atheism around here?
Easily. It’s a knock-down point inasmuch as you have no method of any kind for anyone else to distinguish your claims and assertions from just guessing. You can tell yourself you’re in “a relationship” with a universe-creating deity as much as you like if that makes you feel all snuggly, but if you want anyone else to take the claim seriously then you have no choice but to accept as true too the bajillion other personal beliefs out there with no method of investigation either.
-
So, have you come up with any way at all to assess claims of gods, so that they can be distinguished from mistakes or guessing and so on?
If you perceive that something is indistinguishable from a mistake then have you concluded it is a mistake? same with guessing.
If you are a dyed in the wool so called ''solely methodological materialist and not a philosophical materialist'' you are stuffed I'm afraid.
The claims of Gods are open for comparison I would have thought. In fact you probably have your preference for which version of God you would think is more likely. Do you find that thought uncomfortable?
-
Methodological materialism has nothing to say about God or to put it another way science has nothing to say about God or to put it in a harsh, bald way science has nothing to say about morality. There is therefore no warrant or virtue making it central to arguments about Religion.
Nearly Sane states the obvious by inferring it is the only methodology there is and somehow that has assumed the status of ''The knock down argument''. Perhaps someone can explain how that has gone from an amusing non sequitur to cause celebre of atheism around here?
Perhaps you should stop lying about what people state!
-
Vlad,
As you’ve gone for a trifecta of wrongness I’ll rebut them in one go.
The logical unsupportability of your claims is shown every time you attempt them and they’re rebutted. That you ignore, lie about or mischaracterise those rebuttals does not diminish their force.
No he hasn’t. I corrected him on this error in a previous post.
The claim “God”, but yes – finally you’re getting it!
Again, the claim “God” but you’re doing well so far…
Aw no – it was going so well too! How on earth would you find a logical path from the claim “God” to morality?
No-one does. When some people makes materialist claims about their “God” though, then they must expect the tools of science to shoot them down Deepak.
Easily. It’s a knock-down point inasmuch as you have no method of any kind for anyone else to distinguish your claims and assertions from just guessing. You can tell yourself you’re in “a relationship” with a universe-creating deity as much as you like if that makes you feel all snuggly, but if you want anyone else to take the claim seriously then you have no choice but to accept as true too the bajillion other personal beliefs out there with no method of investigation either.
Hillside
Science doesn't do God.
Why do you think it is the central plank in your arguments about God and religion?
-
Hillside
Science doesn't do God.
Why do you think it is the central plank in your arguments about God and religion?
he doesn't, you lie about it. Why do you lie?
-
Vlad,
If you perceive that something is indistinguishable from a mistake…
It’s not just a perception – it’s a fact. If you think you’ve finally come up with a method to distinguish your claims from mistake or guessing though, why not share it?
… then have you concluded it is a mistake? same with guessing.
Nope – stop lying. If something is indistinguishable from a mistake or guessing, why would you treat it as anything other than a mistake or guessing?
If you are a dyed in the wool so called ''solely methodological materialist and not a philosophical materialist'' you are stuffed I'm afraid.
No he’s not for the good reason that you rely entirely on straw man versions of these terms.
The claims of Gods are open for comparison I would have thought. In fact you probably have your preference for which version of God you would think is more likely. Do you find that thought uncomfortable?
No, just fallacious. How would you propose to go about comparing god stories, and why would anyone think any of them to be more likely than any other?
-
Hillside
Science doesn't do God.
Why do you think it is the central plank in your arguments about God and religion?
For crying out loud, Vlad - this is misrepresentation of the most idiotic kind.
-
Vlad,
Science doesn't do God.
That's right. I've said as much many, many times.
Why do you think it is the central plank in your arguments about God and religion?
I don't. Why are you lying about that?
-
If you perceive that something is indistinguishable from a mistake then have you concluded it is a mistake? same with guessing.
I don't need to conclude that it is a mistake - there is just no reason to take the possibility seriously.
If you are a dyed in the wool so called ''solely methodological materialist and not a philosophical materialist'' you are stuffed I'm afraid.
Materialism really has nothing to do with the question. If there is no method at all that I can use to distinguish a claim from mistakes or guessing or imagination, then why take it seriously?
The claims of Gods are open for comparison I would have thought. In fact you probably have your preference for which version of God you would think is more likely. Do you find that thought uncomfortable?
I guess I could compare god stories, in the same way I might compare novels - but why would I consider any of them at all likely, and why do you think it would make me uncomfortable?
-
I guess I could compare god stories, in the same way I might compare novels - but why would I consider any of them at all likely, and why do you think it would make me uncomfortable?
Comparison of religion with complete works of fiction noted. I suppose to describe that as a ''position'' would be greeted with shouts of ''strawman''around here ?
-
Comparison of religion with complete works of fiction noted.
Without some sort of way to assess religious claims in order to distinguish them from mistakes, .... (do I really have to repeat this?)
I suppose to describe that as a ''position'' would be greeted with shouts of ''strawman''around here ?
That makes no sense - describe what as a position?
-
Without some sort of way to assess religious claims in order to distinguish them from mistakes, .... (do I really have to repeat this?)
Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.
Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves. And of course their moral theory, er, isn't.............So, i'm afraid it has to be religion then.
-
Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.
Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves.
Given the amazing variety of not only religions (see godchecker (http://www.godchecker.com/)) but other unsubstantiated beliefs that humans have believed in over their history, the conclusion that there is some level of "universal psychological incompetence" (as you put it) is pretty much unavoidable.
Humans have a tendency to make up, and believe, stories to "explain" stuff that they don't understand. It hasn't stopped, even outside of religions - people still have a tendency to believe stories over evidence: homeopathy, astrology...
And of course their moral theory, er, isn't.............So, i'm afraid it has to be religion then.
We've done this before.
Without even getting into morality and why we have it - even if you regard morality without a god is not "real" - that would be an appeal to consequences fallacy.
So, we are back again to how to distinguish your beliefs (and those of other religions and other "supernatural" claims) from guessing, mistake, etc.
-
Vlad,
Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.
No you couldn’t. Where you start is with the argument the theist attempts for an objective god and, when that argument fails, the claim can be ignored. Anthropology and psychology have nothing to do with that – a bad argument is a bad argument is a bad argument.
Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves.
What astonishingly convoluted and confused thought was that wreckage of a sentence even meant to convey?
And of course their moral theory, er, isn't.............So, i'm afraid it has to be religion then.
And again, what possible relationship do you think there to be between religions and morality other that is than that many of them have to varying degrees attempted to codify the behaviours we exhibit instinctively in any case?
-
But under the practice of historical analysis operated by many atheists, own writings must be viewed with suspicion and any histories written after the event must be discarded.
Of course we should be suspicious of his own writings in the sense of what they say. He was, after all, writing to tell the people in Rome how great he was, but they are still pretty strong evidence that he existed.
Also of course Cicero's writing supports the existence of Caeser ........they are both Romans...................
Of course the above fallacies wouldn't be my approach. But it does outline that atheists ought to examine what ancient writings they are prepared to accept and why.
The problem is that any objective analysis - by atheist or not - tells us there is zero contemporary writing about Jesus.
-
Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.
Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves. And of course their moral theory, er, isn't.............So, i'm afraid it has to be religion then.
Argumentum ad consequentiam.
That religions offer pyschological appeal does not make them true.
-
Argumentum ad consequentiam.
That religions offer pyschological appeal does not make them true.
They offer a truer psychology. I did not mention anything about appeal.
Let's take standard new atheist psychologies as a contrast which are reductionist, suffer often from the naturalistic fallacy, dubious in proposing psychological incompetence for some but not for others and even downright dangerous in reclassification of the human being into a bonobo with a bowler hat.
-
#257
If you make a claim that isn't subject to it, you need a methodology (I have a strange sense of deja ecrit). Until you provide one, it's just guessing.
Apropos déjà écrit, moi aussi!
From what I can see and have seen, no Christian here is disagreeing with the need for a methodology. The issue is with how any methodologies that are provided are challenged.
I could use this thread as an example. I would have thought that it was obvious that if someone asks a question and specifically refers to “The Christian God”, a source that has a copious amount of detail on the subject should be available for use. Apparently not! So what was the point in bluehillside asking a question about the Christian God, but DavidM not being allowed to respond by using what the Bible says about the Christian God?
Do you want to go back and read Gordon’s #259 to my #256? He starts off in a similar vein to you and ends up talking about ... erm ... philosophy!!
How about the end of Bluehillside’s #261?
Celestial teapots and the like are arguments in logic (itself a naturalistic phenomenon by the way) used to rebut bad attempts at logic made by theists (“you can’t disprove it, therefore it’s true” etc). For that purpose, they’re fine.
No matter how many times in the past I’ve pointed out that theists here aren’t doing this, bluehillside keeps on bringing it up. But then bluehillside makes the same mistake: to link something that is clearly made up to religious belief, thereby assuming the conclusion about the nature of that which is being investigated. Whether or not that is the intention, that is what happens.
Shall I refer to the appeal to vanity that is the substance of Susan Doris’ responses to my posts? If she had any kind of truth on her side, she would not need to go down this route. I’m also confused as to why she on the one hand wants ‘certainty’ (as opposed to just guessing), yet objects to it being allegedly demonstrated in someone’s posting style?
Clearly there is a fundamental problem with the worldview being employed by some here.
-
Of course we should be suspicious of his own writings in the sense of what they say. He was, after all, writing to tell the people in Rome how great he was, but they are still pretty strong evidence that he existed.
The problem is that any objective analysis - by atheist or not - tells us there is zero contemporary writing about Jesus.
So by rights you should not believe in the existence of anyone lacking contemporary writing.
-
They offer a truer psychology. I did not mention anything about appeal.
Let's take standard new atheist psychologies as a contrast which are reductionist, suffer often from the naturalistic fallacy, dubious in proposing psychological incompetence for some but not for others and even downright dangerous in reclassification of the human being into a bonobo with a bowler hat.
Is it dangerous to recognise our origins and to understand our relationships with the rest of nature ? Many, including Freud, speculated that atheism would lead to the breakdown of civilisation, but it hasn't happened. There is danger in not recognising our origins also. A heavily anthropocentric worldview gives us environmental degradation, habitat loss and mass extinctions for all those other poor species that aren't anthropos.
-
They offer a truer psychology. I did not mention anything about appeal.
Let's take standard new atheist psychologies as a contrast which are reductionist, suffer often from the naturalistic fallacy, dubious in proposing psychological incompetence for some but not for others and even downright dangerous in reclassification of the human being into a bonobo with a bowler hat.
Is there some sort of argument struggling to get out of all that word salad? Seems like you've got all mixed up between the morality bit and the incompetence bit, of what you said before.
Humanity has, throughout its history, believed in countless gods and other spiritual, ghostly or unnatural/supernatural beings along with endless other unfounded beliefs (magic spells, astrology and so on). Humans undoubtedly suffers from a certain level of "incompetence".
The point being, how do we avoid it? We've learnt how to avoid it with respect to the 'natural' world, so we know that real medicine works and magic spells and homoeopathy, don't. How do we avoid it for claims about gods?
The morality bit is just irrelevant.
-
Is it dangerous to recognise our origins and to understand our relationships with the rest of nature ? Many, including Freud, speculated that atheism would lead to the breakdown of civilisation, but it hasn't happened. There is danger in not recognising our origins also. A heavily anthropocentric worldview gives us environmental degradation, habitat loss and mass extinctions for all those other poor species that aren't anthropos.
I don't think this is a case of not recognising origins but one of not recognising novelty or emergence.
-
From what I can see and have seen, no Christian here is disagreeing with the need for a methodology. The issue is with how any methodologies that are provided are challenged.
What methodology has been provided by theists?
I could use this thread as an example. I would have thought that it was obvious that if someone asks a question and specifically refers to “The Christian God”, a source that has a copious amount of detail on the subject should be available for use. Apparently not! So what was the point in bluehillside asking a question about the Christian God, but DavidM not being allowed to respond by using what the Bible says about the Christian God?
But the bible is contradictory on the point - you can't have a just and loving god that then plays favourites to those that believe - especially as there is no rational reason to believe. Unless you can provide that methodology...
No matter how many times in the past I’ve pointed out that theists here aren’t doing this, bluehillside keeps on bringing it up. But then bluehillside makes the same mistake: to link something that is clearly made up to religious belief, thereby assuming the conclusion about the nature of that which is being investigated. Whether or not that is the intention, that is what happens.
Have you really not grasped the point? There is exactly the same amount of evidence and reasoning for the god claims of theists as there is for things that are obviously made up.
Unless you can provide that methodology...
-
Vlad,
They offer a truer psychology. I did not mention anything about appeal.
Presumably you’ll be along soon to tell us what on earth you mean by “truer psychology” and why superstitions offer “truer” versions of it then?
Incidentally, will any old superstition do the trick or just your own?
Let's take standard new atheist psychologies…
There’s no such thing as “standard new atheist psychologies”. There are arguments and reason that lead to the conclusion that there’s no reason to think there are gods is all.
…as a contrast which are reductionist…
As has been explained to you many times, if you want to make the charge of reductionism you first need to demonstrate whatever it is you think has been reduced from.
…suffer often from the naturalistic fallacy…
Not so far as I’m aware they don’t. By all means to try to find an example of it though.
…dubious in proposing psychological incompetence for some but not for others…
Nothing about atheism does that. Either the logic that supports it can be rebutted or it cannot. "Psychology" has nothing to do with it.
…and even downright dangerous in reclassification of the human being into a bonobo with a bowler hat.
And he rounds off with an argumentum ad consequentiam. Tell it to those who have suffered religiously inspired pain and suffering over the centuries.
-
I don't think this is a case of not recognising origins but one of not recognising novelty or emergence.
That's funny I had you down as an emergence-denier, Emergence. Maybe you've seen the light.
-
Vlad,
There’s no such thing as “standard new atheist psychologies”.
Crikey..........they don't even have one? ....................not even the one from Dawkins on the side of the Atheist Bus? Well if you say so......
