Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Walking on water is essentially a red herring isn't it.

Excellent, Vlad: since a red herring is information that is intended to mislead or distract then we can dismiss this miracle claim and, quite reasonably, all the other ones too: that that includes the red herring of the resurrection claim, since clearly this claim may be misleading and/or may be intended to distract the credulous from applying some critical analysis.

I'm delighted since this is the first time I've ever seen a Christian acknowlege that one of the miracle claims in the NT was a red herring, which is tantamount to conceding that it may be a deliberate lie intended to mislead or distract (which is what propaganda can be used to do).

It doesn't add to or detract from God's outreach to humanity.

I'd have thought that conceding that a miracle claim contained in the NT was a red herring would detract from this claimed 'outreach', even though this 'outreach' seems to be no more than magical thinking - so you watered down the magic, Vlad: well done you, there's hope for you yet!

To judge a ship on it's superstructure doesn't seem that reasonable.

I wouldn't want to sail in any ship with a suspect superstructure.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Still no justification for your claim of reification in this specific case. So again what is the abstraction and how is it being made physically concrete?

A tip for you: if you’re going to rely on flat out lying, can I suggest that you don’t do it about literally the previous post?

I’ve told you what reification means, so why are you ignoring that? Is the problem perhaps your struggle with analogy and metaphor? You do for example understand that “concretise” doesn’t mean “turn into concrete” don’t you? It just means treating a subjective idea as a fact with no justifying path from the former to the latter.

Perhaps you should write that down 100 times until is sinks in or something?     

Are you for instance taking the Neitszche line where God is just abstract hope and wish. Is that the sort of thing you want to get over. We don't know because you haven't actually said.

You’re drowning in your own incomprehension here – would you like me to throw you a lifebelt?

What I’ve told you is what I intended to tell you – ie, that you cannot just quote from a text you think to be “holy” to argue that that therefore provides an authoritative fact about the world. That was your reification error, and no amount of evasion and disappearing down rabbit holes changes that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A tip for you: if you’re going to rely on flat out lying, can I suggest that you don’t do it about literally the previous post?

I’ve told you what reification means, so why are you ignoring that? Is the problem perhaps your struggle with analogy and metaphor? You do for example understand that “concretise” doesn’t mean “turn into concrete” don’t you? It just means treating a subjective idea as a fact with no justifying path from the former to the latter.

Perhaps you should write that down 100 times until is sinks in or something?     

You’re drowning in your own incomprehension here – would you like me to throw you a lifebelt?

What I’ve told you is what I intended to tell you – ie, that you cannot just quote from a text you think to be “holy” to argue that that therefore provides an authoritative fact about the world. That was your reification error, and no amount of evasion and disappearing down rabbit holes changes that.

I think you need to demonstrate that God is an abstraction and stop trying to shift the burden of proof on that.

I think we know that your definition of ''fact'' is based on naturalistic assumptions so you are arguing arse about face here i.e. God cannot be a fact so he must be an abstraction of the hopes, and wishes of Christians. Therefore Reification.

Goodness knows how many fallacies you've committed here.

So each stage of a reification must be sound so for the final time of asking, Demonstrate God is an abstraction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Excellent, Vlad: since a red herring is information that is intended to mislead or distract then we can dismiss this miracle claim and, quite reasonably, all the other ones too: that that includes the red herring of the resurrection claim, since clearly this claim may be misleading and/or may be intended to distract the credulous from applying some critical analysis.

I'm delighted since this is the first time I've ever seen a Christian acknowlege that one of the miracle claims in the NT was a red herring, which is tantamount to conceding that it may be a deliberate lie intended to mislead or distract (which is what propaganda can be used to do).

I'd have thought that conceding that a miracle claim contained in the NT was a red herring would detract from this claimed 'outreach', even though this 'outreach' seems to be no more than magical thinking - so you watered down the magic, Vlad: well done you, there's hope for you yet!


I wouldn't want to sail in any ship with a suspect superstructure.

No Gordon, it's you who is using walking on water as a red herring.

Your MO is to caricature the Christian account to get a good laugh and to empty it of any philosophical or moral content.

[Gordon]

No Gordon, it's you who is using walking on water as a red herring.

Your MO is to caricature the Christian account to get a good laugh and to empty it of any philosophical or moral content.

Priceless.

