Professor Rosaria Butterfield gives a powerful and brave speech to students.

[Nearly Sane]

No, but your "category error" nonsense was just obfuscatory bollocks.

No, it isn't. Treating supernatural claims as the same as natural ones just leads to logicsl errors.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, it isn't. Treating supernatural claims as the same as natural ones just leads to logicsl errors.

I think it is a little more complicated than that.

Many 'supernatural' claims are in reality supposedly manifested in natural effects. So the supernatural impacts on the natural. So the claim is that Jesus was physically alive, then physically dead and then physically alive again. Those are natural claims, albeit with a claimed supernatural cause.

There are many other similar examples across religions. And realistically a supernatural action that has no impact on the natural world would be completely undetectable anyhow so indistinguishable from no supernatural action.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it is a little more complicated than that.

Many 'supernatural' claims are in reality supposedly manifested in natural effects. So the supernatural impacts on the natural. So the claim is that Jesus was physically alive, then physically dead and then physically alive again. Those are natural claims, albeit with a claimed supernatural cause.

There are many other similar examples across religions. And realistically a supernatural action that has no impact on the natural world would be completely undetectable anyhow so indistinguishable from no supernatural action.

To an extent, yes. If the claim has a natural element you csn check whether that is true in natural terms. Even if we were to find though that Jesus was alive, dead, and then alive again as natural claims, then you still have nothing that validates any supernatural claims of causes.

[splashscuba]

You athiests need to agree on you're viewpoint otherwise you'll have religious people believing atheists aren't of one opinion about stuff.

[jeremyp]

No, it isn't. Treating supernatural claims as the same as natural ones just leads to logicsl errors.

No it doesn't.

You are using the same sophistry as Vlad does when he claims the leprechaun analogy doesn't work.

[jeremyp]

You athiests need to agree on you're viewpoint otherwise you'll have religious people believing atheists aren't of one opinion about stuff.

I don't mind them believing that, because it's true. The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is their lack of belief in deities.

[Nearly Sane]

No it doesn't.

You are using the same sophistry as Vlad does when he claims the leprechaun analogy doesn't work.

No, it's only by using this that the leprechaun analogy does work. Any supernatural claim to cause is as valid as any other precisely because they aren't related to anything real.

[Nearly Sane]

You athiests need to agree on you're viewpoint otherwise you'll have religious people believing atheists aren't of one opinion about stuff.

I will email Commander Dawkins for instructions.

[Outrider]

Sin could be seen as the human interpretation of anything that goes against natural order....survival, reproduction, parenting.....and social cohesion.

It could be, but traditionally it hasn't been. It's been seen as failure to comply with a temporally fashionable subset of a collection of arbitrary bronze-age in-group identifying behaviours portrayed with moral overtones but devoid of any moral justifications.

Even if sin were to be depicted as 'anything which goes against the natural order' that would include shoes but, on the current evidence, wouldn't include homosexuality which is seen across a huge swathe of the animal kingdom.

O.

[Alan Burns]

gay people can get married now. Hadn't you heard?

The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.

[Nearly Sane]

The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.

This is civil marriage though. Do you support same sex civil marriage.

Oh and there are Christians who disagree with you anout same sex marriage in the church, just as there were those who as Christians opposed mixed race marriages.

[Alan Burns]

You are implying that the views of Atkins confer some kind of greater authority than the views of anyone else. They don't - she is entitled to her homophobic views as long as they don't stray into the territory of discriminating against gay people. But we are just as entitled to hold different view and to completely ignore her views and/or treat them with disdain. And quoting Jesus - i.e. referring to some completely unsubstantiated ancient text confers absolutely zero additional weight to her views.

Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.

I am fully aware that endorsing the clear message that sex outside marriage is sinful will cause offence to some people who's lifestyle does not comply with Christian teachings.  I am also aware that condoning such behaviour will cause offence to God.  So given the choice of offending some groups of people or offending God, as a practising Christian I must choose the former in my continued endeavour to spread the Good News of eternal salvation for our human souls.

[Aruntraveller]

Anne Atkins the woman who didn't report a paedophile that she knew about because he was a friend of the family and it didn't occur to her to report him.

Can I just ask you to stop and think about that one for a minute Alan?

Now tell me why I should listen to her about any moral issue, let alone one that concerns my personal life.

[Nearly Sane]

Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.

I am fully aware that endorsing the clear message that sex outside marriage is sinful will cause offence to some people who's lifestyle does not comply with Christian teachings.  I am also aware that condoning such behaviour will cause offence to God.  So given the choice of offending some groups of people or offending God, as a practising Christian I must choose the former in my continued endeavour to spread the Good News of eternal salvation for our human souls.

Quoting an authority on morality only makes sense if you claim you are authoritative enough to judge it as valid. But as both Aruntraveller and I have pointed out Atkins, just like the RC Church, didn't report a paedophile/s.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it is a little more complicated than that.

Many 'supernatural' claims are in reality supposedly manifested in natural effects. So the supernatural impacts on the natural. So the claim is that Jesus was physically alive, then physically dead and then physically alive again. Those are natural claims, albeit with a claimed supernatural cause.

There are many other similar examples across religions. And realistically a supernatural action that has no impact on the natural world would be completely undetectable anyhow so indistinguishable from no supernatural action.

I'm afraid it's even more complicated than that Professor since explanations for nature itself invariably fall into the supernatural,, unnatural, extranatural and even the "Has no explanation" suggestion isn't that natural, if you think about it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid it's even more complicated than that Professor since explanations for nature itself invariably fall into the supernatural,, unnatural, extranatural and even the "Has no explanation" suggestion isn't that natural, if you think about it.