-
That's funny I had you down as an emergence-denier, Emergence.
That's skim reading for you.
-
#257
Apropos déjà écrit, moi aussi!
From what I can see and have seen, no Christian here is disagreeing with the need for a methodology. The issue is with how any methodologies that are provided are challenged.
I could use this thread as an example. I would have thought that it was obvious that if someone asks a question and specifically refers to “The Christian God”, a source that has a copious amount of detail on the subject should be available for use. Apparently not! So what was the point in bluehillside asking a question about the Christian God, but DavidM not being allowed to respond by using what the Bible says about the Christian God?
Do you want to go back and read Gordon’s #259 to my #256? He starts off in a similar vein to you and ends up talking about ... erm ... philosophy!!
How about the end of Bluehillside’s #261?
No matter how many times in the past I’ve pointed out that theists here aren’t doing this, bluehillside keeps on bringing it up. But then bluehillside makes the same mistake: to link something that is clearly made up to religious belief, thereby assuming the conclusion about the nature of that which is being investigated. Whether or not that is the intention, that is what happens.
Shall I refer to the appeal to vanity that is the substance of Susan Doris’ responses to my posts? If she had any kind of truth on her side, she would not need to go down this route. I’m also confused as to why she on the one hand wants ‘certainty’ (as opposed to just guessing), yet objects to it being allegedly demonstrated in someone’s posting style?
Clearly there is a fundamental problem with the worldview being employed by some here.
Or you could just provide a methodology.
-
Sword,
From what I can see and have seen, no Christian here is disagreeing with the need for a methodology. The issue is with how any methodologies that are provided are challenged.
No, the issue is that none have been provided at all.
I could use this thread as an example. I would have thought that it was obvious that if someone asks a question and specifically refers to “The Christian God”, a source that has a copious amount of detail on the subject should be available for use.
Then again you think wrongly. If you were to ask me why I believe in leprechauns and in reply I quoted bits from the Big Book of Leprechaunology at what point would you say, “but I didn’t ask you what you believe – I asked you why you believe it”?
Apparently not!
Certainly not. You can’t just assume that because a book says things about “God” that’s case closed then. That’s the reification fallacy of which you’re so fond.
So what was the point in bluehillside asking a question about the Christian God, but DavidM not being allowed to respond by using what the Bible says about the Christian God?
See above. It’s pretty obvious I’d have thought. The question wasn’t “what does a book say about this?”; it was, “how do you reconcile what a book has to say about this?”.
Can you really not see the difference?
Do you want to go back and read Gordon’s #259 to my #256? He starts off in a similar vein to you and ends up talking about ... erm ... philosophy!!
How about the end of Bluehillside’s #261?
Quote
Celestial teapots and the like are arguments in logic (itself a naturalistic phenomenon by the way) used to rebut bad attempts at logic made by theists (“you can’t disprove it, therefore it’s true” etc). For that purpose, they’re fine.
No matter how many times in the past I’ve pointed out that theists here aren’t doing this, bluehillside keeps on bringing it up.
That you “point out something” doesn’t make it true. You, AB, Vlad, Hope when he was here and others all consistently attempt(ed) logical fallacies in support of your arguments. Your attempt at the reification fallacy just now is an example of it. Just pointing out the fallacies is a short hand way of undoing the attempt. It’s simple enough – if you stop doing it, there’d be nothing to identify as fallacious.
But then bluehillside makes the same mistake: to link something that is clearly made up to religious belief, thereby assuming the conclusion about the nature of that which is being investigated. Whether or not that is the intention, that is what happens.
No Bluehillside doesn’t. What Bluehillside actually does is to explain that, when an argument for “God” works equally for leprechauns, it’s probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Seriously, try it. The next time you want to attempt an argument just substitute “leprechauns” for “God” and see whether it works equally well.
When it does, you have a bad argument.
Shall I refer to the appeal to vanity that is the substance of Susan Doris’ responses to my posts?
You can if you want, but all she’s saying is that being so triumphantly wrong is doing you no favours.
If she had any kind of truth on her side, she would not need to go down this route. I’m also confused as to why she on the one hand wants ‘certainty’ (as opposed to just guessing), yet objects to it being allegedly demonstrated in someone’s posting style?
That’s not what she says. She’s just saying that your arrogance and dismissiveness while hopelessly losing the arguments isn’t an edifying sight.
Clearly there is a fundamental problem with the worldview being employed by some here.
Clearly it isn’t for reasons that have been explained to you many times now but that you just ignore.
Wearily…first, a “world view” tells you nothing about the truth or otherwise of a proposition. One man’s world view that the Christian god is real is no more valid than another man’s world view that Ra or Poseidon are real.
Second, the only time you’ve attempted to demonstrate your position you dicked around with the starting conditions of a sum but relied on exactly the same world view all along – ie, logic.
My advice to you (again) is this: do not cling on to a failed argument just because you invested heavily in making it.
You’re welcome.
-
Vlad,
Crikey..........they don't even have one? ....................not even the one from Dawkins on the side of the Atheist Bus? Well if you say so......
There is no "they" - just arguments that some find persuasive. Perhaps if you tried to explain what you think you mean by "a psychology" you'll see where you've gone wrong.
So far as I can tell, what you've actually done is something like: "OK, it turns out that all my arguments for God are hopeless so instead I'll try to muddy the waters with more terms I don't understand like "psychological competence" in the hope that no-one notices".
It's not doing you any favours though.
-
Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.
Like any religion offers either of those.
Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves.
Actually, I think most of the argument on here has been focussing on your own psychological incompetence, not anybody else's.
-
Sword,
No, the issue is that none have been provided at all.
Then again you think wrongly. If you were to ask me why I believe in leprechauns and in reply I quoted bits from the Big Book of Leprechaunology at what point would you say, “but I didn’t ask you what you believe – I asked you why you believe it”?
Certainly not. You can’t just assume that because a book says things about “God” that’s case closed then. That’s the reification fallacy of which you’re so fond.
See above. It’s pretty obvious I’d have thought. The question wasn’t “what does a book say about this?”; it was, “how do you reconcile what a book has to say about this?”.
Can you really not see the difference?
That you “point out something” doesn’t make it true. You, AB, Vlad, Hope when he was here and others all consistently attempt(ed) logical fallacies in support of your arguments. Your attempt at the reification fallacy just now is an example of it. Just pointing out the fallacies is a short hand way of undoing the attempt. It’s simple enough – if you stop doing it, there’d be nothing to identify as fallacious.
No Bluehillside doesn’t. What Bluehillside actually does is to explain that, when an argument for “God” works equally for leprechauns, it’s probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Seriously, try it. The next time you want to attempt an argument just substitute “leprechauns” for “God” and see whether it works equally well.
When it does, you have a bad argument.
You can if you want, but all she’s saying is that being so triumphantly wrong is doing you no favours.
That’s not what she says. She’s just saying that your arrogance and dismissiveness while hopelessly losing the arguments isn’t an edifying sight.
Clearly it isn’t for reasons that have been explained to you many times now but that you just ignore.
Wearily…first, a “world view” tells you nothing about the truth or otherwise of a proposition. One man’s world view that the Christian god is real is no more valid than another man’s world view that Ra or Poseidon are real.
Second, the only time you’ve attempted to demonstrate your position you dicked around with the starting conditions of a sum but relied on exactly the same world view all along – ie, logic.
My advice to you (again) is this: do not cling on to a failed argument just because you invested heavily in making it.
You’re welcome.
Could you please repeat your reasons why Leprechauns are ridiculous again.
-
Vlad,
Could you please repeat your reasons why Leprechauns are ridiculous again.
1. Absence of logic.
2. Absence of evidence.
3. Absence of a means to distinguish the claim "leprechauns" from just guessing.
Sound familiar?
-
Vlad,
1. Absence of logic.
2. Absence of evidence.
3. Absence of a means to distinguish the claim "leprechauns" from just guessing.
Sound familiar?
Physicalism? materialism? naturalism? Any philosophical position?
-
Physicalism? materialism? naturalism? Any philosophical position?
Is it really necessary to go through all this yet again? Do you have memory problems?
-
Vlad,
Physicalism? materialism? naturalism? Any philosophical position?
Nope, unless you think reason to be a "philosophical position". It's simple enough - for "God" and leprechauns alike the problems with the claim are the same: no cogent logic, no evidence and no means of distinguishing the claim from just guessing.
-
Some,
Is it really necessary to go through all this yet again? Do you have memory problems?
I actually think it's an honesty problem, or - If I'm feeling charitable - a comprehension problem. There are though as you suggest only so many times you can explain something only for it to fall on deaf ears.
-
Vlad,
Nope, unless you think reason to be a "philosophical position". It's simple enough - for "God" and leprechauns alike the problems with the claim are the same: no cogent logic, no evidence and no means of distinguishing the claim from just guessing.
Well, then We will then have to disagree since what you mention applies to almost any philosophical position too.
Leprechauns ARE USUALLY considered ridiculous because they are proposed as unfeasibly diminutive irish men who are found at the end of rainbows with pots of Gold...an unfeasible proposition given the mobility of rainbows according to angles of perception and the density of Gold.
Still, your proposal stands as testament to your efforts at polishing even the most unlustrous dropping.
-
Vlad,
Well, then We will then have to disagree since what you mention applies to almost any philosophical position too.
So I see that you fundamentally fail yet again to grasp the point of the leprechauns analogy. Perhaps if you write it down 100 times or so that could help? Here is it again: "If an argument for "God" woks equally for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument".
Let me know won't you if it ever sinks in.
Leprechauns ARE USUALLY considered ridiculous because they are proposed as unfeasibly diminutive irish men who found at the end of rainbows with pots of Gold...an unfeasible proposition given the mobility of rainbows according to angles of perception and the density of Gold.
Ah, so they're ridiculous because they don't accord with the way the material world appears to work then?
Fair enough. Now, about this God of yours...
Still, your proposal stands as testament to your efforts at polishing even the most unlustrous dropping.
Abject collapse noted. I'll leave you to your personal grief here.
-
Vlad,
Ah, so they're ridiculous because they don't accord with the way the material world appears to work then?
Well yes...and deservedly so because they are proposed as unfeasibly DIMINUTIVE IRISHMEN at the end of RAINBOWS.....with POTS OF GOLD....gold which,when I last looked was still on the periodic table.
To quote that great philosopher MADONNA ''For we are leprechauns in a material world...and I am a material girl''.
-
Well yes...and deservedly so because they are proposed as unfeasibly DIMINUTIVE IRISHMEN at the end of RAINBOWS.....with POTS OF GOLD....gold which,when I last looked was still on the periodic table.
Much as I enjoy your obsession with the little Irish folk, it does appear to be little more than a distraction tactic to avoid you facing up to the fact that there is no way to assess your claims about god that would distinguish them from mistake, guessing and so on.
In fact, you seem far more interested in assessing the claims about leprechauns than you are in providing any reasons for others to take your god seriously...
-
Vlad,
Well yes...and deservedly so because they are proposed as unfeasibly DIMINUTIVE IRISHMEN at the end of RAINBOWS.....with POTS OF GOLD....gold which,when I last looked was still on the periodic table.
To quote that great philosopher MADONNA ''For we are leprechauns in a material world...and I am a material girl''.
Yeah, none of which makes sense by reference to the world as it appears to be.
Now, about this God of yours (again)...
Keep trying - you'll get there eventually.
Won't you?
-
Some,
Much as I enjoy your obsession with the little Irish folk, it does appear to be little more than a distraction tactic to avoid you facing up to the fact that there is no way to assess your claims about god that would distinguish them from mistake, guessing and so on.
In fact, you seem far more interested in assessing the claims about leprechauns than you are in providing any reasons for others to take your god seriously...
Oddly, the point about leprechauns though is that - as with his god – those who would assert them offer no means of distinguishing their claims from just guessing. That Vlad shoots himself in the foot by saying that only one of those is ridiculous because its characteristics don't accord with the material world doesn't do him any favours, but it's a distraction in any case.
-
I would suggest you go and read the same FF Bruce on the Canon of Scripture. You might learn a thing or two.
FF Bruce? I have his "The Hard Sayings of Jesus". He is no doubt a worthy fellow, but the latter book seems to have emerged from a severe bout of constipated confirmation bias. That is, he starts with the absolute conviction that the biblical text as we have it has been recorded perfectly correctly, without possibility of serious error, and that the sayings and events are all divine truth. I would suggest that some of the 'hard sayings of Jesus' were 'hard' because the words are corrupt, mistranslated, words have been missed out - and possibly, even if well recorded, were meaningless in the first place.
No, I would not expect to learn very much from FF Bruce. I prefer to refer to the many more objective scholars out there (I can give you a list if you like).
-
FF Bruce has been dead a long time, we need words from people who are still around.
I'm tired, nighty nighty.
-
Robinson,
FF Bruce has been dead a long time, we need words from people who are still around.
I'm tired, nighty nighty.
Not a problem for Christians is it? Maybe one of them thinks he's "in a relationship" with this chap too?
Mind the bugs.
-
Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?
Your post shows you have no idea of righteousness or a Christian by Gods definition and being right with God by faith like Abraham.
The answer is there is no hateful Christians. The truth is kindness does not take away sin.
Why not seek and find what it means to be a Christian.
Why not look up why atheists are not saved whether kind or not.
Is there a chance? The books on judgment day will be opened and everyone judged according to their works.
If you have to ask such questions it shows you lack the truth.
-
Your post shows you have no idea of righteousness or a Christian by Gods definition and being right with God by faith like Abraham.
The answer is there is no hateful Christians. The truth is kindness does not take away sin.
Why not seek and find what it means to be a Christian.
Why not look up why atheists are not saved whether kind or not.
Is there a chance? The books on judgment day will be opened and everyone judged according to their works.
If you have to ask such questions it shows you lack the truth.
and the above post demonstrates a lack of coherence. On the one hand you say atheists are not saved, and in the very next sentence apparently people are judged according to their works (rather than their beliefs). Make your mind up.
