Scriptural Interpretation

[Owlswing]

Well, seeing as I've read the scriptures several times over and in the Byzantine and old Roman liturgies the scriptures are read considerably more extensively than in any Protestant service, then I'm quite confident I know the scriptures fairly well.


No evidence, then.

If you had read what I said, you would have realized that I wasn't suggesting that you hadn't read the bible or didn't 'know' it. I was suggesting trying to read it with an open mind, rather than reading at to confirm your pre-existing beliefs.

But if you're that removed from the reality, you're probably a lost cause...

There is no "probably" about it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what - in all sorts of area young children tend to be exposed to a simplistic version of ideas for the very reason that they are ... err ... children.

But that is irrelevant - the point I was making was that most kids in the UK would have been exposed to the bible, the notion of god and to christianity. None of these are hidden concepts, yet you try to imply that atheists are so because of a lack of exposure to the bible

But my reply number 143 is not about exposure to the Bible.
It is about the commentating of it by largely disinterested educators merely fulfilling curriculum obligations.
In other words there is virtually no commentary on Christianity.....and the evidence is paucity in knowledge of the relationship between God and Christ, a world of lack of understanding of the holy spirit, salvation etc.
Any report on RE has shown how ''bolt on'' this is.

If there is any commentary on Christianity it is on the ''historical importance of it'' this is what quaint old people once believed'' and historical importance is a guaranteed turn off.

And after all of that atheists claim that they came up with their disinterest in knowing about Christianity as their own.

In any event the urge by many on this board to eradicate the memory of ideas runs counter to a proper view of education IMHO.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you do not believe in god then the details of the theology that flow from a belief in god aren't relevant. I presume you don't believe in the ancient norse gods. Now you might find it interesting to learn about their theology, but I'm sure you would accept that there is no necessity so to do. And in that respect you would be using exactly the same argument as Dawkins.

I don't agree with anything here.
What about the spiritual journey of CS Lewis where he acknowledges that informative models of theology have been offered by ancient people?
The point that if you are taking something on and you are found wanting of knowledge of it, laughed at for your stupidity at trying it on in the first place and accused of abandoning your usual rigour for what is, after all, your own belief. Then that is hard to defend which is why the likes of Myers is shuffling.

Bluehillside then by expecting me to take Leprechaunology seriously because it is an important part of Dawkinism is pure humbug on his part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ah, The Myers shuffle.....Warmed over atheist wankfodder.

Wordage equals argument eh Hillside. Ha Ha.

Presumably Myers wasn't getting sufficient attention when he put a pin in a communion wafer.

I’ve noticed that you do that a lot when you lose an argument – just throw abuse at it in the hope it goes away.

It’s very simple. You complained that your unrequited bromance object Richard Dawkins dismissed the claim “God’ with insufficient understanding of theology. The Courtier’s Reply rather elegantly makes the point that that’s akin to saying you can’t tell that the foundations are missing unless you have a degree in the stress engineering of roof structure.

You can have al the theology you like (about any god by the way) but ultimately that theology has to rest on some basic and cogent arguments in logic. And those arguments just aren’t there within theology – evidently so because, if they were, presumably by now someone would have thought to present them.

Learned treatises on “God’s” thoughts about shellfish eaters and people who go to bed with people of the same gender are fine for those who like that kind of thing, but it you did want to identify the “wankfodder” in play, that’s where you should start. 

I don't think all are....and that is where Dawkins has difficulty with fellow atheists in his displays of the ''No true scotsman'' fallacy.

And that’s yet another straw man. You proposed that atheists may be “troubled” by “not meeting god”, and then deflected and ran away when the fundamental contradiction in that statement was pointed out.

When I said that, while atheists may be troubled by the behaviour of theists but not by their beliefs you just quote mined the bit that suited, and then took “atheists” to mean all atheists.

Do you never ponder why you’re so pathologically dishonest?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

I’ve noticed that you do that a lot when you lose an argument – just throw abuse at it in the hope it goes away.

