I attend a private Christian university in Texas (Baylor University, sic 'em Bears!) and all incoming freshman are required to take two classes, Chapel and Religious Scriptures. Well today at Chapel we had a really awesome speaker come and talk to us, and he told us about one of the projects he worked on. I can't remember the name of the project, but he traveled to all 50 states in the US and polled people the following question: "If you could use one word to describe Christians, what would you use?"
The top three were anti-gay, judgemental, and hypocritical. Other words that were used were hateful, condescending, and excluding.
The saddest part of it all was that the word which describes the entirety of Christianity was no where at the top of the list; love
And so I come to TL and ask all of you, if you could use any one word to describe Christians, what word would you use?
Dude, I don't think this thread is going to make you happy. TL generally trends toward the "fuck religion" side of things (although not everyone is like that).
besides anti-gay, judgemental,hypocritical,hateful, condescending and excluding?
i think narrow-minded hits it quite well... [add the normal stuff like, "think they have the only and all-solving belive" "their god is the greatest" "there is no other thing" "explain science than? cant? HA we won" or "evolution is crap" here]
On October 10 2013 01:19 PaqMan wrote: Yeah I know there's going to be a ton of negative responses, I'm still curious to see what people on TL think
It seems to me that what you really want is confirmation for the belief that the people on the "outside" are inherently hostile due to having a misconstrued or misguided view of your religion.
really hard with one word to be honest do you want to describe christians or christianity cuz u say both for christianity id probably go with cancerous for christians it would be (since anti-gay counts as 1 word aswell!) mind-boggingly condescendingly ignorant
anti-gay, judgemental, hypocritical, hateful, condescending, excluding, narrow-minded all suit pretty well. There's a lot of good in christianity, but it gets overshadowed by the bad.
On October 10 2013 01:09 theBALLS wrote: why bother with a thread like this? It's cool to be anti christian on the internet.
The word "cool" is also something passé, belonging to the sugary, colourful world of the 1990's. The inhabitants of this website are showing their age. My basic posture for the last decade has been anti-anti-Christian, because I am more avant garde than the lot of you.
Christians? One word? Uhm, Narrow-minded, Brainwashed, Judgemental, Hypocritical all fit well, do not know which one to pick. On a more serious note: what did you really expect asking this here?
It is plain impossible to describe "christians" in one word. For each word that fits one group that claims to be christian there is a group where that word is utterly inappropriate.
Anyone who thinks they can describe such an ideologically fragmented group with a single word is... dunno... Judgemental, hateful and condescending?
On October 10 2013 01:51 lolfail9001 wrote: Christians? One word? Uhm, Narrow-minded, Brainwashed, Judgemental, Hypocritical all fit well, do not know which one to pick. On a more serious note: what did you really expect asking this here?
That's a pretty narrow-minded, judgmental, and hypocritical post; you seem pretty brainwashed.
I know some really wonderful Christian people. When I'm with them, they usually don't bring up their religion or anything. I just feel they're friends, relatives and whatever they are as people, not particularly labeled by their religious view. We respect each other and get along well enough. Some of these people are among the sweetest, most reasonable and most loving and forgiving people I've met so far in my life.
Meanwhile I also know a few people who quite strongly label themselves as Christians and connect strongly to the Christian communities and such. They often take very strong viewpoints based on their religious belief and bring up the Christianity in your everyday talk without any particular connection to religion. The situations where the religion get brought up by them can rarely be described in very positive tone. Descriptions like judgemental, ignorant and naive come to mind at times.
I guess being quietly religious is a very Skandinavian approach to this in general. Religion is considered to be private property and people may feel quite uncomfortable when someone brings them into a context that isn't particularly related to personal beliefs. So, usually when you hear about religion in particular, it has an uneasy or negative twist in it.
If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
On October 10 2013 01:09 theBALLS wrote: why bother with a thread like this? It's cool to be anti christian on the internet.
