The Meaning Of The Bible

[Outrider]

But we like to be able to set our own moral standards, and the point of Genesis 3 onwards is that when we try to do that we mess things up.

And yet the moral standard we're given alongside Genesis is overly simplistic, lacking in key areas and just flat out unsupportable in others; the calibration of relative infractions is woeful, with issues regarding haircuts deemed at some point to be an egregious matter whilst rape and slavery are never decried.

The reality is we need God to tell us what is right and wrong.

The reality is that people choose the god, and the denomination of that god, which fits the morality they're comfortable with, and the source materials are so loosely written and even more loosely translated that if they look far enough they can probably find one that fits; if they can't, they just go all John Smith on it and write their own.

We have the choice to accept it straight off or learn it the hard way.

Except that if you read a different book we have innumerable chances to get it right, going round and round in spiritual reincarnating circles until we achieve it and get to step off the hamster wheel; or we have one chance to achieve glory and be taken to Valhalla; or we have one chance to get it right and be weighed against Ma'at's feather by Anubis...

Adam realised he was naked and unable to cover himself properly. This realisation was an outward manifestation of inward shame, and he couldn't deal with either of them himself.

So Adam was, purportedly, created without a sense of what?  Notwithstanding that the Judao-Christian attitude regarding nudity and sexuality - particularly female nudity and sexuality - has been more of a hindrance on morality than a benefit, why SHOULD Adam feel shame at his nudity?

The outward shame required a blood sacrifice to provide a covering (an animal skin), and the inward shame and estrangement from God could only be dealt with by someone being tempted and not yielding to that temptation, on Adam's behalf, though it resulted in his murder by the same people he came to save.

Adam covered his nudity with leaves; it wasn't until he was thrown out of the Garden into a less temperate locale that a more robust clothing was required.  Even then there isn't a need for a sacrifice, you can make a jacket out of the skin of an animal that's died of natural causes.

Just trying to answer your original question of why God requires a blood sacrifice.

You're raising practical reasons why killing might have become necessary for human livelihoods, fair enough, but that doesn't explain why God's forgiveness required a human sacrifice - or, indeed, any sacrifice at all - nor why we need God's forgiveness for something we've not done and arguably wasn't the responsibility of Adam even if he did do it.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I only have trouble with your poor analogies.

A supposed poorness you’re unable to demonstrate. Until you can, the god/leprechauns analogy is fine when the argument that produces each outcome is the same. 

Also your non application of analogies.    Leprechauns and empiricism, materialism, naturalism etc .

Gibberish.

You cannot have it both ways. It’s either crap analogy you are peddling or you are only selectively applying the principle.

What idea in that skip fire of a mind are you trying to express now?

There is no verifiable evidence for the following philosophies for how reality is
Empiricism, Materialism, physicalist, Naturalism, scientism. I shall leave it to you to decide which of those  underpins your atheism.

You’ve been corrected on this idiocy so many times it’s not even funny now. As you just refuse to engage with the falsification, I see no point in repeating it. You’re just wrong. Deal with it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A supposed poorness you’re unable to demonstrate. Until you can, the god/leprechauns analogy is fine when the argument that produces each outcome is the same. 

Gibberish.

What idea in that skip fire of a mind are you trying to express now?

You’ve been corrected on this idiocy so many times it’s not even funny now. As you just refuse to engage with the falsification, I see no point in repeating it. You’re just wrong. Deal with it.

Leprechauns not established by physical evidence, philosophical physicalism not established by physical evidence.
You comparing philosophical physicalism with Leprechauns....never witnessed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Leprechauns not established by physical evidence, philosophical physicalism not established by physical evidence.
You comparing philosophical physicalism with Leprechauns....never witnessed.

Doncha hate it when you drop the Scrabble set and the letters go everywhere... 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Doncha hate it when you drop the Scrabble set and the letters go everywhere...

Use of Leprechauns is a horses laugh argument. Particularly if used selectively.

I guess the psychology is "You believe that your beliefs are big, I think they are tiny" ......playground mentality which laddies of your age should be beyond.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

there’ no such thing as “ape men”. There are apes, which include the family Hominidae. This family (called hominids) is the great apes, which include four genera comprising three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies.

Put simply, taxonomically we are apes.

Do you see how believing nonsensical dogma warps your perception?

Let's say you have been interrogated by an evil tyrant who gets his kicks out of doing harm to people. Though he's evil he's also honest. He has determined that you are innocent, and allows you to leave. However, he takes you to a pair of doors; one marked "Apes" and the other "Humans." Which would you choose?