-
Sassy,
Your post shows you have no idea of righteousness or a Christian by Gods definition and being right with God by faith like Abraham.
The answer is there is no hateful Christians. The truth is kindness does not take away sin.
Why not seek and find what it means to be a Christian.
That's called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Why not look up why atheists are not saved whether kind or not.
Is there a chance? The books on judgment day will be opened and everyone judged according to their works.
If you have to ask such questions it shows you lack the truth.
Which of these contradictory statements do you think to be true: are atheists " not saved" because they are atheists, or are they "judged according to their works"?
You can have either one, but not both.
-
#316
Which of these contradictory statements do you think to be true: are atheists " not saved" because they are atheists, or are they "judged according to their works"?
You can have either one, but not both.
They are not contradictory.
You have assumed that they are mutually exclusive. They are not.
-
Sword,
They are not contradictory.
You have assumed that they are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Yes they are contradictory. Once says that the entrance criterion is what you believe, the other says that it's what you do.
Seems plaln enough to me.
-
Your post shows you have no idea of righteousness or a Christian by Gods definition and being right with God by faith like Abraham.
The answer is there is no hateful Christians. The truth is kindness does not take away sin.
Why not seek and find what it means to be a Christian.
Why not look up why atheists are not saved whether kind or not.
Is there a chance? The books on judgment day will be opened and everyone judged according to their works.
If you have to ask such questions it shows you lack the truth.
Abraham was not a good person, he was prepared to sacrifice Isaac, if that nasty tale has any truth to it!
There are plenty of very unpleasant Christians, especially those who are extreme in their views like the ones who tell others they will burn in hell if they don't get 'saved'. >:(
'Truth', where faith is concerned, is in the human mind, without any evidence to substantiate it.
-
and the above post demonstrates a lack of coherence. On the one hand you say atheists are not saved, and in the very next sentence apparently people are judged according to their works (rather than their beliefs). Make your mind up.
Christians not judged. It a clear need to read the bible and concentrate on learning what being a Christian means as far as the judgement of the dead when raised.
-
]Sassy,
Bluehillside
That's called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No! that means stop making stupid remarks as an excuse for your lack of edcuation on the subject being
discussed.
Which of these contradictory statements do you think to be true: are atheists " not saved" because
they are atheists, or are they "judged according to their works"?
You can have either one, but not both.
The statement is not contradictory to those who have studied OT law and teachings of the Prophets
and understand the covenant with Christ being like that of Abraham but sins removed.How do you hope to learn
anything if even the basic christian beliefs are not understood by you.
Does works save a christian or Jesus Christ?
You see the answer to that question would show the way to the answer to the questions already answered which
you cannot understand.
To be honest as you never learn from the many posts by Christians why should we believe you will learn
anything by us once again giving you answers you will just ignore?
-
Good works are far preferable to people continually making claims about their faith, for which they have no supportive evidence.
-
Christians not judged. It a clear need to read the bible and concentrate on learning what being a Christian means as far as the judgement of the dead when raised.
How is that consistent with a benign god ? Surely a benign god would not discriminate, giving christians only a free pass into salvation no matter what their contributions, but all others have to be assessed. It's a two track system, the haves and the have-nots.
And notwithstanding all that, what a person believes is only valid at a point in time; nobody believes the same things all through life without change. That's why it is called a spiritual journey. So someone might well be a christian at one stage, a muslim at another, and an atheist at another. How does this salvation paradigm operate in such circumstances ?
-
How is that consistent with a benign god ? Surely a benign god would not discriminate, giving christians only a free pass into salvation no matter what their contributions, but all others have to be assessed. It's a two track system, the haves and the have-nots.
And notwithstanding all that, what a person believes is only valid at a point in time; nobody believes the same things all through life without change. That's why it is called a spiritual journey. So someone might well be a christian at one stage, a muslim at another, and an atheist at another. How does this salvation paradigm operate in such circumstances ?
Those who conveniently believe in the, 'once 'saved', always saved', dogma, seem to think they are bound for heaven whatever they do thereafter. ::)
-
]Sassy,
No! that means stop making stupid remarks as an excuse for your lack of edcuation on the subject being
discussed.
The statement is not contradictory to those who have studied OT law and teachings of the Prophets
and understand the covenant with Christ being like that of Abraham but sins removed.How do you hope to learn
anything if even the basic christian beliefs are not understood by you.
One basic Christian belief has for a long time been the Trinity, in which you do not believe.
the covenant with Christ being like that of Abraham but sins removed
I presume you're referring to St Paul's idea of "By faith, Abraham was counted righteous" - the only part of the Law that St Paul didn't dispense with. I suggest he only clutched at the reference to Abraham because the Roman authorities would only give any credence to a foreign religion if it had some kind of ancient pedigree, and he knew his new religion would never make headway without providing some.
-
321
Which of these contradictory statements do you think to be true: are atheists " not saved" because
they are atheists, or are they "judged according to their works"?
You can have either one, but not both.
The statement is not contradictory to those who have studied OT law and teachings of the Prophets
and understand the covenant with Christ being like that of Abraham but sins removed.How do you hope to learn
anything if even the basic christian beliefs are not understood by you.
Does works save a christian or Jesus Christ?
You see the answer to that question would show the way to the answer to the questions already answered which
you cannot understand.
To be honest as you never learn from the many posts by Christians why should we believe you will learn
anything by us once again giving you answers you will just ignore?
Well said Sassy. Bluehillside will never accept that his worldview is the problem.
-
321
Well said Sassy. Bluehillside will never accept that his worldview is the problem.
Eh ?
Do we take it from this that you endorse Sassy's vision of a supposedly benign god that operates a twin track to salvation system with christians being fast tracked through without murmur whilst everyone else is subjected to judgement ?
-
Well said Sassy. Bluehillside will never accept that his worldview is the problem.
Eh ?
I responded to bluehillside's post by saying he was making the mistake of assuming the alternatives he presented were mutually exclusive. He disagreed.
Sassy's post gave some detail. There was nothing stopping bluehillside finding this out for himself.
To be honest as you never learn from the many posts by Christians why should we believe you will learn
anything by us once again giving you answers you will just ignore?
As evidenced by e.g. the Are we nearly done here thread.
-
Eh ?
Do we take it from this that you endorse Sassy's vision of a supposedly benign god that operates a twin track to salvation system with christians being fast tracked through without murmur whilst everyone else is subjected to judgement ?
The belief of being special and the 'only chosen people' of God, has in some ways been the bane of the Jewish community all these centuries. And perhaps the Muslims also. I hope Christians don't fall into this trap.
IMO no one is special and everyone is evolving towards a more enlightened life....both individually and collectively.
-
321
Well said Sassy. Bluehillside will never accept that his worldview is the problem.
And yours isn't?
-
And yours isn't?
Since I am at liberty to consider both natural and non-natural explanations, I would suggest that it is less biased than one that assumes only natural causes and explanations; certainly one that assumes the truth of their position by accusing another poster of doing the equivalent of claiming 2+2=5.
-
Since I am at liberty to consider both natural and non-natural explanations, I would suggest that it is less biased than one that assumes only natural causes and explanations; certainly one that assumes the truth of their position by accusing another poster of doing the equivalent of claiming 2+2=5.
You appear to have 2+2=5 on the brain! ::)
-
I responded to bluehillside's post by saying he was making the mistake of assuming the alternatives he presented were mutually exclusive. He disagreed.
Sassy's post gave some detail. There was nothing stopping bluehillside finding this out for himself.
As evidenced by e.g. the Are we nearly done here thread.
Evasion.
Let's try this again :
Do we take it from this that you endorse Sassy's vision of a supposedly benign god that operates a twin track to salvation system with christians being fast tracked through without murmur whilst everyone else is subjected to judgement ?
-
Sassy,
No! that means stop making stupid remarks as an excuse for your lack of edcuation on the subject being discussed.
The “No true Scotsman” fallacy is a failure in logic, and moreover one that you attempted. If you want to argue the point you need first to understand it, and second to explain why that’s not what you attempted.
Using playground insult instead is just white noise.
The statement is not contradictory to those who have studied OT law and teachings of the Prophets
and understand the covenant with Christ being like that of Abraham but sins removed.How do you hope to learn
anything if even the basic christian beliefs are not understood by you.
Does works save a christian or Jesus Christ?
You see the answer to that question would show the way to the answer to the questions already answered which
you cannot understand.
To be honest as you never learn from the many posts by Christians why should we believe you will learn
anything by us once again giving you answers you will just ignore?
Again, you’ve missed the point entirely. We’re told that the way into the life after is to believe the “offer” to be true. We’re also told however that the way in is to behave well. I merely ask which version of the story you think to be the correct one.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?
-
Sword,
Well said Sassy. Bluehillside will never accept that his worldview is the problem.
You're seriously returning with your "worldview" nonsense despite having it falsified and thrown at your feet countless times now?
Why?
-
Evasion.
Let's try this again :
Do we take it from this that you endorse Sassy's vision of a supposedly benign god that operates a twin track to salvation system with christians being fast tracked through without murmur whilst everyone else is subjected to judgement ?
I don't believe that this is what Sassy believes. I certainly don't get this from reading her posts. No doubt she'll correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't endorse the vision you have outlined.
-
Sword,
Sassy's post gave some detail. There was nothing stopping bluehillside finding this out for himself.
Yes there was - you can't find out something that's incoherent.
-
Sassy,
...
Again, you’ve missed the point entirely. We’re told that the way into the life after is to believe the “offer” to be true. We’re also told however that the way in is to behave well. I merely ask which version of the story you think to be the correct one.
They are not mutually exclusive. See if you can figure out why!
-
Since I am at liberty to consider both natural and non-natural explanations
I look forward to hearing the details of the latter, and on what basis you've critiqued them.
I would suggest that it is less biased than one that assumes only natural causes and explanations; certainly one that assumes the truth of their position by accusing another poster of doing the equivalent of claiming 2+2=5.
I would suggest you stop posting the same unreconstructed bollocks you've been corrected on before.
-
Sword,
You're seriously returning with your "worldview" nonsense despite having it falsified and thrown at your feet countless times now?
Why?
Try explaining/interpreting evidence without one!
-
I would suggest you stop posting the same unreconstructed bollocks you've been corrected on before.
Another one who assumes the truth of their position, then makes deductions from it.
The truth (or otherwise) of a statement doesn't change by calling it unreconstructed bollocks by the way.
-
Sword,
Since I am at liberty to consider both natural and non-natural explanations,...
How would you consider "non-natural explanations" exactly? What tests or methods would you apply to the claims?
I would suggest that it is less biased than one that assumes only natural causes and explanations;
Then you would suggest wrongly. Some of us assume naturalism as a working paradigm (rather than as an absolute) because there's no way to test claims of the supernatural. It's a simple enough point I'd have thought.
...certainly one that assumes the truth of their position by accusing another poster of doing the equivalent of claiming 2+2=5.
Stop lying - it's dull. When someone attempts an argument for "God" (or for leprechauns for that matter) that relies for its force on a logical fallacy, that argument is equivalent to 2+2=5.
-
Since I am at liberty to consider both natural and non-natural explanations, I would suggest that it is less biased than one that assumes only natural causes and explanations; certainly one that assumes the truth of their position by accusing another poster of doing the equivalent of claiming 2+2=5.
Likewise I could claim to be at liberty to believe that the planets rotate around the Sun because they are pulled by teams of invisible magic pixies. The difference is that gravitational theory based on the inverse square law has evidence on its side. There is no evidence for magic pixies, and in fact, there never could be because, they are errm, magic. So, what value is there in the liberty to believe nonsense ?
-
Sword,
...When someone attempts an argument for "God" (or for leprechauns for that matter) that relies for its force on a logical fallacy, that argument is equivalent to 2+2=5.
And the charge of logical fallacy is dependent on your worldview.
-
Likewise I could claim to be at liberty to believe that the planets rotate around the Sun because they are pulled by teams of invisible magic pixies. The difference is that gravitational theory based on the inverse square law has evidence on its side. There is no evidence for magic pixies, and in fact, there never could be because, they are errm, magic. So, what value is there in the liberty to believe nonsense ?
I think you need to ask that question of those who believe in magic pixies.
Seems like a statement about religious belief that assumes the conclusion of that it is claiming. I'd leave that to bluehillside and Gordon if I were you...
-
Sword,
They are not mutually exclusive. See if you can figure out why!
Scenario 1:
St Peter: "Well done for all those good works old son. Sadly though you didn't accept the offer, so on your bike it is I'm afraid."
Scenario 2:
St Peter: "Not much sign of good works there I'm afraid, but on the plus side at least you believed in the offer. Come on in!
QED
-
And the charge of logical fallacy is dependent on your worldview.
Not unless you think logic itself is a 'worldview'.
-
Your analogy shows you haven't understood how biblical salvation works or the role of good works
Try again. I'll give you a week. If you need more time, let me know...
-
Sword,
And the charge of logical fallacy is dependent on your worldview.
Perhaps we should mark this as the very moment Sword finally gave up even the attempt to engage meaningfully here. You can have any "worldview" you like, but logic is logic whichever way you look at it. You're entirely welcome to the "worldview" that if you jump out of the window you'll float to the ground, but a subjective opinion is all it will remain (and probably not for long if you want to test it).
-
Sword,
I think you need to ask that question of those who believe in magic pixies.
Which presumably would be their "worldview". So, according to you, there are magic pixies then!
Seems like a statement about religious belief that assumes the conclusion of that it is claiming. I'd leave that to bluehillside and Gordon if I were you...
Doesn't Jesus have something to say about people who tell porkies?
-
I think you need to ask that question of those who believe in magic pixies.
There is a difference between magic pixies and magic gods ?
-
Sword,
Your analogy shows you haven't understood how biblical salvation works or the role of good works
Try again. I'll give you a week. If you need more time, let me know...
I'll do better - I'll give you two weeks to work out where you've gone calamitously wrong. Happy to give you more time after that if you're still lost thought.
-
torri,
There is a difference between magic pixies and magic gods ?