The word "cool" is also something passé, belonging to the sugary, colourful world of the 1990's. The inhabitants of this website are showing their age. My basic posture for the last decade has been anti-anti-Christian, because I am more narcissistic than the lot of you.
Anyway, if I had to choose one word to describe christianity, I would choose forgiveness, or redemption. I want to use vicarious redemption, but those are two words.
I think that is the most central part of the religion; although you deserve to feel god's wrath for all eternity, he forgives you if you believe that Jesus exists, and you accept his punishment in your stead.
Another canditate is self-contradicting (I think this is one word). Bleak is also a good one, as that is what my outlook on life and the universe would be if I was a christian. Or perhaps depressing.
I will elaborate: Most of the people I know are going to be tortured forever (or at least feel god's wrath forever, depending on how you interpret things), and there is nothing I can do about it, because they can't believe without, or in spite of, evidence, and the universe is ruled by a creature who could change this, but does not. I would definitely be depressed if I was a christian.
That's a pretty narrow-minded, judgmental, and hypocritical post; you seem pretty brainwashed.
On October 10 2013 01:51 lolfail9001 wrote: Christians? One word? Uhm, Narrow-minded, Brainwashed, Judgemental, Hypocritical all fit well, do not know which one to pick. On a more serious note: what did you really expect asking this here?
That's a pretty narrow-minded, judgmental, and hypocritical post; you seem pretty brainwashed.
Yeah, i have a clue about the 1 word to describe all Christians, but i cannot express it. For now, i will just use word: Christian. All the adjectives i mentioned are the extreme examples of it.
By sharing all of those negative views on Christianity with students at a Christian school, it kinda seems like the speaker is trying to make you feel like Christians are an oppressed minority in America. It makes sense that he would do this, as many have argued that Christianity was at its best and purest when it was a subversive minority religion, but you should definitely be aware that this is not the case right now in America.
I also think it's really interesting that so many people think that "love" is a good one-word descriptor of Christianity. Shouldn't a description distinguish what it's describing? Or are you actually suggesting that love is a uniquely Christian trait?
The problem with this question is that I daresay anyone who calls themselves a Christian is then qualified to "be a Christian", when the majority of supposed Christians in the Western world are just nominal Christians, calling themselves that because it's the social norm. Within the group of people calling themselves Christians there is a massive wide variety of beliefs and ways of life, many of which are not in fact "Christian".
On October 10 2013 06:12 Birdie wrote: The problem with this question is that I daresay anyone who calls themselves a Christian is then qualified to "be a Christian", when the majority of supposed Christians in the Western world are just nominal Christians, calling themselves that because it's the social norm. Within the group of people calling themselves Christians there is a massive wide variety of beliefs and ways of life, many of which are not in fact "Christian".
I disagree. You're claiming that many people are Christians-in-name-only, but in order to claim that you need a solid definition of what it is to be "truly Christian", which is way harder to produce than you might think.
On October 10 2013 06:12 Birdie wrote: The problem with this question is that I daresay anyone who calls themselves a Christian is then qualified to "be a Christian", when the majority of supposed Christians in the Western world are just nominal Christians, calling themselves that because it's the social norm. Within the group of people calling themselves Christians there is a massive wide variety of beliefs and ways of life, many of which are not in fact "Christian".
I disagree. You're claiming that many people are Christians-in-name-only, but in order to claim that you need a solid definition of what it is to be "truly Christian", which is way harder to produce than you might think.
Any one can come up with a version of "Christ", follow that version, and therefor be "christian". You are absolutely right. They could even ignore everything in the bible because it was edited, and they could simply say Christ wouldn't agree with what's in the book.
On October 10 2013 06:00 Meadowlark wrote: By sharing all of those negative views on Christianity with students at a Christian school, it kinda seems like the speaker is trying to make you feel like Christians are an oppressed minority in America. It makes sense that he would do this, as many have argued that Christianity was at its best and purest when it was a subversive minority religion, but you should definitely be aware that this is not the case right now in America.