It really is a matter of observation isn't it? Science could be said to be a form of observation. Are you familiar with the Biblical kind? Animals and plants were created as kinds. So, dogs produce dogs and tomato plants produce tomatoes. This, we all know because we all observe it. No one has ever observed anything other than that as far as kinds go.

The Bible is true. Evolution isn't. Unless, like ape men, that is, humans being apes, is a classification by idiots who don't observe reality because they believe in nonsense.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Use of Leprechauns is a horses laugh argument. Particularly if used selectively.

No it isn’t. It’s a reductio ad absurdum. You know this already because it’s been explained to you many times. Just ignoring the explanation and repeating your mistake is dishonest.

I guess the psychology is "You believe that your beliefs are big, I think they are tiny" ......playground mentality which laddies of your age should be beyond.

Then you guess wrongly. The reductio ad absurdum is about the arguments attempted to justify beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. As you seem unable to grasp this, perhaps you should ask a grown up to help you with it? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn’t. It’s a reductio ad absurdum. You know this already because it’s been explained to you many times. Just ignoring the explanation and repeating your mistake is dishonest.

Then you guess wrongly. The reductio ad absurdum is about the arguments attempted to justify beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. As you seem unable to grasp this, perhaps you should ask a grown up to help you with it?

Nope it's an open and shut case of appeal to ridicule.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Do you see how believing nonsensical dogma warps your perception?

Oh no – now look what you’ve done. I just had delivered a top of the line, lead cased, military grade irony meter and now you’ve broken it. Shame on you.

Let's say you have been interrogated by an evil tyrant who gets his kicks out of doing harm to people. Though he's evil he's also honest. He has determined that you are innocent, and allows you to leave. However, he takes you to a pair of doors; one marked "Apes" and the other "Humans." Which would you choose?

Been a while since someone hard of thinking here tried the false dilemma fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

It really is a matter of observation isn't it? Science could be said to be a form of observation.

It starts with observation, yes. It then applies methods and tools to provide explanations.

Are you familiar with the Biblical kind?

Yes, it’s a meaningless religious term with no clarifying definition.

Animals and plants were created as kinds.

And you know this remarkable reason- and evidence-free assertion to be true how exactly?

So, dogs produce dogs and tomato plants produce tomatoes. This, we all know because we all observe it. No one has ever observed anything other than that as far as kinds go.

Yes they have. They’ve observed it from multiple sources in fact – the fossil record, DNA analysis etc. Hey, if you were able to live for millions of years you’d observe it in real time too.   

The Bible is true.

And you know this evidence-free claim to be true how?

Evolution isn't.

And you know this evidence-denying claim to be true how?

Unless, like ape men, that is, humans being apes, is a classification by idiots who don't observe reality because they believe in nonsense.

What is it about reason- and evidence-based knowledge that frightens you so? 

[Stranger]

Do you see how believing nonsensical dogma warps your perception?

Yes, you're a living, breathing example.

Let's say you have been interrogated by an evil tyrant who gets his kicks out of doing harm to people. Though he's evil he's also honest. He has determined that you are innocent, and allows you to leave. However, he takes you to a pair of doors; one marked "Apes" and the other "Humans." Which would you choose?

Human is more precise, is all. Apes is just a more general term that covers several species.

It really is a matter of observation isn't it? Science could be said to be a form of observation. Are you familiar with the Biblical kind? Animals and plants were created as kinds. So, dogs produce dogs and tomato plants produce tomatoes. This, we all know because we all observe it. No one has ever observed anything other than that as far as kinds go.

Yes, I'm familiar with the comical biblical 'kind'. No evolution denier has ever, to my knowledge, properly defined it, except in the sense that if the evidence that two organisms are related is so overwhelming they can't even deny it to their ignorant, credulous followers, then they must be the same kind.

The Bible is true. Evolution isn't.

Stamping your little foot, sticking your fingers in your ears, and making baseless assertions is not going to convince anybody - doubly so when you have admitted to ignorance of the subject.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nope it's an open and shut case of appeal to ridicule.

"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Let me know if it ever sinks in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Let me know if it ever sinks in.

Since you have wikipedia on hand look up appeal to ridicule.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since you have wikipedia on hand look up appeal to ridicule.

As you're still not getting it, here's the bit specifically you should have grasped by now:

"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."

Just keep repeating it until it sinks in. You can do this!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you're still not getting it, here's the bit specifically you should have grasped by now:

"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."

Just keep repeating it until it sinks in. You can do this!

What absurdity do Leprechauns and God share?

[Outrider]

What absurdity do Leprechauns and God share?