Seems not - apparently they're just different "worldviews".
-
Sword,
I'll do better - I'll give you two weeks to work out where you've gone calamitously wrong. Happy to give you more time after that if you're still lost thought.
No need. You're doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1 doesn't equal 10 whilst refusing to understand how base 2 works.
-
Sword,
Which presumably would be their "worldview". So, according to you, there are magic pixies then!
Doesn't Jesus have something to say about people who tell porkies?
I bet he'd have something to say about overwheening pride in the belief of one's own cleverness and superior understanding too!!
-
Sword,
No need. You're doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1 doesn't equal 10 whilst refusing to understand how base 2 works.
Back with the same idiocy?
Seriously?
Seriously seriously?
(Wearily) first, a "world view" tells you nothing about epistemic truth. You can have any world view you like - magic gods or magic pixies alike - and it'll tell you nothing other than the subjective truth of either.
Second, your attempt to demonstrate different "worldviews" collapses immediately because it's the same world view - logic. All you've done is to dick around with the starting conditions.
If you wanted to make an analogy, it would have to be a comparison of 1+1=2 with 1+1=fish or some such.
Could you at least try to catch up before you make this mistake again? Ta.
-
346
They are not mutually exclusive. See if you can figure out why!
Sword,
Scenario 1:
St Peter: "Well done for all those good works old son. Sadly though you didn't accept the offer, so on your bike it is I'm afraid."
Scenario 2:
St Peter: "Not much sign of good works there I'm afraid, but on the plus side at least you believed in the offer. Come on in!
QED
Which is not how biblical salvation works. Why not read the bible for yourself and see if you can crack it.
7 days ...
-
No need. You're doing the equivalent of claiming that 1+1 doesn't equal 10 whilst refusing to understand how base 2 works.
How about you explain whatever you think the equivalent of "base 2" that everyone is missing - instead of mindlessly repeating it? If it's as simple as a number base, it shouldn't take long....
-
Sword,
Which is not how biblical salvation works. Why not read the bible for yourself and see if you can crack it.
7 days ...
Try reading the OP to see where you've gone wrong.
Two weeks...
-
Since I am at liberty to consider both natural and non-natural explanations, I would suggest that it is less biased than one that assumes only natural causes and explanations; certainly one that assumes the truth of their position by accusing another poster of doing the equivalent of claiming 2+2=5.
The very notion of 'non natural explanation' is an oxymoron. Explanation is naturalistic. Any invocation of supernatural into a chain of reasoning renders the entire chain null and void. If you don't understand this, take a look at the below :
http://the-formula.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/miracle.jpg (http://the-formula.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/miracle.jpg)
-
Why not read the bible for yourself and see if you can crack it.
I assume you jest.
I've done that - it's an incoherent, self-contradictory mess. Even those who claim to agree that it's the 'word of god' can't agree about what it actually means...
-
torri,
The very notion of 'non natural explanation' is an oxymoron. Explanation is naturalistic. Any invocation of supernatural into a chain of reasoning renders the entire chain null and void. If you don't understand this, take a look at the below :
http://the-formula.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/miracle.jpg
One of my favourite cartoons - perfectly captures "Swordism" (and "AlanBurnsism", "Vladism" etc).
-
I assume you jest.
I've done that - it's an incoherent, self-contradictory mess. Even those who claim to agree that it's the 'word of god' can't agree about what it actually means...
Clearly true judging by posters on this thread who cannot even agree on things as fundamental as the Trinity or the doctrine of salvation.
-
Your analogy shows you haven't understood how biblical salvation works or the role of good works
Try again. I'll give you a week. If you need more time, let me know...
The 'you must be 'saved' dogma is CRAZY.
-
torridon
Could you tell me what is on the blackboard, please? with increased magnification I can see the words below, but not the rest. Thank you - no rush.
-
torridon
Could you tell me what is on the blackboard, please? with increased magnification I can see the words below, but not the rest. Thank you - no rush.
There are various equations on the left of the two male figures, then written and being pointed is 'Then a miracle occurs' to be followed more more equations on the right.
-
And the charge of logical fallacy is dependent on your worldview.
Wrong.
-
Thank you, NS.
(I thought I'd already posted that, but I can't see it.)
-
Another one who assumes the truth of their position, then makes deductions from it.
The truth (or otherwise) of a statement doesn't change by calling it unreconstructed bollocks by the way.
I think you should be careful using terms you don't understand - like 'truth' and 'deductions'.
-
torridon
Could you tell me what is on the blackboard, please? with increased magnification I can see the words below, but not the rest. Thank you - no rush.
Here is the same image at a larger size, I hope you'll be better able to see it :
http://www.trulyfallacious.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/then-a-miracle-occurs-logic.jpg (http://www.trulyfallacious.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/then-a-miracle-occurs-logic.jpg)
-
torridon
Yes, that was better. thank you. It looked like basic numbers on the left, and fancy greek notation etc on the right?!
-
Gordon,
I think you should be careful using terms you don't understand - like 'truth' and 'deductions'.
And "analogy".
And "world view".
And "god".
It's weird innit - presumably Sword thinks he has some kind of reason or logic to distinguish his religious beliefs from just guessing, yet as soon as he invokes "reason" and "logic" (albeit incompetently) he invokes naturalist phenomena to validate his non-naturalistic conjectures.
It's all unmitigated nonsense, but for some reason he finds it comforting I guess.
-
How is that consistent with a benign god ?
Pardoning you. You choose not to accept that is your right. But it is also your own fault just as your sin is.
Surely a benign god would not discriminate, giving christians only a free pass into salvation no matter what their contributions, but all others have to be assessed. It's a two track system, the haves and the have-nots.
He didn't discriminate he made it the same for everyone as you are no different when it comes to sin.
You refusing the free pass is not discrimination it is you choosing.
And notwithstanding all that, what a person believes is only valid at a point in time; nobody believes the same things all through life without change.
Jesus did. King David and King Solomon did. Abraham and Isaac did and even Jacob and Moses.
This is your time and what you believe decides what happens.
That's why it is called a spiritual journey. So someone might well be a christian at one stage, a muslim at another, and an atheist at another. How does this salvation paradigm operate in such circumstances ?
It is a choice and usually circumstances can change things. But the heart is what decides doesn't it. Those whose heart is centred on God don't change. Look at Job.
-
One basic Christian belief has for a long time been the Trinity, in which you do not believe.
God in three persons as opposed to God is three persons.
Hence Jews call it a triune not a trinity.
I believe in God, I believe In Jesus and I believe in the Holy Spirit. Like Christ, I believe there is only one God.
The Father is God, Jesus is the Son and then the Holy Spirit three persons.
I don't believe in a manmade idea that all three make one God but that God the Father is in all three.
I presume you're referring to St Paul's idea of "By faith, Abraham was counted righteous" - the only part of the Law that St Paul didn't dispense with. I suggest he only clutched at the reference to Abraham because the Roman authorities would only give any credence to a foreign religion if it had some kind of ancient pedigree, and he knew his new religion would never make headway without providing some.
Paul did not dispense with the LAW. He simply told people that obeying the law was not enough and that the only way to have your sins forgiven was through Christ. It is understanding that Christ did not do away with the Law or teachings of the Prophets. We uphold them but they do not bring forgiveness or Gods righteousness as the way through Christ and forgiveness of sins removed.
-
torridon
Yes, that was better. thank you. It looked like basic numbers on the left, and fancy greek notation etc on the right?!
It's a metaphor; the point of it is to illustrate, with delicious dryness, the banal irony of people factoring in supernatural beliefs into our modern world which in other respects is founded upon reason, detail and precision.
-
Pardoning you. You choose not to accept that is your right. But it is also your own fault just as your sin is.
He didn't discriminate he made it the same for everyone as you are no different when it comes to sin.
You refusing the free pass is not discrimination it is you choosing.
Jesus did. King David and King Solomon did. Abraham and Isaac did and even Jacob and Moses.
This is your time and what you elieve decides what happens.
It is a choice and usually circumstances can change things. But the heart is what decides doesn't it. Those whose heart is centred on God don't change. Look at Job.
Really Sass, this is such bullshit. You think people don't change because you read something about Job. Get real. We all change; all the time, even from moment to moment we change, we are changed by our interaction with the wider world. We learn and we grow, we do not stay the same. This is really basic.
-
It's a metaphor; the point of it is to illustrate, with delicious dryness, the banal irony of people factoring in supernatural beliefs into our modern world which in other respects is founded upon reason, detail and precision.
Such precision, detail and human reasoning as to deny that any human has the freedom to do what they perceive they are actually doing. ???
-
It's weird innit - presumably Sword thinks he has some kind of reason or logic to distinguish his religious beliefs from just guessing, yet as soon as he invokes "reason" and "logic" (albeit incompetently) he invokes naturalist phenomena to validate his non-naturalistic conjectures.
It's all unmitigated nonsense, but for some reason he finds it comforting I guess.
Have you tried googling his name?!!! A whole set of links comes up- Whether he started it or not, I did not bother to read enough to find out.:)
-
Such precision, detail and human reasoning as to deny that any human has the freedom to do what they perceive they are actually doing. ???
The fruits of research very often reveal things that run counter to our intuitions. In fact that is probably the norm, otherwise what is the point of doing research if not to discover how things actually are as opposed to merely how they seem. To engage with and to try to understand challenging findings is an honest response to it; to bury one's head in sands of denial hoping it will go away is not.
-
The fruits of research very often reveal things that run counter to our intuitions. In fact that is probably the norm, otherwise what is the point of doing research if not to discover how things actually are as opposed to merely how they seem. To engage with and to try to understand challenging findings is an honest response to it; to bury one's head in sands of denial hoping it will go away is not.
Do you know i'm wondering how the mainly theoretical approach of many of the antitheistic scientists falls in with the spirit of your post.
-
Vlad,
Do you know i'm wondering how the mainly theoretical approach of many of the antitheistic scientists falls in with the spirit of your post.
Who would those "antitheistic scientists" be, and what in their practice of science do you think to be antitheistic in any case? You've already had your "science promotes atheism" daftness falsified, so what does that leave you other than some misplaced paranoia?
-
#380
Do you know i'm wondering how the mainly theoretical approach of many of the antitheistic scientists falls in with the spirit of your post.
When the explanation for the evidence contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet), call it counter-intuitive rather than looking for another explanation. Dare I mention faulty worldview ?
-
Sword,
When the explanation for the evidence contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet), call it counter-intuitive rather than looking for another explanation.
Counter-intuitive explanations are fine - they happen al the time. Your problem though is to demonstrate that something is an explanation in the first place.
Dare I mention faulty worldview ?
Only if you want to make a fool of yourself with it again. It's your choice.
-
#380
When the explanation for the evidence contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet), call it counter-intuitive rather than looking for another explanation.
That rather depends on what you have in mind: however, you seem to suggest an 'explanation' that 'contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet)' - so an example would be what, counter-intuitive or otherwise, and on what basis is it explanatory? I suspect you're confused again.
Dare I mention faulty worldview ?
I wouldn't if I were you (its nonsense you see, but we've told you that numerous times already).
-
Vlad,
Who would those "antitheistic scientists" be, and what in their practice of science do you think to be antitheistic in any case? You've already had your "science promotes atheism" daftness falsified, so what does that leave you other than some misplaced paranoia?
No science doesn't promote atheism.
I'd hoped a scientist might answer this but in this case it looks as if you WON'T do.
-
Vlad,
No science doesn't promote atheism.
Well that's a reversal from your previous effort but I'm glad you got there in the end. Now, about these "antitheistic scientists" of yours...
I'd hoped a scientist might answer this but in this case it looks as if you WON'T do.
Answer what? No-one is suggesting that explanations aren't something counter-intuitive - often they are. All that's being said is that, just because something is counter-intuitive, that doesn't make it an explanation.
-
Vlad,
Well that's a reversal from your previous effort but I'm glad you got there in the end. Now, about these "antitheistic scientists" of yours...
No, it isn't.......... to recap Jack Knave said the level of theism was falling because of science. I said it wasn't. You seemed to agree with me and then qualified it by a swerve to talk about the unintended consequences of science. It seemed as if you were trying to find a way to not support me or Jack which is unusual since even I find myself agreeing with somebody.
-
Vlad,
No, it isn't..........
Yes it is, You told us that science promotes atheism, and then fell into your standard paranoid delusion about the "antitheistic scientists" who are doing it.
...to recap Jack Knave said the level of theism was falling because of science. I said it wasn't. You seemed to agree with me and then qualified it by a swerve to talk about the unintended consequences of science. It seemed as if you were trying to find a way to not support me or Jack which is unusual since even I find myself agreeing with somebody.
Nope. I merely observed that, IF there are fewer theists than would otherwise have been the case because of the findings of science then that would be an unintended consequence of science. You then went completely tonto by telling us that science doesn't have unintended consequences.
-
Vlad,
Yes it is, You told us that science promotes atheism, and then fell into your standard paranoid delusion about the "antitheistic scientists" who are doing it.
Nope. I merely observed that, IF there are fewer theists than would otherwise have been the case because of the findings of science then that would be an unintended consequence of science. You then went completely tonto by telling us that science doesn't have unintended consequences.
I'm sorry Hillside but I don't think I can meet your needs.
-
Vlad,
I'm sorry Hillside but I don't think I can meet your needs.
As my only "need" is that you stop lying, for once I believe you.
-
Vlad,
As my only "need" is that you stop lying, for once I believe you.
Well. if it's honesty your after ...........Frankly Scarlet............... I couldn't give a shit what you believe.
-
Vlad,
Well. if it's honesty your after ...........Frankly Scarlet............... I couldn't give a shit what you believe.
Yes, when the lying becomes pathological I believe indifference to being caught out is common.
-
Vlad,
Yes, when the lying becomes pathological I believe indifference to being caught out is common.
Having been told that someone doesn't care about what he believes he then goes on to talk about his beliefs!!!!
If you have to have the last words Hillside why not try something a bit more authentic to your situation like ''I talk antitheist bollocks''?