Take a look at your own words, Vlad, which were "Walking on water is essentially a red herring isn't it" - I'd say that reads like it is a comment or observation that you are making about the 'walking on water' miracle claim. I never mentioned red herrings.



 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Priceless.

Take a look at your own words, Vlad, which were "Walking on water is essentially a red herring isn't it" - I'd say that reads like it is a comment or observation that you are making about the 'walking on water' miracle claim. I never mentioned red herrings.

Hopefully I've corrected myself. You don't have to mention red herrings to include one Gordon. Also I think you are incorrectly confusing the term ''Red Herring'' with ''Untrue''.

Belief in walking on water not essential to christian faith.

[Gordon]

Hopefully I've corrected myself. You don't have to mention red herrings to include one Gordon. Also I think you are incorrectly confusing the term ''Red Herring'' with ''Untrue''.

Then you need to be more careful about how write things if you don't want to confuse your readers.

Belief in walking on water not essential to christian faith.

Really: so are some NT miracle claims less miraculous/believable than are others to the extent they can be just dispensed without consequences for the faithful? Not sure you've thought this through enough.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Interpreting religious texts literally and dogmatically is “a” characteristic of religion, not because of my “views on religion” but because that’s observably a fact. Interpreting religious texts allegorically is another characteristic of religion. Some religious people do the former, some religious people do that latter and some are somewhere in between. Moreover I’ve never suggested otherwise.     

Accusing me of generalising about the religious in toto is just straw manning and does you no credit, and then comparing the straw man you've created to racist attitudes is contemptible. The ignorance here is in other words all yours, not mine.

We were discussing your chosen criteria for assessing degree of religiousness. In that context, you arbitrarily chose interpreting religious texts literally and dogmatically as a characteristic of being more religious than someone who interprets religious text metaphorically, figuratively and accepting there are differing interpretations of text. Why you chose that arbitrary characteristic is a matter for you to explain. One explanation I can think of is your prejudice and bias. It reminds me of the prejudice of those who look at the UK or US prison population and think there is something inherent in the culture of black people that predisposes them to commit crime, rather than taking into account context and history.

Dear god but you struggle. These things are not “my criteria” – they were just examples of the type of behaviours that would lead others to conclude that Fred is football mad, but Bill isn’t. There are plenty of other criteria available – attending talks about football for example.

Re the two of the people I was referring to for example, more than once my wife and I have commented on X (brought up in an evangelical family, bible literalist, convinced that god intervenes in her life on a regular basis, regular church attender etc) being “really religious”, and Y (cradle catholic, more agnostic then theistic these days, aware that he can’t justify what’s left of his beliefs but finding comfort in them nonetheless by lighting a candle in church when he’s passing) as not so religious. And here’s the thing: my wife and I both knew what we meant by that and, I dare, say, so would anyone else too.

That your wife shares your particular prejudice and arbitrary choice of criteria isn't particularly surprising. Lack of familiarity and knowledge about other people's perspectives does tend to lead to bias. 

If I saw a sign saying “cabbage’s for sale” I would work on the basis that the grocer didn’t know how to use apostrophes, not that he just one cabbage for sale. You presumably on the other hand would march and in and berate him for having more than one cabbage for sale. What do you get from it though?                 

You don’t get to lie about what I’ve said than then call that a prejudice. Try to remember this in future.

Your dim-wittedness is letting you down again here. There’s nothing in the rules of football that legitimises diving or fouling (let alone rape), so no interpretation of those rules however literal would justify these behaviours. On the other hand there’s plenty in the various religious texts that, if interpreted literally, would justify horrific behaviours (and often does too). And that’s why you’ve made a category error.

Can you see where you went wrong here?   

Wrong again – are you seriously suggesting that in the example above most people wouldn’t understand perfectly well what was meant by X being more religious that Y (or, in that sample set of two, X being the “most” religious)?

Seriously though?

A word of advice for you here: if you insist on turning up on an mb to argue for a position you might want to consider trying it without relying on fallacies. Here for example you’ve poisoned the well with pejorative language (a fallacy) because you haven’t establishing first your premise – ie, that there’s “strange and biased criteria”. Good luck with it though.     