It’s very simple. You complained that your unrequited bromance object Richard Dawkins dismissed the claim “God’ with insufficient understanding of theology. The Courtier’s Reply rather elegantly makes the point that that’s akin to saying you can’t tell that the foundations are missing unless you have a degree in the stress engineering of roof structure.

The point is that Dawkins and Myers are argumentum ad ridiculum men....and that's why they make you, rather than me...well....intellectually ''moist''.
This post is light on content and heavy on rhetoric. Like the Myers shuffle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Bluehillside then by expecting me to take Leprechaunology seriously because it is an important part of Dawkinism is pure humbug on his part.

Any chance of making Sunday, "Vlad not lying day" or something?

I do not and have never expected you to take leprechaunology seriously. What I actually do is to invite you to apply your own reasoning to faiths in which you do not believe. Your complaint was that people hadn't read enough theology to dismiss the claim "God". I merely pointed out that you dismiss all sorts of claims of the immaterial - leprechauns included - with no knowledge at all of the theologies attached to them.

A moment's reflection should therefore tell you that it's the foundational arguments that matter, not the various theologies that rest on them.

There you go - you can stop lying about that now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This post is light on content and heavy on rhetoric. Like the Myers shuffle.

What happened to "Vlad not lying Sunday"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What about the spiritual journey of CS Lewis...

What "spiritual journey"?

Unfortunately I already have your earlier use of the reification fallacy so I'm doubled up now in this game of Vlad fallacy top trumps. Thanks for the recent straw man, but any chance of a different one now so I can complete the set?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What "spiritual journey"?

Surprised by Joy CS Lewis published by Collins £8.99 from Amazon, Available at Waterstones, all good bookshops and probably some bad ones too .

[jeremyp]

Ah, The Myers shuffle.....Warmed over atheist wankfodder.

Wordage equals argument eh Hillside. Ha Ha.

No you have to read the word and understand them, which may be a difficult concept for you, admittedly.

You don't have to understand the finer points of haute couture (high fashion) to know that somebody is bollock naked.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Surprised by Joy CS Lewis published by Collins £8.99 from Amazon, Available at Waterstones, all good bookshops and probably some bad ones too .

So it makes a cogent argument for an actual "spiritual journey" rather than Lewis just thinking he had one, starting presumably with defining and demonstrating this alleged "spiritual" in the first place?

Blimey - how come this spiritual stuff isn't taught right alongside physics and chemistry then? Can I buy a jar of it in Robert Dyas maybe?

I'll alert the Templeton prize committee forthwith!

Now are you beginning to see where you fell foul of the reification fallacy?

Anything?

[ProfessorDavey]

But my reply number 143 is not about exposure to the Bible.
It is about the commentating of it by largely disinterested educators merely fulfilling curriculum obligations.
In other words there is virtually no commentary on Christianity.....and the evidence is paucity in knowledge of the relationship between God and Christ, a world of lack of understanding of the holy spirit, salvation etc.
Any report on RE has shown how ''bolt on'' this is.

If there is any commentary on Christianity it is on the ''historical importance of it'' this is what quaint old people once believed'' and historical importance is a guaranteed turn off.

And after all of that atheists claim that they came up with their disinterest in knowing about Christianity as their own.

In any event the urge by many on this board to eradicate the memory of ideas runs counter to a proper view of education IMHO.

Waffle

The point is, and remains, and you have confirmed, that children are regularly exposed to the bible, the notion of god and to christianity in a manner which is largely age-appropriate (and that is relevant as the kind of information you seem to be requiring is way beyond the understanding of an 8-year old for example). And if that child as they mature wants to know more there are endless opportunities for them to do so to allow them to explore faith should they choose to do so.

So the point is that people end up as atheists and agnostics as adults not through lack of opportunity to expose faith and lack of exposure to  the bible, the notion of god and to christianity, but in spite of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No you have to read the word and understand them, which may be a difficult concept for you, admittedly.