-
Vlad,
Yes it is, You told us that science promotes atheism, and then fell into your standard paranoid delusion about the "antitheistic scientists" who are doing it.
Nope. I merely observed that, IF there are fewer theists than would otherwise have been the case because of the findings of science then that would be an unintended consequence of science. You then went completely tonto by telling us that science doesn't have unintended consequences.
I'm giving your posts up for Lent.
-
I'm giving your posts up for Lent.
Maybe you should give everyone's posts up for Lent! ;D
-
Maybe you give everyone's posts up for Lent! ;D
What a wonderful idea!
-
What a wonderful idea!
Bye Bye ;D
-
Vlad,
I'm giving your posts up for Lent.
That's up to you, but all I've asked you to give up the lying. You never know, it might be good for your "soul".
-
#380
When the explanation for the evidence contradicts what is observable (and often demonstrable by anyone on the planet), call it counter-intuitive rather than looking for another explanation. Dare I mention faulty worldview ?
Newton demonstrated an understanding of reality that was intuitive. Einstein however gave us a very different understanding in which matter distorts time, among other things. That is counterintuitive. Does this mean that Einstein had a faulty world view ? I think you need to get over this worldview thing, it seems like a log jam in your thought processes.
-
Vlad,
That's up to you, but all I've asked you to give up the lying. You never know, it might be good for your "soul".
I'm not sure what you are arguing about now but you seemed to be saying I support the idea that atheism supports science. I don't and I never have. There is no war between science and religion as far as I am concerned. You on the other hand frequently try to use science in arguments against religion.
Example Thunder and Thor where you are effectively saying that eventually there will be a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything.
If you have another position then you have every opportunity to state it.
-
Example Thunder and Thor where you are effectively saying that eventually there will be a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything.
Good heavens, Vlad - even you must realise that this is an obvious straw man.
That previous beliefs are superseded: so we no longer subscribe to geocentricity, phlogiston or the miasma theory of disease, says nothing about there being 'a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything'.
-
Good heavens, Vlad - even you must realise that this is an obvious straw man.
That previous beliefs are superseded: so we no longer subscribe to geocentricity, phlogiston or the miasma theory of disease, says nothing about there being 'a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything'.
Then why does hillside keep bringing up Thor and thunder? and why do you blame me for it?
This seems to be a bit of a tactic amongst your ilk at the moment.
Jack knave states that theism has fallen because of science. Hillside accuses me of stating that science supports atheism.
Hillside brings up Thor and thunder as the example for the fate that will befall a divine solution to the origins of the universe and you accuse me of bringing up the very thing I object to as a straw man.
-
Then why does hillside keep bringing up Thor and thunder? and why do you blame me for it?
This seems to be a bit of a tactic amongst your ilk at the moment.
Jack knave states that theism has fallen because of science. Hillside accuses me of stating that science supports atheism.
Hillside brings up Thor and thunder as the example for the fate that will befall a divine solution to the origins of the universe and you accuse me of bringing up the very thing I object to as a straw man.
It is an example, Vlad, of a divine belief that has been superseded by knowledge: geocentricity is another example.
Your 'divine solution to the origins of the universe' is, of course, an example of begging the question and misses the point: which is that science isn't expressly supporting atheism since the 'divine' is outwith the scope of science, and in any event there is no method to investigate this 'divine'.
-
It is an example, Vlad, of a divine belief that has been superseded by knowledge: geocentricity is another example.
Your 'divine solution to the origins of the universe' is, of course, an example of begging the question and misses the point: which is that science isn't expressly supporting atheism since the 'divine' is outwith the scope of science, and in any event there is no method to investigate this 'divine'.
Gordon.....as you are just here exclusively to point out the fallacies of theists.
I am here to remind antitheists of their heritage of shite philosophy, that they are working from philosophical assumptions themselves and from the mere et pere of circular arguments and to remind them that science does not support those assumptions.
Look Gordon you either agree that science will somehow find the origin of the universe or you don't. I don't...for scientific reasons. You might because you don't really understand science.
That religion has no methodology i.e. is not science is not in question. But then neither has atheism nor antitheism. If Hillside is a true methodological materialist without philosophy then he therefore should have nothing to say about religion and should have never have ventured on this board or should now have the honesty to leave it.
-
Gordon.....as you are just here exclusively to point out the fallacies of theists.
Nope - I'm a non-discriminatory pointer-outer of fallacies.
I am here to remind antitheists of their heritage of shite philosophy, that they are working from philosophical assumptions themselves and from the mere et pere of circular arguments and to remind them that science does not support those assumptions.
There's your problem then: those you presume to be anti-theist (in your terms) probably aren't and, further, you also presume to misrepresent them by ascribing to them arguments they don't make via your army of straw-men.
Look Gordon you either agree that science will somehow find the origin of the universe or you don't. I don't...for scientific reasons. You might because you don't really understand science.
Right on cue!
That religion has no methodology i.e. is not science is not in question. But then neither has atheism nor antitheism.
I'd be more inclined to say that there is no method to examine non-natural claims, and as far as I can see not all religious people require their religious beliefs to be investigated anyway: they accept them on the basis of their personal faith. Leaving aside your 'antitheism' jibe, which is spurious, I'm struggling to understand why you think atheism requires a methodology.
If Hillside is a true methodological materialist without philosophy then he therefore should have nothing to say about religion and should have never have ventured on this board or should now have the honesty to leave it.
I see we've returned to the straw man (with an implied ad hom on top).
-
Vlad,
I'm not sure what you are arguing about now but you seemed to be saying I support the idea that atheism supports science. I don't and I never have.
I’ve said no such thing.
There is no war between science and religion as far as I am concerned. You on the other hand frequently try to use science in arguments against religion.
Possibly you missed the posts when I told you to stop lying? (Wearily…) I merely say that, when those with religious beliefs try to play on science’s turf to validate those beliefs, they lose.
Example Thunder and Thor where you are effectively saying that eventually there will be a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything.
NOOOOOOOOOO! FFS!
What I am actually saying is that, when you don’t have a cogent explanation for something, just dropping in “God”/Thor/whatever to fill the explanatory gap when those answers actually explain nothing at all is a bad idea.
If you have another position then you have every opportunity to state it.
I have done. Over and over and over and over……
....and over and over and over again. That you either cannot grasp it or wilfully choose to misrepresent it however is a matter for you.
-
Vlad,
Then why does hillside keep bringing up Thor and thunder? and why do you blame me for it?
I bring it up because it’s precisely the construction you attempt when you say, “science cannot explain X, therefore God”.
This seems to be a bit of a tactic amongst your ilk at the moment.
It’s an analogy, but yes.
Jack knave states that theism has fallen because of science. Hillside accuses me of stating that science supports atheism.
Actually the word you used was “promotes”, but ok. You also incidentally tell us that it’s them thar “antitheistic scientists” wot do it.
Hillside brings up Thor and thunder as the example for the fate that will befall a divine solution to the origins of the universe and you accuse me of bringing up the very thing I object to as a straw man.
But what you just said is a straw man! That’s not why I use the analogy at all – see my previous post for details.
And this from someone who claimed the intellectual high ground a few posts ago?
I need a lie down… ::)
-
What I am actually saying is that, when you don’t have a cogent explanation for something, just dropping in “God”/Thor/whatever to fill the explanatory gap when those answers actually explain nothing at all is a bad idea.
Strawman argument. Theists whose sole activity is to say that Goddidit is an ignorant antitheist caricature.
In philosophy, theists stick to perfectly sound reasons for proposing a creator and what a creator and sustainer would have to do and be like. Atheists of philosophical calibre recognise that.
Furthermore there has to be a reason for the universe. To suspend reason at this juncture is a cop out and anti reason itself. Antitheists such as Russell, Dawkins and yourself give up at this point and adopt a dogmatic agnosticism.
Finally theists support creation/sustainer theory because of their experience of God.
So either you believe that religion is failed science or you don't.
Filling the explanatory gap is fine but if you claim to have no idea what will fill it you cannot say Not God or God wouldn't fill it.
My next mission on this board will be to analyse various antitheistisms such as ''filling the explanatory gap'' and ''I'ts not philosophical materialism it's just a working assumption that material is all there is''. I've done the latter....it's a complete pisstake.
-
I'd be more inclined to say that there is no method to examine non-natural claims, and as far as I can see not all religious people require their religious beliefs to be investigated anyway: they accept them on the basis of their personal faith. Leaving aside your 'antitheism' jibe, which is spurious, I'm struggling to understand why you think atheism requires a methodology.
Then you are special pleading. If at any point in your argument you are stating that a methodology for holding a position is all important...presenting a case for an exemption is special pleading.
-
Vlad,
Strawman argument. Theists whose sole activity is to say that Goddidit is an ignorant antitheist caricature.
But that’s your argument! “Science can’t explain “popping out of nothing”/”always there”, therefore God”.
If you want to try a different argument that’s fine, but you can't accuse someone of a straw man (you of all people!) for holding up a mirror to the argument you’ve attempted
In philosophy, theists stick to perfectly sound reasons for proposing a creator and what a creator and sustainer would have to do and be like. Atheists of philosophical calibre recognise that.
Because it’s not true. If you really think there are “perfectly sound reasons” then finally tell us what they are. So far, all you have is the god of the gaps fallacy.
Furthermore there has to be a reason for the universe.
Why? "Has to be" isn't an argument" - it's just an assertion.
To suspend reason at this juncture is a cop out and anti reason itself. Antitheists such as Russell, Dawkins and yourself give up at this point and adopt a dogmatic agnosticism.
That you have just asserted something with no logic to support it isn’t “reason”. Positing “why” here is called begging the question – it requires an intelligent something to decide on the why, at which point the same “why” question attaches to that something.
Finally theists support creation/sustainer theory because of their experience of God.
And he rounds of with the fallacy of reification. Good effort! Theists “support” that conjecture because of their belief in a god – in various gods in fact.
So either you believe that religion is failed science or you don't.
Non sequitur – actually what I believe religion to be is failed reasoning, as you’ve amply displayed here.
Filling the explanatory gap is fine but if you claim to have no idea what will fill it you cannot say Not God or God wouldn't fill it.
Or leprechauns. Or the flying spaghetti monster. Or god’s dad. Why do you think a negative proof fallacy helps you?
My next mission on this board will be to analyse various antitheistisms such as ''filling the explanatory gap'' and ''I'ts not philosophical materialism it's just a working assumption that material is all there is''. I've done the latter....it's a complete pisstake.
As epic fails go, this latest post of yours pretty much takes the garibaldi. Can I suggest therefore that your next “mission” should instead be finally to attempt at least some arguments that aren’t hopeless or dishonest?
You're welcome.
-
In philosophy, theists stick to perfectly sound reasons for proposing a creator and what a creator and sustainer would have to do and be like. Atheists of philosophical calibre recognise that.
How about you post some of these reasons?
Furthermore there has to be a reason for the universe. To suspend reason at this juncture is a cop out and anti reason itself. Antitheists such as Russell, Dawkins and yourself give up at this point and adopt a dogmatic agnosticism.
You say that you don't know why god exists - so, as I've said repeatedly - it gets you nowhere: there is an exactly equivalent "anti reason", "cop out" and adoption of "dogmatic agnosticism" (as you so inaccurately put it) if you propose a god.
It's a baseless guess that adds nothing in terms of explaining the reason why stuff exists.
Finally theists support creation/sustainer theory because of their experience of God.
Something that is quite obviously unreliable as the vast number of god concepts and other superstition "based on experience" in human history clearly demonstrate.
-
Then you are special pleading. If at any point in your argument you are stating that a methodology for holding a position is all important...presenting a case for an exemption is special pleading.
I'm not presenting a case for an exemption: atheism is the rejection of the claims of theists, but you know this already (or you should if you've been paying attention).
-
In philosophy, theists stick to perfectly sound reasons for proposing a creator and what a creator and sustainer would have to do and be like.
How come then that all these reasons are exposed as being incoherent or fallacious (unless you see demonstrating fallacies as being worthwhile.
Atheists of philosophical calibre recognise that.
No - although they do recognise when fallacies are being deployed.
Furthermore there has to be a reason for the universe.
'Has'?
To suspend reason at this juncture is a cop out and anti reason itself. Antitheists such as Russell, Dawkins and yourself give up at this point and adopt a dogmatic agnosticism.
Before you start suspending reason you'll need to start using some first!
Finally theists support creation/sustainer theory because of their experience of God.
No doubt they honestly think that.
So either you believe that religion is failed science or you don't.
Which is a false dichotomy.
Filling the explanatory gap is fine but if you claim to have no idea what will fill it you cannot say Not God or God wouldn't fill it.
You'd need to method to support the 'God' hypothesis that includes its attributes in terms of gap-filling - got one?
My next mission on this board will be to analyse various antitheistisms such as ''filling the explanatory gap'' and ''I'ts not philosophical materialism it's just a working assumption that material is all there is''. I've done the latter....it's a complete pisstake.
Good luck with that, Vlad.
-
Vlad,
But that’s your argument! “Science can’t explain “popping out of nothing”/”always there”, therefore God”.
A ridiculous reduction from a ridiculous reducer.
You cannot engage with any theist without recourse to such antics.
-
I'm not presenting a case for an exemption: atheism is the rejection of the claims of theists, but you know this already (or you should if you've been paying attention).
if it is a rejection then by what methodology do you reject? I'm sure Nearly Sane in his better mood would put you straight on this.
-
How about you post some of these reasons?
You say that you don't know why god exists - so, as I've said repeatedly - it gets you nowhere: there is an exactly equivalent "anti reason", "cop out" and adoption of "dogmatic agnosticism" (as you so inaccurately put it) if you propose a god.
It's a baseless guess that adds nothing in terms of explaining the reason why stuff exists.
Something that is quite obviously unreliable as the vast number of god concepts and other superstition "based on experience" in human history clearly demonstrate.
I have stated these and have given links to both theistic philosophers and atheistic philosophers eg Feser, Ruse and Nagel (cue ad hominem).