No they don't. Actual explanations for "nature itself" are only naturalistic in character. Absent any means of verification, anything else is just incoherent guessing. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am fully aware that endorsing the clear message that sex outside marriage is sinful will cause offence to some people who's lifestyle does not comply with Christian teachings.  I am also aware that condoning such behaviour will cause offence to God.  So given the choice of offending some groups of people or offending God, as a practising Christian I must choose the former in my continued endeavour to spread the Good News of eternal salvation for our human souls.

But it's a rigged game isn't it. Your religion says sex outside marriage is a sin, but it also says that same sex couples can't be married. What then are same sex couples supposed to do – take up knitting instead?   

[Outrider]

The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.

Cultures had ceremonies, and social status, for recognising life-long commitments before the Old Testament was communicated to their area, and included in different places all manner of relationships. Christianity - and the Abrahamic religions more broadly - do not have a claim on the concept. That we have adopted the word 'marriage' for those socially acknowledged relationships is an artefact of Christianity's place in history, but doesn't need to be any sort of restriction on our future.

If you want to be beholden to the 'Christian marriage' definition, that's your choice, but you don't get to make it for everyone else.

O.

[Gordon]

The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.

Then we just ignore the bible as being an artefact from antiquity that no longer has the social force it once had: and that really is 'good news', Alan.

[Dicky Underpants]

Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.

You mean the text where Jesus is clearly referring to Adam and Eve? "From the first, He made them male and female"? Do me a favour, guv'.

P.S.
Oh, I see; perhaps she only quoted the spurious text about the woman caught in adultery. As Jeremy pointed out, this isn't in any manuscript till centuries after Jesus' time. However, its painting Jesus as forgiving shows that the fabricators had latched on to one of Jesus' recognised characteristics.

[ProfessorDavey]

Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.

If she was merely stating that there is text in the NT that says X or says Y, then fair enough. But that isn't what she is doing - she is clearly providing her own endorsement of those views, in which case that becomes her own personal opinion, just as if she had rejected those views which would also reflect her opinion.

[Dicky Underpants]

No that's obfuscatory bollocks.

The point is that nothing is completely certain in this world but some things are so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty.
We can demonstrate that the Christian god and Christian ideology are incoherent concepts.

No, Nearly Sane is correct. If, as you seem to suggest, Christianity is one of those "things that is so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty", then the religion would not still have the overwhelmingly powerful influence in the world that it has, and we wouldn't have been arguing against it on this board for years. If you are particularly referring to NS's suggestion of a psychopathic deity who created us to cause us pain and can do what the hell he likes, then that suggestion is just as plausible as Christianity, and likewise, unprovable. That such as suggestion is "easy to discount" has to be considered in the context that such a belief was at least half of Gnosticism, which was a powerful rival of Christianity at the beginning, and has had its courageous adherents throughout the centuries. The get-out clause for Gnosticism was that beyond the evil creator god of the material world was the pure and good world of the spirit to which humans could escape eventually. That to me is equally unprovable, but some how makes a bit more sense than Christianity.

I hasten to add, I haven't entertained Gnosticism as a likely possibility for at least thirty years, and have been muddling along with my IGnosticism well enough

[Nearly Sane]

No, Nearly Sane is correct. If, as you seem to suggest, Christianity is one of those "things that is so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty", then the religion would not still have the overwhelmingly powerful influence in the world that it has, and we wouldn't have been arguing against it on this board for years. If you are particularly referring to NS's suggestion of a psychopathic deity who created us to cause us pain and can do what the hell he likes, then that suggestion is just as plausible as Christianity, and likewise, unprovable. That such as suggestion is "easy to discount" has to be considered in the context that such a belief was at least half of Gnosticism, which was a powerful rival of Christianity at the beginning, and has had its courageous adherents throughout the centuries. The get-out clause for Gnosticism was that beyond the evil creator god of the material world was the pure and good world of the spirit to which humans could escape eventually. That to me is equally unprovable, but some how makes a bit more sense than Christianity.

I hasten to add, I haven't entertained Gnosticism as a likely possibility for at least thirty years, and have been muddling along with my IGnosticism well enough

To be fair, as I said to jeremyp, I don't think in the vast majority of cases it makes any difference to behaviour. I act as if my idea of the nutter god is certainly untrue - I'm not sure what I could do differently. Where it is significant is in discussion, as you indicate, in that talking of the supernatural as if it is the same as the natural gives it a power that it doesn't deserve.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am fully aware that endorsing the clear message that sex outside marriage is sinful will cause offence to some people who's lifestyle does not comply with Christian teachings.  I am also aware that condoning such behaviour will cause offence to God.  So given the choice of offending some groups of people or offending God, as a practising Christian I must choose the former in my continued endeavour to spread the Good News of eternal salvation for our human souls.

It isn't just offence though is it AB - you are actively trying to deny very fundamental basic human rights to a group of people. And those people actually exist and your attempts to deny them those rights (which were successful in the UK until recently and remain successful in other countries still) causes more than just offence, it causes actual harm through denial of rights to those people.

And all to placate a god that there is no credible evidence even exists.

[Alan Burns]

Quoting an authority on morality only makes sense if you claim you are authoritative enough to judge it as valid. But as both Aruntraveller and I have pointed out Atkins, just like the RC Church, didn't report a paedophile/s.

The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ.  There is no higher authority.