Magic, and there unfalsifiability.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Magic, and there unfalsifiability.

So unfalsifiability equals absurd.

That is an appeal to philosophical empiricism
Which is er, unfalsifiable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What absurdity do Leprechauns and God share?

Nope, still not getting it. Here it is again with the bits that are foxing you in bold:

"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."

Can you see it now? The reductio ad absurdum here is NOT a comparison of god and leprechauns - it's actually the falsification of an argument attempted to justify the claim "god" when the argument also leads equally well to leprechauns.     

Take your time. You'll get there...

...or perhaps not?

[Outrider]

So unfalsifiability equals absurd.

That is an appeal to philosophical empiricism
Which is er, unfalsifiable.

No, magic is absurd, it's a problem because it leads inevitably to unfalsifiability. Which has nothing to say about empiricism, any number of concepts can be demonstrated false without resorting to empiricism.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope, still not getting it. Here it is again with the bits that are foxing you in bold:

"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."

Can you see it now? The reductio ad absurdum here is NOT a comparison of god and leprechauns - it's actually the falsification of an argument attempted to justify the claim "god" when the argument also leads equally well to leprechauns.     

Take your time. You'll get there...

...or perhaps not?

Yes I wont mention ridicule because any definition appealing to ridicule is by definition an appeal to ridicule.  SO I ask you once again what absurdity do God and Leprechauns have in common? And for that matter what absurdities do they not share.
Nobody argues that God is unfalsifiable so therefore he exists.
Your belief that Leprechauns are not unfalsifiable isnt universally shared since the requisite evidence for Leprechauns has been discussed already today on another thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, magic is absurd, it's a problem because it leads inevitably to unfalsifiability. Which has nothing to say about empiricism, any number of concepts can be demonstrated false without resorting to empiricism.

O.

magic is unfalsifiable which also leads to philosophical
Physicalism being unfalsifiable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes I wont mention ridicule because any definition appealing to ridicule is by definition an appeal to ridicule.

In a reductio ad absurdum argument what do you think the “absurdum” bit means? The analogous outcome is supposed to be ridiculous ffs.

SO I ask you once again what absurdity do God and Leprechauns have in common? And for that matter what absurdities do they not share.

Groan. Here’s a different example of a reductio ad absurdum:

Person A: “I rub my lucky rabbit’s foot before an exam because it gets me a pass.”

Person B: “In that case I should rub it so I’ll win the lottery.”

Can you see what Person B did there? He took the argument (that rubbing the rabbit’s foot brings luck) and showed it to be false by taking exactly the same argument to a ridiculous outcome. That’s what the god/leprechauns reductio ad absurdum does too.

What you’re doing here is the same as asking me what absurdity exam passing and winning the lottery share. The answer is none at all, just as it’s none at all for gods/leprechauns. That’s not the point of the reductio ad absurdum though is it.

Can you finally now see why?           

Nobody argues that God is unfalsifiable so therefore he exists.

No-one says that anyone does argue that. It’s (yet another) of your straw men.

Your belief that Leprechauns are not unfalsifiable isnt universally shared since the requisite evidence for Leprechauns has been discussed already today on another thread.

As has the requisite evidence for your god on numerous occasions – intervening to cure illness for example. As it’s irrelevant to the reductio ad absurdum point though, I’ll leave you to your personal grief about this.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope, still not getting it. Here it is again with the bits that are foxing you in bold:

"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."

Yes for the third time what is it that is absurd and let's have the justification.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes for the third time what is it that is absurd and let's have the justification.

See previous Reply. 

[Outrider]

magic is unfalsifiable which also leads to philosophical Physicalism being unfalsifiable.

No, the unfalsifiability of 'philosophical Physicalism' is unfalsifiable regardless of the unfalsifiability of claims of magic, they are independent concepts.  Now, if someone were claiming that 'Physicalism' was fact that might be an issue, but as nobody's doing that it seems it's just another of your attempts at 'whataboutism' to avoid accepting the point.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

No, the unfalsifiability of 'philosophical Physicalism' is unfalsifiable regardless of the unfalsifiability of claims of magic, they are independent concepts.  Now, if someone were claiming that 'Physicalism' was fact that might be an issue, but as nobody's doing that it seems it's just another of your attempts at 'whataboutism' to avoid accepting the point.

Quite so. His recent cheat is to lump physicalism (an absolute position about reality that no-one here argues for) with empiricism (a functional position on reality with no absolutist underpinnings). What’s odd (or just dishonest) is that, no matter how many times it’s explained to him, he just ignores the explanation and repeats the same mistake over and over again. He’s Vladbot.