I think the speaker was probably trying to illustrate that the perception of Christians is in a pretty shitty place right now and that as young Christians they should be concerned with changing that.
In my first psychology class at university we went over some misconceptions about the field. It was a smart thing to do because then you can have those students aware of these misconceptions and have information to give to those people, it's like a community outreach.
So my word to describe Christians would be "Lazy" and my word to describe Christianity would be "Nonliteral"
I picked nonliteral because if you read the Bible the way it is supposed to be interpreted, you will understand that its story is mostly about the human body and the zodiac. So when I think of Christians, I think they are lazy because they have not made the effort to come to the conclusion that someone comes to after the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Edit: and by choosing Christianity for a religion, all Christians are lazy in that they have not interpreted their own religion to see it as a study of the human body and astrology, thereby bypassing Christianity in favor of something like astrotheology and/or holistic spirituality.
this is a method of finding out people's opinions as you're asking for single word answers about a generalized group of people a better way to ask this would be: what have your experiences with christians been like (good and bad)
some christians are cool, some christians kind of crazy, and some of them are just mean
On October 10 2013 07:10 mizU wrote: this is a method of finding out people's opinions as you're asking for single word answers about a generalized group of people a better way to ask this would be: what have your experiences with christians been like (good and bad)
some christians are cool, some christians kind of crazy, and some of them are just mean
You can't use one word to describe Christians anymore than you can use one word to describe people. I can however describe people who think that you can use one word to describe Christians with one word: idiots.
On October 10 2013 07:18 writer22816 wrote: You can't use one word to describe Christians anymore than you can use one word to describe people. I can however describe people who think that you can use one word to describe Christians with one word: idiots.
Barring the endless recursion with the one word thing, I quite agree. Most posters in this thread just have venom to spit anyways.
On October 10 2013 06:56 hp.Shell wrote: So my word to describe Christians would be "Lazy" and my word to describe Christianity would be "Nonliteral"
I picked nonliteral because if you read the Bible the way it is supposed to be interpreted, you will understand that its story is mostly about the human body and the zodiac. So when I think of Christians, I think they are lazy because they have not made the effort to come to the conclusion that someone comes to after the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Edit: and by choosing Christianity for a religion, all Christians are lazy in that they have not interpreted their own religion to see it as a study of the human body and astrology, thereby bypassing Christianity in favor of something like astrotheology and/or holistic spirituality.
Just my curiosity:
Why is the bible supposed to be interpreted as a study of astrology and the human body?
I really appreciate all of the in-depth posts that explain your opinions on this, regardless if it is negative or positive. I really want to avoid sounding like a preacher but I've come to learn that Jesus did not come to earth to judge people, but to act as a mediator by pleading the cause of God to the people as well as to communicate to God on behalf of the people. He came to the earth to save, not condemn or exclude or pass judgement.
I realize that there are many denominations of Christianity and that even every Christian has their own view of their religion. If I could choose another word besides love it would be forgiveness because that comes the closest to how I view my faith.
On October 10 2013 07:10 mizU wrote: this is a method of finding out people's opinions as you're asking for single word answers about a generalized group of people a better way to ask this would be: what have your experiences with christians been like (good and bad)
some christians are cool, some christians kind of crazy, and some of them are just mean
If you want to share your experiences, good or bad, that you've had with Christians then please do.
I like this one, although I agree with those who emphasize the fact that it's inappropriate to generalize and define all people of one group with a single word, unless that single word is the name of the group (e.g., Christian).
If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
Damn, after reading through this thread I'm surprised I didn't cut myself on all this edge.
You people seriously need to grow up. Yeah, let's all make Christians feel unwelcome here so that the already reluctant majority (I assume) becomes even more reticent and unwilling to share. All I see are people taking potshots at religion, which are obviously intended to be inflammatory and argumentative, not constructive or realistic. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to become some anti-religious zealot.
I'm an atheist myself but I find the people that constantly need to belittle Christians to be some of the worst people to be around.