New atheists have not engaged philosophically because of lack of training and lack of wanting to train.
If you are convicted like Hawking that philosophy is finished...science has done for it you have burned your boats.
-
if it is a rejection then by what methodology do you reject? I'm sure Nearly Sane in his better mood would put you straight on this.
I reject them by simply pointing out that the arguments presented by theists are invariably fallacious, else they are incoherent.
-
Vlad,
But that’s your argument! “Science can’t explain “popping out of nothing”/”always there”, therefore God”.
No.....therefore something...but science is not up to the job. Can you deny that or do you wish to cling to the idea of eventually getting someone in a white coat in there somehow?
-
Vlad,
A ridiculous reduction from a ridiculous reducer.
You cannot engage with any theist without recourse to such antics.
But it’s your argument – why else would you bang on about the universe “popping out of nothing”/”being eternal” etc? What relevance does that have to your belief in a god?
A don’t know is just a don’t know. It tells you nothing about alternative explanations that also present “don’t knows” to the same questions.
If you think you have a different argument though, by all means try it.
-
Vlad,
No.....therefore something...
But that "something"could be any something at all, including a scientific answer that we haven'y yet found out. How does that help you?
...and but science is not up to the job.
As it wasn't before the true cause of thunder was discovered. So?
Can you deny that or do you wish to cling to the idea of eventually getting someone in a white coat in there somehow?
Deny what? That science often comes up with "don't knows"? Why should I - it has always been so about all sorts of things (that's why people still do science), and for all I know may always be for some phenomena. Do you deny that that tells you the square root of bugger all about the likelihood or otherwise of your or any other god?
-
Vlad,
I have stated these…
Stop lying.
… and have given links to both theistic philosophers and atheistic philosophers eg Feser, Ruse and Nagel (cue ad hominem).
Whose arguments have routinely been falsified here. How does that help you?
New atheists have not engaged philosophically because of lack of training and lack of wanting to train.
Stop lying and start reading.
If you are convicted like Hawking that philosophy is finished...science has done for it you have burned your boats.
Science is all we have if we want explanations that are distinguishable from guessing. If you’re satisfied with that though, stick with religion and dishonesty.
-
Vlad,
But it’s your argument – why else would you bang on about the universe “popping out of nothing”/”being eternal” etc? What relevance does that have to your belief in a god?
A don’t know is just a don’t know. It tells you nothing about alternative explanations that also present “don’t knows” to the same questions.
If you think you have a different argument though, by all means try it.
This is both pathetic and hilarious.
If not created by something other than nature. Then nature either has to pop out of absolute nothing or have existed for ever.
If you accept that on behalf of the universe and count those as qualities of the universe but as things that disqualify God from existing then that is special pleading and contradicting your own argument.
Were it a don't know that would be fine but it seems like a don't know but we know it isn't God particularly in your hands.
To say I don't know because science cannot tell us and there is no other way of knowing is a philosophical position.
However scientists have said this could be a simulated universe so the ''who created God'' issue would be valid but then so would God...The creator of this universe be valid as a filler of the explanatory gap since what would the answer be to how would this simulated universe come about ? Answer? the creator.
-
Vlad,
Whose arguments have routinely been falsified here. How does that help you?
Citation?
-
Vlad,
This is both pathetic and hilarious.
If not created by something other than nature. Then nature either has to pop out of absolute nothing or have existed for ever.
That doesn’t follow (there’s no reason to the think the universe had to be “created” at all) but if you really want to go with it then you give yourself exactly the same problem for “God” – what outside of god created god?
Don’t tell me, let me guess: "it’s magic innit".
If you accept that on behalf of the universe and count those as qualities of the universe but as things that disqualify God from existing…
No-one has ever said that these “qualities” “disqualify God from existing”. All that’s being said is that the very bad arguments you attempt for "God" give no reason to think that a god does exists.
Why do you keep lying about this?
… then that is special pleading and contradicting your own argument.
No, it’s just catching you out in yet another lie
Were it a don't know that would be fine but it seems like a don't know but we know it isn't God particularly in your hands.
Why do you keep lying about this? “There’s no reason to think there is a god” and “we know it isn’t God” are not the same thing at all. Why is this so difficult for you?
To say I don't know because science cannot tell us and there is no other way of knowing is a philosophical position.
It might be if ever you could find someone who actually said that. Presumably you’re wedded to this straw man though just so you can demolish it in the hope that no-one notices that it tells you nothing whatever about the likelihood of your or any other god.
However scientists have said this could be a simulated universe so the ''who created God'' issue would be valid but then so would God...The creator of this universe be valid as a filler of the explanatory gap since what would the answer be to how would this simulated universe come about ? Answer? the creator.
Who might have a creator of his own, who might have had etc etc. Anything is possible, despite your relentless lying about people claiming otherwise. How though does “anything is possible” take you even one step closer to the conjecture “god”?
-
Vlad,
Citation?
There are dozens of them scattered all over this mb (and for WLC too by the way). Use the search facility if you're that interested, though from memory you've never yet managed to understand the rebuttals in any case.
-
I have stated these and have given links to both theistic philosophers and atheistic philosophers eg Feser, Ruse and Nagel (cue ad hominem).
I did read the Feser link (don't recall others) but it singularly lacked any actual argument for god - IIRC seemed to suggest that we needed to buy his book. There were (again, IIRC) some hints at divine simplicity - which I've always found somewhat silly.
New atheists have not engaged philosophically because of lack of training and lack of wanting to train.
Daniel Dennett?
If you are convicted like Hawking that philosophy is finished...science has done for it you have burned your boats.
I regard philosophy as a bit of a curate's egg. Unless it can come up with some sort of compelling argument for god that isn't flawed in some way, then it isn't going to help you.
On the other hand, I think it would be far more interesting if you discussed some actual philosophical argument for god - instead reworking the endless anti-theist scientism malarkey...
-
Vlad,
There are dozens of them scattered all over this mb (and for WLC too by the way). Use the search facility if you're that interested, though from memory you've never yet managed to understand the rebuttals in any case.
I'll take that as a ''can't provide one''.
Can you give a refutation of Feser and Nagel here and now?
-
Vlad,
I'll take that as a ''can't provide one''.
Can you give a refutation of Feser and Nagel here and now?
Probably if you care to set out what you think their arguments that most appeal to you are.
On the other hand as I've asked you lots of question in the last few posts alone all of which you just ignored, why the hell should I?
-
I did read the Feser link (don't recall others) but it singularly lacked any actual argument for god - IIRC seemed to suggest that we needed to buy his book. There were (again, IIRC) some hints at divine simplicity - which I've always found somewhat silly.
Daniel Dennett?
I regard philosophy as a bit of a curate's egg. Unless it can come up with some sort of compelling argument for god that isn't flawed in some way, then it isn't going to help you.
On the other hand, I think it would be far more interesting if you discussed some actual philosophical argument for god - instead reworking the endless anti-theist scientism malarkey...
Feser is an Aristotelian and his approach is a bottom up argument going from real and common experience and deriving entities which correspond to religious descriptions of God.
You may be starting with a top down approach where you start from a conception of God. God already formulated if you will.
The trouble with requests for a philosophical argument is 1) You aren't seeing the ones you are already being presented with here 2) You guys keep shifting onto the playing field of science which aside from being IMHO irrelevant is a bad case of philosophy dodging and explains point 1.
-
.......why the hell should I?
Answer Because you can't?
-
Vlad,
Answer Because you can't?
Sorry, are we talking about the questions re Feser et al here or about the countless questions I've asked you that you've always ignored?
-
Vlad,
You guys keep shifting onto the playing field of science which aside from being IMHO irrelevant is a bad case of philosophy dodging and explains point 1.
If I send you a nice crisp new five pound note will you stop lying?
-
Vlad,
Sorry, are we talking about the questions re Feser et al here or about the countless questions I've asked you that you've always ignored?
IF Feser has been refuted by you a refutation should be simple for you considering the amount of verbage you put into a ''I'm giving Vlad a piece of my mind !!!!'' post.
Bring it on.
-
Vlad,
IF Feser has been refuted by you a refutation should be simple for you considering the amount of verbage you put into a ''I'm giving Vlad a piece of my mind !!!!'' post.
Bring it on.
1. Set out what you think the argument to be that most appeals to you. So far as I recall his schtick is a mixture of ad homs and medieval scholasticism that could be translated onto any religious belief, but if you think there's something of more substance tell us what it is.
2. In exchange, finally after all these years agree to answer a question in return. What for example do you think attacking a position that almost no-one holds (that "God" is not possible) tells you about the probability of that or any other non-material conjecture being true?
-
Vlad,
1. Set out what you think the argument to be that most appeals to you. So far as I recall his schtick is a mixture of ad homs and medieval scholasticism that could be translated onto any religious belief, but if you think there's something of more substance tell us what it is.
2. In exchange, finally after all these years agree to answer a question in return. What for example do you think attacking a position that almost no-one holds (that "God" is not possible) tells you about the probability of that or any other non-material conjecture being true?
1: Refute Feser not me nor what appeals to me.
2: Outline your position on God. I will then opine as to whether it tallies with what you have previously written.
-
Vlad,
1: Refute Feser not me nor what appeals to me.
Feser has written books. Which bits of those books do you want refuted? If it helps you, here's a link to someone who's done that chapter-by-chapter for one of them:
http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2014/10/an-atheist-reviews-last-superstition.html
Knock yourself out. On the other hand, as you're fond of throwing around terms like "philosophy" without having the first understanding of what they entail perhaps if you set out the argument of Feser's that you find most persuasive (I should warn you that you have to wade through a lot of trash talk and victim blaming finally to get to any arguments) then I'll knock it out of the park for you.
2: Outline your position on God. I will then opine as to whether it tallies with what you have previously written.
I don't have "a position on God". The term is just white noise. What I do have though is a position on the very bad arguments you attempt for this "God". That's why i asked you a perfectly simple question: What do you think attacking a position almost no-one holds about the impossibility of "God" tells you about the probability of this god?
It's a simple enough question isn't it?
-
Feser is an Aristotelian and his approach is a bottom up argument going from real and common experience and deriving entities which correspond to religious descriptions of God.
You may be starting with a top down approach where you start from a conception of God. God already formulated if you will.
It strikes me that the problem with basing things on people's experience is that it's so inconsistent (outside of the 'objective' or intersubjective world) - so how does one decide, first that religious experience is to be taken seriously (as opposed to, say, ghosts), second, how to reconcile the disparate beliefs that are held and have been held over human history, and lastly, even if you manage to get something out of all that, how do you tell if it's telling you about a real, external entity, rather than some aspect of the human mind?
-
Vlad,
Feser has written books. Which bits of those books do you want refuted? If it helps you, here's a link to someone who's done that chapter-by-chapter for one of them:
http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2014/10/an-atheist-reviews-last-superstition.html
Knock yourself out. On the other hand, as you're fond of throwing around terms like "philosophy" without having the first understanding of what they entail perhaps if you set out the argument of Feser's that you find most persuasive (I should warn you that you have to wade through a lot of trash talk and victim blaming finally to get to any arguments) then I'll knock it out of the park for you.
I don't have "a position on God". The term is just white noise. What I do have though is a position on the very bad arguments you attempt for this "God". That's why i asked you a perfectly simple question: What do you think attacking a position almost no-one holds about the impossibility of "God" tells you about the probability of this god?
It's a simple enough question isn't it?
You hold a very public atheism.
For the uses of ''of course God is possible'' I recommend Hillside's posts on that matter.
Thanks for the link.
-
Some,
It strikes me that the problem with basing things on people's experience is that it's so inconsistent (outside of the 'objective' or intersubjective world) - so how does one decide, first that religious experience is to be taken seriously (as opposed to, say, ghosts), second, how to reconcile the disparate beliefs that are held and have been held over human history, and lastly, even if you manage to get something out of all that, how do you tell if it's telling you about a real, external entity, rather than some aspect of the human mind?
This is essentially the question Vlad always runs away from (Ok, he runs away from all of them but this is the one I've asked him most often that he's then run away from). I usually phrase it this way: "Say that I line up ten people before breakfast, one of them being you. Each of the other nine believes just as firmly, just as deeply, just as profoundly as you do that they have experienced different deities. Why should I privilege your claim over theirs?"
The only honest answer is, "there's no reason at all" but the consequences of that are too difficult for him to process so he just vanishes for a bit, then returns with straw men and distractions like his "philosophical naturalism" schtick.
-
Vlad,
You hold a very public atheism.
For the uses of ''of course God is possible'' I recommend Hillside's posts on that matter.
Thanks for the link.
Eh? I am bluehillside!
Anyways, epistemically "God" isn't possible/impossible apt because the term lacks a coherent definition. Ignoring that for now though, it's only possible in the sense that anything is possible - unknown unknowns again. Why you've invested so much in lying about that and why you think it helps you argue for "God" (as opposed to, say, for leprechauns) is anyone's guess, but there it is.
-
One of the issues with reading anything by Feser is that you are required to accept a set of premises, before you get onto the main argument. For example, with natural law, you have to accept the idea of final cause. I'm not sure how Aristotle viewed this, but with Feser it slides over into purpose quite quickly, so that he can say that sex is designed for babies, and gays are therefore sinful.
Then you get this clusterfuck:
"a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic activities of human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are ours by virtue of our nature or essence."
Well, you could tear apart many of the terms here, such as 'successfully', 'determined', 'by virtue of', 'nature or essence'. It seems to fall victim to the is/ought problem also.
-
Vlad,
Eh? I am bluehillside!
I disagree.................seriously though, So you are! Read yourself!
Thanks for the link..
I have read the preamble and review of the preface. So I suppose I am attempting a critique of a critique of a critique.
I not yet minded if this isn't another caricature of Christianity as homophobia in vestments. What it looks a lot like is an attack on Feser's politics rather than the nitty gritty arguments to which i'm thinking I don't share Feser's politics and if you want to...go ahead fill your boots.
-
"a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic activities of human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are ours by virtue of our nature or essence."