You don't have to understand the finer points of haute couture (high fashion) to know that somebody is bollock naked.

And we all know that to describe something as bollock naked is to have gone nuclear.

The more half arsed ''fallacies'' new atheists have to invent to hide their own ''bollock nakedness'' the more they can slip up on one or another of them.....like painting yourself into a corner by laying mantraps instead of paint.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't agree with anything here.

Then I trust you have made yourself fully acquainted with the theological details of the several thousand deities claimed to exist now and through the past centuries. Because if you haven't, and particularly if you think that not to be important then you are demonstrating crass double standards.
 

What about the spiritual journey of CS Lewis where he acknowledges that informative models of theology have been offered by ancient people?

So what - other 'spiritual journeys' are available, including, of course, plenty of people whose journey ends up in them deciding that god  doesn't exist and that religions, based on a god are therefore incorrect in principle. And of course in many cases those journeys will have started from a religious upbringing (just like C S Lewis' - whose journey was never really one of non belief to belief, but merely a journey in belief). Don't forget his killer quote which demonstrates that he was never an atheist:

“I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.”

No-one who actually does not believe in the existence of god would ever claim to be angry with something they don't believe exists - it is non-sensical. Lewis was never really an atheist, merely someone pretending to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Waffle

The point is, and remains, and you have confirmed, that children are regularly exposed to the bible, the notion of god and to christianity in a manner which is largely age-appropriate (and that is relevant as the kind of information you seem to be requiring is way beyond the understanding of an 8-year old for example). And if that child as they mature wants to know more there are endless opportunities for them to do so to allow them to explore faith should they choose to do so.

So the point is that people end up as atheists and agnostics as adults not through lack of opportunity to expose faith and lack of exposure to  the bible, the notion of god and to christianity, but in spite of it.

Again remind yourself of my reply 143.

Atheists in later tend to view the moral of the bible stories they may be exposed to as those they have come to through by reason and certainly many of the atheists of this forum, who loudly claim mass Christian indoctrination in what was actually an agnostic educational environment of the fifties sixties and seventies, fail to see that the greater likelihood is that they have assumed a disinterested agnosticism from their upbringings rather than having come to it in later life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And we all know that to describe something as bollock naked is to have gone nuclear.

That's not what "going nuclear" means.

The more half arsed ''fallacies'' new atheists have to invent to hide their own ''bollock nakedness'' the more they can slip up on one or another of them.....like painting yourself into a corner by laying mantraps instead of paint.

Oh dear. If you think the logical fallacies you and others depend on are "half arsed" and "invented" then all you have to do is to demonstrate that. Should be simple enough - "the argumentum ad poplulum isn't a fallacy at all because..." or, "I haven't committed that fallacy because..." etc. Instead though you just assert half-arsedness or accuse others of invention with no argument to support you, just as Trump will call an actress "overrated" or a judge "so called" when he doesn't like what they say but has no means to engage with it.

This behaviour does you no credit at all. Why not instead try a little honesty for once, say "OK, I boobed on the theology point" and then try to make an argument of some kind worthy of the name?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's not what "going nuclear" means.

Doubtless ''going nuclear'' then will turn out to be something only a theist can be guilty of...in the weird and whacky world of theist hating New Atheism.

How about making hyperbolic claims then? Or in the case of Myers and Dawkins claiming Bollock nakedness...
Hyperbollock claims?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then I trust you have made yourself fully acquainted with the theological details of the several thousand deities claimed to exist now and through the past centuries. Because if you haven't, and particularly if you think that not to be important then you are demonstrating crass double standards.
 So what - other 'spiritual journeys' are available, including, of course, plenty of people whose journey ends up in them deciding that god  doesn't exist and that religions, based on a god are therefore incorrect in principle. And of course in many cases those journeys will have started from a religious upbringing (just like C S Lewis' - whose journey was never really one of non belief to belief, but merely a journey in belief). Don't forget his killer quote which demonstrates that he was never an atheist:

“I was at this time living, like so many Atheists or Antitheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.”