It would probably say more about you than me if you ever you did manage to do that, but as it hasn’t happened yet your pleasure will have to remain postponed I’m afraid:

“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Explaining to you your hair-splitting and obfuscations isn’t pretending that you hair-split and obfuscate. The double whammy here is that not only do you do these things by looking for linguistic error to avoid the point, but you also get even that effort badly wrong when you try it.   
 
“Pigeon chess" or "like playing chess with a pigeon"[note 1] is a figure of speech originating from a comment made in March 2005 on Amazon by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer[2] regarding Eugenie Scott's book Evolution vs. Creationism: An introduction:

“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. The pro-creationist reviewers of this book clearly demonstrate this to be true.

As such "debating techniques" are not limited to creationists, the phrase has entered the general Internet lexicon,[3] together with the source quotation, which is sometimes cited as an anonymous "Internet law". The reference to creationists is usually replaced with whatever group the user is arguing with.
Even the Bible advises against this sort of thing, in Proverbs 29:9: "If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest."

Andrew Schlafly was similarly described for his contributions to Usenet talk.origins in 2002:[4] "I tried it for a while, but arguing with Andy is like playing chess with a small child who doesn't know the rules."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

Word of advice for you. If you insist on turning up on forums to discuss religion, repeatedly make claims you can't justify and then try to claim that your errors are trivial and that people who correct you on them are splitting hairs, you might want to consider changing your approach as this just makes you look dim-witted. Over to you to justify your claim that the Quran says the punishment for blasphemy is death and that Muslims interpreting the text literally leads to them killing people for blasphemy. Perhaps you should try a more nuanced approach and some attention to detail - that might help you look less ignorant. Your current assertions and generalisations about religion don't seem to be working very well for you. 

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you need to demonstrate that God is an abstraction and stop trying to shift the burden of proof on that.

As so often before, you have the burden of proof arse-backwards here. I don’t need to demonstrate that the claim “god” is anything. You were the one who gave us a bible quote as authoritative, so it’s your burden of proof to explain why something being written in a particular book means it must also be true. Try to remember this.     

I think we know that your definition of ''fact'' is based on naturalistic assumptions so you are arguing arse about face here i.e. God cannot be a fact so he must be an abstraction of the hopes, and wishes of Christians. Therefore Reification.

You don’t appear to know anything. You were the one who reified a quote from a book into a fact with no reasoning at all to bridge the epistemic gap between them, not me. Try to remember this.

Goodness knows how many fallacies you've committed here.

I know: none. You on the other hand…

So each stage of a reification must be sound so for the final time of asking, Demonstrate God is an abstraction.

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again here, and why on earth would I need to demonstrate a straw man entirely of your making? Again: you reified a claim in a book into a fact about the world – so it’s your job to justify it.

Good luck with it.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As so often before, you have the burden of proof arse-backwards here. I don’t need to demonstrate that the claim “god” is anything. You were the one who gave us a bible quote as authoritative, so it’s your burden of proof to explain why something being written in a particular book means it must also be true. Try to remember this.     

You don’t appear to know anything. You were the one who reified a quote from a book into a fact with no reasoning at all to bridge the epistemic gap between them, not me. Try to remember this.

I know: none. You on the other hand…

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again here, and why on earth would I need to demonstrate a straw man entirely of your making? Again: you reified a claim in a book into a fact about the world – so it’s your job to justify it.

Good luck with it.   

No. Positive assertions such as "Vlad is reifying" need justification and have the burden of proof so stop bullshitting and get on with it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It’s been a while since you tried the fallacy of circular reasoning: “I know god because god made himself known to me, therefore I know god because god…etc”, then repeat endlessly:

"The circular reasoning fallacy is an argument that assumes the very thing it is trying to prove is true. Instead of offering evidence, it simply repeats the conclusion, rendering the argument logically incoherent."

https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/circular-reasoning/#:~:text=The%20circular%20reasoning%20fallacy%20is,time%20to%20go%20to%20bed.%E2%80%9D

Welcome back old friend.

I see no circular reasoning in witnessing to my knowledge of God making Himself known to me.
I have heard witness stories from fellow Christians which confirms how God has made Himself known to people in many different ways.

[Nearly Sane]

I see no circular reasoning in witnessing to my knowledge of God making Himself known to me.
I have heard witness stories from fellow Christians which confirms how God has made Himself known to people in many different ways.