Well, you could tear apart many of the terms here, such as 'successfully', 'determined', 'by virtue of', 'nature or essence'.
Be my guest
-
Some,
This is essentially the question Vlad always runs away from (Ok, he runs away from all of them but this is the one I've asked him most often that he's then run away from). I usually phrase it this way: "Say that I line up ten people before breakfast, one of them being you. Each of the other nine believes just as firmly, just as deeply, just as profoundly as you do that they have experienced different deities. Why should I privilege your claim over theirs?"
The only honest answer is, "there's no reason at all" but the consequences of that are too difficult for him to process so he just vanishes for a bit, then returns with straw men and distractions like his "philosophical naturalism" schtick.
How would you measure deepness, firmness and profundity and how could you confirm they had met different deities or that the different deities had the same status?
-
Wiggs,
One of the issues with reading anything by Feser is that you are required to accept a set of premises, before you get onto the main argument. For example, with natural law, you have to accept the idea of final cause. I'm not sure how Aristotle viewed this, but with Feser it slides over into purpose quite quickly, so that he can say that sex is designed for babies, and gays are therefore sinful.
Yes. He uses "prima facie" quite a bit, and then proceeds on the basis the his premises that are prima facie true have somehow been demonstrated. Given how much we know that's "prima facie" true isn't true at all it's an odd position to take, especially for a philosopher.
Then you get this clusterfuck:
"a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic activities of human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are ours by virtue of our nature or essence."
Well, you could tear apart many of the terms here, such as 'successfully', 'determined', 'by virtue of', 'nature or essence'. It seems to fall victim to the is/ought problem also.
Nightmare innit? Assumption upon assumption about these terms meaning what he wants them to mean with nothing to support or even to explain why he thinks these things. What I wonder does he think "our nature or essence" to be, and why?
-
Vlad,
How would you measure deepness, firmness and profundity and how could you confirm they had met different deities or that the different deities had the same status?
Surely these are question you should be asking yourself aren't they? How would you know that Fred the leprechaunist standing next to you hadn't had "experiences" more deep or profound than your own, that he hadn't "met" his deity but you hadn't met yours?
All I have is the words from each of you - so why should I privilege your clam of an "experience" over theirs? More to the point, why should you?
Oh, and the "status" of a faith belief tells you nothing about whether or not you experienced it by the way.
-
Some,
This is essentially the question Vlad always runs away from (Ok, he runs away from all of them but this is the one I've asked him most often that he's then run away from). I usually phrase it this way: "Say that I line up ten people before breakfast, one of them being you. Each of the other nine believes just as firmly, just as deeply, just as profoundly as you do that they have experienced different deities. Why should I privilege your claim over theirs?"
The only honest answer is, "there's no reason at all" but the consequences of that are too difficult for him to process so he just vanishes for a bit, then returns with straw men and distractions like his "philosophical naturalism" schtick.
I have said that there is a difference in the depth of experience where one looks at what is fundamentally existential. Whether you have poo pooed the idea of such an experience or not I have addressed this issue. Christianity in it's claims is more existential.
My own experience is that when I became a theist around the time of reading CS Lewis I did try a bit of
commandment following and pleasing God on my own efforts but this was overtaken by a challenge to commitment by Christ.
Also, intellectually IMHO Christianity speaks of a more intimate relationship between the divine as and people than other faiths....and in mystic experiences labels tend to break down.
I think you are mistaking running away from answers with you not getting the answers you want to here.
-
Vlad,
Surely these are question you should be asking yourself aren't they? How would you know that Fred the leprechaunist standing next to you hadn't had "experiences" more deep or profound than your own, that he hadn't "met" his deity but you hadn't met yours?
All I have is the words from each of you - so why should I privilege your clam of an "experience" over theirs? More to the point, why should you?
Oh, and the "status" of a faith belief tells you nothing about whether or not you experienced it by the way.
I am not talking with a status of a faith belief I am talking about the status of the particular God.
Did they meet Eric the deputy assistant god for treasury tags or The One God, the supreme entelechy of our being. Did Eric tell you how to use a treasury tag in a way pleasing to him or did he cause your chains to sin and guilt of past sin f If it doesn't make any difference to you that is your choice to be flippant.
If you are just talking about meeting a deity why would I doubt that he had met something divine. The question is how intimately and existential was that meeting.
We have discussed this before.
We can of course not know except for finding out for ourselves.
-
Vlad,
I have said that there is a difference in the depth of experience where one looks at what is fundamentally existential.
And you would know that how? How would you distinguish any existential belief from any other for this purpose, and how in any case (as you asked yourself) are you measuring “depth” for this purpose?
You might feel to every fibre of your being that you’d “experienced” a deity. So though might the chap next to you about a different deity entirely.
Now what?
Whether you have poo pooed the idea of such an experience or not I have addressed this issue. Christianity in it's claims is more existential.
Priceless! How are you measuring “existentialness” to work out which one is more existential than all the rest, and what on earth has that to do with epistemological truth in any case?
Good luck reverse engineering the logic for that one!
My own experience is that when I became a theist around the time of reading CS Lewis I did try a bit of
commandment following and pleasing God on my own efforts but this was overtaken by a challenge to commitment by Christ.
All very meaningful for you no doubt, as for them are the experiences of those from different faiths entirely.
Now what?
Also, intellectually IMHO Christianity speaks of a more intimate relationship between the divine as and people than other faiths....and in mystic experiences labels tend to break down.
Not sure why you’re bringing in a naturalistic concept like intellect into a discussion about faith, but either way presumably the rationalisations of the other nine no doubt intellectually do the same for them.
Now what?
I think you are mistaking running away from answers with you not getting the answers you want to here.
Then you think wrongly. Not only have you always run away, you’ve also always run away from the question about why you run away. Now you have at least tried to answer, your problem is that you’ve provided nothing that couldn’t just has readily been said by the other nine.
Do you see the problem here? There’s no logical path from (subjective) faith beliefs to (objective) true for you too facts.
-
Vlad,
Surely these are question you should be asking yourself aren't they?
It seems to me you have completely ignored the following
The status of the particular God Eric the Deputy assistant God of Treasury tags or the One supreme entelechy.
That some experiences are more comprehensively transformative than others.
That they can all be true experiences of the divine.
That different religions actually make different claims which are not necessarily fundamentally exclusive.
However God obviously tickles your fancy since you are ''twisting the dragons tale'' by being on this on this website......
-
Vlad,
I am not talking with a status of a faith belief I am talking about the status of the particular God.
First, that’s just a “my Dad’s bigger than your Dad game”. Any of the other nine could assert their god to out-status yours.
Second, “status” tells you nothing about the cogency of an argument for the “experiencing” of one god vs another one.
Did they meet Eric the deputy assistant god for treasury tags or The One God, the supreme entelechy of our being. Did Eric tell you how to use a treasury tag in a way pleasing to him or did he cause your chains to sin and guilt of past sin f If it doesn't make any difference to you that is your choice to be flippant.
You’re trying to retro-fit the content of the claim to its epistemic truth. Doesn’t work – bigging up the size of the claim tells you nothing about whether that claim of an "experience" is more or less likely to be true. (It’s also the opposite of the bottom-up Feserism you espouse by the way.)
If you are just talking about meeting a deity why would I doubt that he had met something divine. The question is how intimately and existential was that meeting.
That’s not the question. The question is whether or not there’s a cogent reason to think any of you had “experienced” any of your gods.
We have discussed this before.
For the most part no we haven’t because you usually run away from the problem.
We can of course not know except for finding out for ourselves.
“Finding out for ourselves” is generally a bad way to establish objective truth because all it gives you is opinion. Your nine colleagues genuinely think just as much as you do that they have “found out for themselves”.
What makes them wrong and you right?
-
Vlad,
It seems to me you have completely ignored the following
The status of the particular God Eric the Deputy assistant God of Treasury tags or the One supreme entelechy.
It seems to me that you have ignored the status of a faith claim having nothing to say to its epistemic truth value.
That some experiences are more comprehensively transformative than others.
It seems to me that you have ignored that being “more comprehensively transformative” has nothing to say to the epistemic truth of the claim of an experience. It also by the way leaves you with a problem when other beliefs have been more transformative than your own.
That they can all be true experiences of the divine.
It seems to me that you have ignored that this “divine” would have to be hugely internally contradictory for that to be the case given the variety of faith beliefs on offer.
That different religions actually make different claims which are not necessarily fundamentally exclusive.
It seems to me that you have ignored that those same religions do make claims that are often mutually exclusive, and moreover that many of them think it a serious “sin” to buy into the claims of the others.
However God obviously tickles your fancy since you are ''twisting the dragons tale'' by being on this on this website......
And he finishes with a reification fallacy – the triple salchow of religious discussion. It’s arguments about “God”, not “God”.
How many flipping times…
-
Vlad,
First, that’s just a “my Dad’s bigger than your Dad game”.
No it isn't it is about the claims of the religion. As CS Lewis has said....only Christianity has Christ.
-
Vlad,
It seems to me that you have ignored the status of a faith claim having nothing to say to its epistemic truth value.
It seems to me that you have ignored that being “more comprehensively transformative” has nothing to say to the epistemic truth of the claim of an experience. It also by the way leaves you with a problem when other beliefs have been more transformative than your own.
It seems to me that you have ignored that this “divine” would have to be hugely internally contradictory for that to be the case given the variety of faith beliefs on offer.
Or the interpretation of them has to be.
-
No it isn't it is about the claims of the religion. As CS Lewis has said....only Christianity has Christ.
So............?
-
Really Sass, this is such bullshit. You think people don't change because you read something about Job. Get real. We all change; all the time, even from moment to moment we change, we are changed by our interaction with the wider world. We learn and we grow, we do not stay the same. This is really basic.
In reality you just refuse to accept that some people have a relationship with God. You have no knowledge of God because you don't seek him.
You who know nothing in a personal sense of whom God is, cannot tell any believer it is 'bull shit'. Arrogance that learning and growing actually changes religious beliefs in all cases is the real BS.
-
So............?
The claims of Christ are that you need a saviour since command obedience is clearly impossible.
What other religion has that?
-
Vlad,
It seems to me that you have ignored the status of a faith claim having nothing to say to its epistemic truth value.
It seems to me that you have ignored that being “more comprehensively transformative” has nothing to say to the epistemic truth of the claim of an experience. It also by the way leaves you with a problem when other beliefs have been more transformative than your own.
It seems to me that you have ignored that this “divine” would have to be hugely internally contradictory for that to be the case given the variety of faith beliefs on offer.
It seems to me that you have ignored that those same religions do make claims that are often mutually exclusive, and moreover that many of them think it a serious “sin” to buy into the claims of the others.
And he finishes with a reification fallacy – the triple salchow of religious discussion. It’s arguments about “God”, not “God”.
How many flipping times…
Have you refuted Feser or Nagel yet.
-
Or the interpretation of them has to be.
So people have experiences that are interpreted in many different ways (including, we have to assume, just as experiences with no need for an external cause) - so how do we decide which is correct - or even which human experiences to include in such an assessment?
-
Vlad,
No it isn't it is about the claims of the religion. As CS Lewis has said....only Christianity has Christ.
And only Leprechaunology has Colin, the grand nabob of the fiddle players.
Look, if Fred says, "I have experienced a small dragon in my garage" and Bill says, "I have experienced a big dragon in my garage" the status of Bill's claim doesn't make him more likely to be correct than Fred. You can claim anything you like about Christ, but that tells you nothing at all about the underlying truthfulness or otherwise of the claim.
-
“Finding out for ourselves” is generally a bad way to establish objective truth because all it gives you is opinion. Your nine colleagues genuinely think just as much as you do that they have “found out for themselves”.
Finding out for ourselves is an aim of education. You wouldn't be back on the doctrine of psychological incompetence again would you?
-
The claims of Christ are that you need a saviour since command obedience is clearly impossible.
What other religion has that?
Do you think that the logical absurdity of that situation combined with a loving and just god, is actually a recommendation for some reason?
-
Vlad,
The claims of Christ are that you need a saviour since command obedience is clearly impossible.
What other religion has that?
Colin is really, really good on the fiddle. What other religion has that?
You can't back-fit the content of the claim to its epistemic value - that's just your common-or-garden argumentum ad consequentiam, another of the various fallacies on this your position rests.
-
Vlad,
And only Leprechaunology has Colin, the grand nabob of the fiddle players.
And only Sainsbury's has a buy one box of oat crunchies get one free offer!
-
Vlad,
Have you refuted Feser or Nagel yet.
Have you told us which of their arguments you want refuted yet?
-
Vlad,
Colin is really, really good on the fiddle. What other religion has that?
Look I know Colin he's a complete prick......Just like his Dad.......
Ho Ho Ha Ha He He.
-
Vlad,
Finding out for ourselves is an aim of education.
Yes, and part of that process involves finding a means to validate our findings so as to distinguish them from just guessing.
And that's your problem.
You wouldn't be back on the doctrine of psychological incompetence again would you?
That's a ludicrousness you've attempted I believe - certainly not an argument of mine.
-
Vlad,
Have you told us which of their arguments you want refuted yet?
Not the trivial political ones...................................................................That's f****d you hasn't it?
-
Have you refuted Feser or Nagel yet.
Have you refuted Dennett?
It really is pointless just to cite people. If you learned something from them - use it to present an argument here...
-
Vlad,
Look I know Colin he's a complete prick......Just like his Dad.......
That's an analogy you want to go with is it? Children were gassed to death in Syria a couple of days ago - what would that make your non-intervening god then?
-
Vlad,
Yes, and part of that process involves finding a means to validate our findings so as to distinguish them from just guessing.
Yes validate philosophical materialism then.
-
Vlad,
Not the trivial political ones...................................................................That's f****d you hasn't it?
Er no, it's just the ever-entertaining sight of you shooting yourself in the foot. Feser and Nagel are people's names - they have written and said many things. You can't refute names - you have (finally) to tell us which bits of their arguments you find persuasive and to invite us to falsify them. Otherwise what do you expect - a chapter-by-chapter refutation of the type I linked you to?