No-one who actually does not believe in the existence of god would ever claim to be angry with something they don't believe exists - it is non-sensical. Lewis was never really an atheist, merely someone pretending to be.

Ah, The no true Scotsman defence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah, The no true Scotsman defence.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods.

In what way are the following statements:

'I was also very angry with God for not existing.'

And

'I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.'

Consistent with someone who doesn't believe in god or gods.

[jeremyp]

And we all know that to describe something as bollock naked is to have gone nuclear.

That might be all you "know" by it, but thinking people understand the analogy.

The more half arsed ''fallacies'' new atheists have to invent to hide their own ''bollock nakedness'' the more they can slip up on one or another of them.....like painting yourself into a corner by laying mantraps instead of paint.

No, you see, a good analogy like the Emperor's new clothes one has to make some sense. You can't just string random words together and hope that people will be impressed by your pseudo erudition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods.

In what way are the following statements:

'I was also very angry with God for not existing.'

And

'I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.'

Consistent with someone who doesn't believe in god or gods.

Of course an atheist can lament the non existence of God just like an a leprechaunist can lament a world devoid of happy leprechauns or an a jiminy cricketist lament the absence in the world of the chirpy chap.

The other possibility is of course is that we are all Goddodgers.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course an atheist can lament the non existence of God just like an a leprechaunist can lament a world devoid of happy leprechauns or an a jiminy cricketist lament the absence in the world of the chirpy chap.

The other possibility is of course is that we are all Goddodgers.

He isn't lamenting the non existence of god - indeed he is angry with him for not existing (which of course makes no sense) and is also angry with him for creating the world - which also makes no sense if you don't believe god exists, as a non existent entity cannot create anything.

Lewis comes across as a disgruntled theist, kind of playing at being an atheist - note that he cannot bring himself to say that he did not believe that god exists, merely that he maintained that god did not exist, in other word gave an outward impression that he didn't believe rather than actually not believing. The two aren't the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That might be all you "know" by it, but thinking people understand the analogy.
No, you see, a good analogy like the Emperor's new clothes one has to make some sense. You can't just string random words together and hope that people will be impressed by your pseudo erudition.

It's a shit hyperbolic analogy. Jeremby.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He isn't lamenting the non existence of god - indeed he is angry with him for not existing (which of course makes no sense) and is also angry with him for creating the world - which also makes no sense if you don't believe god exists, as a non existent entity cannot create anything.

Lewis comes across as a disgruntled theist, kind of playing at being an atheist - note that he cannot bring himself to say that he did not believe that god exists, merely that he maintained that god did not exist. The two aren't the same.

I think the point is that he realises himself as another atheist who protesteth too much methinks.
Recognise that, Davey?

If it isn't the No true atheist thing...it's because there are no true atheists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Doubtless ''going nuclear'' then will turn out to be something only a theist can be guilty of...in the weird and whacky world of theist hating New Atheism.

You’re still not getting it. Gong nuclear entails laying waste to all epistemic arguments because ultimately they all rest on axioms in any case. Essentially, it’s “OK, I’m guessing but so are you”. It’s wrong for reasons that have been explained here many times, but the point is that it doesn’t mean what you thought it meant.

How about making hyperbolic claims then? Or in the case of Myers and Dawkins claiming Bollock nakedness...
Hyperbollock claims?

That’s not what they claim at all. Rather they argue – correctly in my view – that you cannot dismiss criticism of a belief on the ground that its theology isn’t sufficiently understood when that theology has nothing to say about the foundational logic on which the belief rests.

That you keep ducking and diving in response doesn’t change that.

Ah, The no true Scotsman defence.

And that’s not what the “no true Scotsman” argument means either.

Why is it my job to keep explaining these things to you?