And they all cheered children getting raped by priests while your god found your contact lens 

[Alan Burns]

And they all cheered children getting raped by priests while your god found your contact lens

Yes,
There is evidence that the forces of evil have infiltrated God's church.
But there is far more evidence that those who have accepted God into their lives have discovered the joy of serving others rather than indulging in their own self centred desires.

[Outrider]

Yes,
There is evidence that the forces of evil have infiltrated God's church.
But there is far more evidence that those who have accepted God into their lives have discovered the joy of serving others rather than indulging in their own self centred desires.

And, equally, plenty of evidence that those who have not accepted gods into their lives have discovered the joy of serving others rather than indulging in their own self-centred desires (and some evidence to suggest that they're better at it, but that might be a capacity rather than intent difference).

So it's almost like the intent, the attitude, the 'goodness' is a human trait rather than a relgious one, but the ability is related to religiosity.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes,
There is evidence that the forces of evil have infiltrated God's church.
But there is far more evidence that those who have accepted God into their lives have discovered the joy of serving others rather than indulging in their own self centred desires.

Your god found your contact lens, and allowed child rape - you worship a god that approves of child rape.

[torridon]

..
But there is far more evidence that those who have accepted God into their lives have discovered the joy of serving others rather than indulging in their own self centred desires.

No doubt that is your personal perception.  However broad demographic studies such as those by Pew or WVS routinely show a consistent inverse relationship between levels of religious observance and levels of criminality.  There is also empirical evidence revealing a similar pattern between people who believe in free will and those that do not.

[torridon]

There is evidence that the forces of evil have infiltrated God's church...

And in a world where allegedly nothing happens except by God's will, then it is God's will that evil has infiltrated the church.

[Alan Burns]

And in a world where allegedly nothing happens except by God's will, then it is God's will that evil has infiltrated the church.

You have it totally wrong.
God created us in His own image - with our own will, giving us the freedom to choose between good and evil.

[Aruntraveller]

You have it totally wrong.
God created us in His own image - with our own will, giving us the freedom to choose between good and evil.

So God's image includes evil. God is the source of evil. It is his fault. A fault in his character. Far from the divine being you seem to think he is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No. Positive assertions such as "Vlad is reifying" need justification and have the burden of proof so stop bullshitting and get on with it.

So now you’ve shifted ground from insisting I defend a straw man of your invention (“I think you need to demonstrate that God is an abstraction...”) and your screw up re burden of proof to demanding I justify my actual argument that you’d reified your own claim. Noting your typically charmless failure to apologise for the former, the latter is simple enough to do:

In Reply 46395 Seb said:

And for some (many?) there is no "offer".

And in Reply 46398 you replied:

John 6.37 whoever comes to me I will in no way turn away

Amongst others.

No-one doubts that John 6.37 (and other places) say that, but the bit you skipped was justifying your assumption that these words being in a particular book must also therefore make them objectively true.

QED   

[torridon]

You have it totally wrong.
God created us in His own image - with our own will, giving us the freedom to choose between good and evil.

Evil would not exist were it not introduced by God in the form of 'Satan'.  Colossians 1:16: "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

If I offer a hitman a million bucks to kill someone I don't like, am I not culpable in this ?  So it is with Satan, the responsibility for putting temptation in people's mind's lies ultimately with God, Satan's creator.

[Alan Burns]

So God's image includes evil. God is the source of evil. It is his fault. A fault in his character. Far from the divine being you seem to think he is.

Without God's gift of free will, our existence would be meaningless because we would be nature's puppets with no will of our own.
God has given us this amazing gift so we can freely choose to follow Him.
But by giving us this gift - it allows the freedom to choose not to follow Him.
It allows the freedom to choose evil rather than good, and we have our God given conscience to discern the difference.
The ultimate source of evil lies with the entity of free will - not God's will.

[Nearly Sane]

Without God's gift of free will, our existence would be meaningless because we would be nature's puppets with no will of our own.
God has given us this amazing gift so we can freely choose to follow Him.
But by giving us this gift - it allows the freedom to choose not to follow Him.
It allows the freedom to choose evil rather than good, and we have our God given conscience to discern the difference.
The ultimate source of evil lies with the entity of free will - not God's will.

so will there be no free will in heaven?

[Aruntraveller]

The ultimate source of evil lies with the entity of free will - not God's will.

So is the entity of free will outwith the purview of God?

[Alan Burns]

so will there be no free will in heaven?

ask Satan