-
Vlad,
That's an analogy you want to go with is it? Children were gassed to death in Syria a couple of days ago - what would that make your non-intervening god then?
Well since I've met with Colin I can say that unless you have compelling evidence that he doesn't exist and I am making that up... Which deities have you met?
People were gassed to death by politics coupled by weak faith that doesn't trust God enough to a point where it hardly deserves the title. Next question.
-
Vlad,
Yes validate philosophical materialism then.
The actual meaning or your personal re-definition of it? (Remember, you fell flat on your face when you tried a Wiki link a few posts back.)
-
Vlad,
Er no, it's just the ever-entertaining sight of you shooting yourself in the foot. Feser and Nagel are people's names - they have written and said many things. You can't refute names - you have (finally) to tell us which bits of their arguments you find persuasive and to invite us to falsify them. Otherwise what do you expect - a chapter-by-chapter refutation of the type I linked you to?
Yeh? Any chance of you refuting Feser and Nagel.
-
Vlad,
The actual meaning or your personal re-definition of it? (Remember, you fell flat on your face when you tried a Wiki link a few posts back.)
I'm sorry I've decided this discussion is no place for grown ups so cioa.
-
Vlad,
Well since I've met with Colin I can say that unless you have compelling evidence that he doesn't exist and I am making that up... Which deities have you met?
Your claim to have met Colin has exactly the same epistemic value as your claim to have met “God”. Does that not concern you at all?
People were gassed to death by politics coupled by weak faith that doesn't trust God enough to a point where it hardly deserves the title. Next question.
While your “loving” god stood idly by with his arms folded. What does that make him would you say?
-
Vlad,
I'm sorry I've decided this discussion is no place for grown ups so cioa.
Good to see that you finally realise that's not a set to which you belong.
-
Have you refuted Dennett?
It really is pointless just to cite people. If you learned something from them - use it to present an argument here...
Dennett? No........... but then I'm not claiming to have.
The claim is that Feser and Nagel were refuted on this site.
-
In reality you just refuse to accept that some people have a relationship with God. You have no knowledge of God because you don't seek him.
You who know nothing in a personal sense of whom God is, cannot tell any believer it is 'bull shit'. Arrogance that learning and growing actually changes religious beliefs in all cases is the real BS.
Some people THINK they have a relationship with god, but there is no evidence to support it is an external one, rather than generated by the human mind.
-
Vlad,
Your claim to have met Colin has exactly the same epistemic value as your claim to have met “God”. Does that not concern you at all?
I think you know more about Colin than you are prepared to let on.
-
Vlad,
Your claim to have met Colin has exactly the same epistemic value as your claim to have met “God”. Does that not concern you at all?
While your “loving” god stood idly by with his arms folded. What does that make him would you say?
Death is not the end as far as God is concerned. Perhaps if you grasped God and put him firmly in the equation instead of positing him and then making him totally actionless.
-
Have you refuted Feser or Nagel yet.
Wiggs put Feser in his place earlier - so, Vlad, what about Nagel?
iirc Nagel self-identifies as an atheist, and if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll correct me.
-
Wiggs put Feser in his place earlier - so, Vlad, what about Nagel?
iirc Nagel self-identifies as an atheist, and if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll correct me.
I'd be surprised if Wiggs did unless it was his politics. I don't think Feser has much to fear from Wigginhall
I know Nagel is an atheist. He's just not a new atheist. Unlike some I do not automatically disrespect the input of atheists and certain atheists I have read have reported being disrespected by antitheists because they dare to criticise the New Atheist movement.... something manifest in The God Delusion itself.
-
Vlad,
Death is not the end as far as God is concerned.
A statement you believe to be true no doubt. All you have to do now is to find a way out of the straightjacket of "faith" to make an argument for why anyone else should think you to be right about that.
Perhaps if you grasped God and put him firmly in the equation instead of positing him and then making him totally actionless.
Perhaps if you grasped Colin and put him firmly in the equation you could become a pretty cool fiddle player too. See, that's the thing about faith beliefs - you can populate them with any assertions that take your fancy.
-
Perhaps if you grasped Colin and put him firmly in the equation you could become a pretty cool fiddle player too. Vlad,
A statement you believe to be true no doubt. All you have to do now is to find a way out of the straightjacket of "faith" to make an argument for why anyone else should think you to be right about that.See, that's the thing about faith beliefs - you can populate them with any assertions that take your fancy.
Hillside do you want an argument for God or an argument for post mortem existence?
Lets look at this. Raising from the dead is within God's power. If you have encountered Christ as more than a good man or even the best man you would know this. The logic follows from the encounter. There are also historical accounts in the Gospels and epistles which reflect thinking within living memory of Christ.
Here you seem to want God but cast him in the role of villain but we have to look at your theology here. Yes Hillside you have ventured into theology.
You propose a God who hasn't here intervened to stop the laws of physics, to change peoples hearts (although that is debateable). That would say nothing about whether he has done so elsewhere. Or whether there wasn't a God of the deists (although deism is undermined by claiming a God who couldn't intervene.)
Is God guilty that he lets this happen? It depends how much you value freedom of action, order and predictability and obviously God has put a high premium on that.
Secondly I personally am convinced of Gods desire for restoration and resurrection.
Thirdly, From a non sin point of view this act was bleakly Darwinian and territorial. What then is your justification for this being (in the Darwinian schema) normal and yet terrible and unjust too?
I believe this is wrong, that the world shouldn't be like this, that it ought not happen.
Prior to my conversion there was a documentary on Bloody Friday in Ulster where they showed the top half of a headless torso with one handless arm being shovelled into a black bin.
I thought that was wrong, absolutely unequivocally wrong. Would you agree with that?..............Anyway I now believe that was part of my journey to God.
-
Vlad,
Hillside do you want an argument for God or an argument for post mortem existence?
Lets look at this. Raising from the dead is within God's power. If you have encountered Christ as more than a good man or even the best man you would know this. The logic follows from the encounter. There are also historical accounts in the Gospels and epistles which reflect thinking within living memory of Christ.
There are lots of stories from lots of religious traditions, most of which you think to be not true. You can’t though just make assertions from your pick of them as if they were arguments – why do you think there’s an “encounter” at all?
Here you seem to want God but cast him in the role of villain but we have to look at your theology here. Yes Hillside you have ventured into theology.
I want no such thing. I merely point out a contradiction in your beliefs.
You propose a God who hasn't here intervened to stop the laws of physics, to change peoples hearts (although that is debateable). That would say nothing about whether he has done so elsewhere. Or whether there wasn't a God of the deists (although deism is undermined by claiming a God who couldn't intervene.)
I propose no such thing. I merely point out a consequence if you think there’s a god of the omnis.
Is God guilty that he lets this happen? It depends how much you value freedom of action, order and predictability and obviously God has put a high premium on that.
Higher it seems than babies dying horribly. And you think that’s morally good?
Really?
Secondly I personally am convinced of Gods desire for restoration and resurrection.
That’s nice for you. I am personally convinced that Colin the leprechaun will grant me three wishes if only I can catch the little so-and-so.
Now what?
Thirdly, From a non sin point of view this act was bleakly Darwinian and territorial. What then is your justification for this being (in the Darwinian schema) normal and yet terrible and unjust too?
What are you trying to say here? “Darwinian” or not, I’m not the one positing a morally good god remember? The argumentum ad consequentiam seems to be your fallacy du jour just now.
I believe this is wrong, that the world shouldn't be like this, that it ought not happen.
No doubt. How do you propose to get an is from an ought then?
Prior to my conversion there was a documentary on Bloody Friday in Ulster where they showed the top half of a headless torso with one handless arm being shovelled into a black bin.
I thought that was wrong, absolutely unequivocally wrong. Would you agree with that?..............Anyway I now believe that was part of my journey to God.
Yes. What on earth has that got to do though with a “journey to god”, presumably the very god who allowed this?
-
#487
Here you seem to want God but cast him in the role of villain but we have to look at your theology here. Yes Hillside you have ventured into theology.
I want no such thing. I merely point out a contradiction in your beliefs.
No.
What you do is point out what you think is a contradiction, based on your flawed understanding of Christianity.
If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=5, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the true answer of 4!!
-
What you do is point out what you think is a contradiction, based on your flawed understanding of Christianity.
If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=5, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the true answer of 4!!
Why don't you explain it then - instead of your tedious assertions that people don't understand or have the wrong "world view"?
-
Sword,
No.
What you do is point out what you think is a contradiction, based on your flawed understanding of Christianity.
That only works if you think the non-flawed "understanding of Christianity" is that its contradictions are fine.
If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=5, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the true answer of 4!!
You have it backwards. That should read: "If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=4, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the non-true answer of 5!"
-
#487
No.
What you do is point out what you think is a contradiction, based on your flawed understanding of Christianity.
If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=5, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the true answer of 4!!
And your understanding of Christianity is correct and not just your take on the subject? That religion is open to a myriad interpretations, some crazier than others.
-
Vlad,
There are lots of stories from lots of religious traditions, most of which you think to be not true. You can’t though just make assertions from your pick of them as if they were arguments – why do you think there’s an “encounter” at all?
I want no such thing. I merely point out a contradiction in your beliefs.
I propose no such thing. I merely point out a consequence if you think there’s a god of the omnis.
Higher it seems than babies dying horribly. And you think that’s morally good?
Really?
That’s nice for you. I am personally convinced that Colin the leprechaun will grant me three wishes if only I can catch the little so-and-so.
Now what?
What are you trying to say here? “Darwinian” or not, I’m not the one positing a morally good god remember? The argumentum ad consequentiam seems to be your fallacy du jour just now.
No doubt. How do you propose to get an is from an ought then?
Yes. What on earth has that got to do though with a “journey to god”, presumably the very god who allowed this?
Hillside. You were given an opportunity to declare an act of barbarity absolutely evil and you did not do so.
That is completely explicable for a moral irrealist and yet here you are giving IMHO a Shatneresque performance on the absolute evil of God. That is both irrational and hypocritical.
What then are you?
If you think that God represents absolute evil then you have, I move found God but have no perspective of what he is. It also makes you a moral absolutist.
-
Vlad,
Hillside. You were given an opportunity to declare an act of barbarity absolutely evil and you did not do so.
If you're going to lie, could you try to be a bit less obvious about it? You asked if I agree with you, and I said "yes".
That is completely explicable for a moral irrealist and yet here you are giving IMHO a Shatneresque performance on the absolute evil of God. That is both irrational and hypocritical.
It's also not true. Besides, whose barbarity are you thinking of here - the person who committed the atrocity, or the supposedly benevolent god who allowed it?
What then are you?
Honest. You should try it.
If you think that God represents absolute evil then you have, I move found God but have no perspective of what he is. It also makes you a moral absolutist.
Well that's pretty bonkers. I merely point out that, if you want to posit a god of the omins, then it gives you all sorts of problems when you watch him fold his arms even as children are being gassed. If there was truth in your beliefs, that would seem pretty morally fucked up to me.
Don't you agree?
-
Vlad,
If you're going to lie, could you try to be a bit less obvious about it? You asked if I agree with you, and I said "yes".
So you are a moral absolutist then.
-
Vlad,
So you are a moral absolutist then.
Of course not - I merely expressed my opinion on the matter.
Why do you think lying helps you here, and why have you not had the good grace to apologise the the last lie I just caught you making?
-
Vlad,
Of course not -
Well then you don't agree with me.
-
Vlad,
Well then you don't agree with me.
Why are you lying again? You're dicking around with the "absolutely, unequivocally" here - that we share opinions on something being completely immoral does not mean that they are anything other than opinions. There's no universal law we can point to to validate those opinions.
-
Vlad,
Why are you lying again? You're dicking around with the "absolutely, unequivocally" here -
Nope................. I am a moral absolutist and that was the whole point of my story.
-
Vlad,
Nope................. I am a moral absolutist and that was the whole point of my story.
So were the 9/11 hijackers – and for the same reason: faith. That's what makes faith-based morality so dangerous - there's no arguing someone out of it.
You’re heading here into Alien’s old mistake (remember him?). He came up with ever more convoluted examples of a morally bad act, ending up with torturing a child to death just for fun or some such. I agreed “absolutely” that that would be morally wrong in the sense that I could not imagine a mitigating argument that would change my mind about that. Where he (and you) went wrong though was to think that that then meant there was some kind of universal law to that effect, a bit like there is for gravity.
For all I know a psychopath would think TACTDJFF would be morally fine, and that would be his opinion on the matter. The difference though is that, while the psychopath and I can have different opinions on a moral questions, we cannot have different gravities.
-
It isn't clear to me if moral absolutism is being used here as if it is synonymous with moral objectivism? If it is then that would be incorrect
-
NS,
It isn't clear to me if moral absolutism is being used here as if it is synonymous with moral objectivism? If it is then that would be incorrect
So far as I can tell, that is what Vlad is doing yes. If though he actually means something like, "I can't imagine why I might change my mind on moral position X" then I have no argument with him.
-
Vlad,
So were the 9/11 hijackers – and for the same reason: faith. That's what makes faith-based morality so dangerous - there's no arguing someone out of it.
You’re heading here into Alien’s old mistake (remember him?). He came up with ever more convoluted examples of a morally bad act, ending up with torturing a child to death just for fun or some such. I agreed “absolutely” that that would be morally wrong in the sense that I could not imagine a mitigating argument that would change my mind about that. Where he (and you) went wrong though was to think that that then meant there was some kind of universal law to that effect, a bit like there is for gravity.
For all I know a psychopath would think TACTDJFF would be morally fine, and that would be his opinion on the matter. The difference though is that, while the psychopath and I can have different opinions on a moral questions, we cannot have different gravities.
You seem to be wanting a moral spectrum, to be at the right end of it above others and not want it at the same time.
That is intellectually confused.
-
Vlad,
You seem to be wanting a moral spectrum, to be at the right end of it above others and not want it at the same time.
That is intellectually confused.
The only confusion here is your (ab)use of language. What are you trying to say?