I would also describe Christianity with something like "compassion" since that was one of Jesus' primary messages.
it's impossible to generalize over a billion like this. Silly answers like "wrong" or "ignorant" or "brainwashed" are equally ignorant and nonsensical.
I myself am an atheist, and I find that I usually prefer the company of devout Christians over the circle jerking children that comprise most of the modern atheist movement that I have encountered. Again, that's my own experience, and I won't presume to apply that to the whole.
On October 10 2013 08:17 Chocolate wrote: Damn, after reading through this thread I'm surprised I didn't cut myself on all this edge.
You people seriously need to grow up. Yeah, let's all make Christians feel unwelcome here so that the already reluctant majority (I assume) becomes even more reticent and unwilling to share. All I see are people taking potshots at religion, which are obviously intended to be inflammatory and argumentative, not constructive or realistic. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to become some anti-religious zealot.
A lot of insecure nerds compensate for their inadequacies by convincing themselves they are intelligent. One way of feeling smart is to bash on religion and call yourself "rational" or scientific.
Also, people can only think about what the media shows them. The only thing the media ever shows regarding religion are things like anti-gay legislation or protesting, priest molestation scandals, suicide cults, muslim terrorists, etc. The many religious people I've actually lived around were all kind, generous people, and they never once mentioned a word about evolution, homosexuality, and so on. I remember once when I was a kid and our family was struggling, someone from a local church just showed up randomly with bags full of groceries. And I see these people going out, picking up trash, painting over graffiti in the neighborhood... They are just good, decent people so far as I have personally experienced.
On October 10 2013 08:17 Chocolate wrote: Damn, after reading through this thread I'm surprised I didn't cut myself on all this edge.
You people seriously need to grow up. Yeah, let's all make Christians feel unwelcome here so that the already reluctant majority (I assume) becomes even more reticent and unwilling to share. All I see are people taking potshots at religion, which are obviously intended to be inflammatory and argumentative, not constructive or realistic. Being an atheist doesn't mean you have to become some anti-religious zealot.
A lot of insecure nerds compensate for their inadequacies by convincing themselves they are intelligent. One way of feeling smart is to bash on religion and call yourself "rational" or scientific.
Arguing against religion is an easy way for people to feel smart. All the arguments have already been made, and it doesn't take an intellectual powerhouse to do it. But yeah.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I would describe this as a giraffe that is colored like a rainbow. This elegant creature walks the plains of the planet Urthur in the Deneb system, and has long been hunted for it's heart, which contains elements of gold in it. The Galactic Council recently banned the hunting of this creature, promising that "The rainbowgiraffe will not go extinct in our time. Our children will be able to see and experience firsthand, without even having to access a holo-deck, the majesty of the rainbowgiraffe." However, Senator Muktar VI of the Nebula-5 party stated his opposition to the new statute, claiming, "This law will cost billions to enforce, will do nothing, and is impeding on the sixth amendment to the galactic constitution, which grants anyone the right to hunt animals using mile-long battleships with anti-matter cannons from space every third friday of the month." shortly thereafter, Senator Fth'Klup of the Quark Party replied, "You can take that argument, and shove it up Uranus."
The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
The sad truth is that many people encounter the fake and lazy "Christians" (not knowing anything, going to church just because, etc), and the nasty side of "Christians" (bible thumpers, judgmental, etc). Not many people see how true Christianity ought to be: loving, accepting, forgiving, prayerful for your needs, sharing your burdens, encouraging you to keep going forward, befriending you, being kind to you in every way, and other such things. There's plenty of Christians who are like this, and I'll admit that we don't put ourselves out there as often as we should.
A lot of people in society can easily call themselves one without truly knowing the love of God. In other words, they can say that God is great and loving, but do they really know him? I think it's wrong to describe Christians or the religion in one word as a whole since it's simply not true, but rather based off some personal experiences you've had in the past with believers.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
Jesus made a way for us to be saved. He tells us how we should live; how we were made to live. If people want to cherry pick verses to believe, then it's on their shoulders. Only God knows who's truly a converted Christian, that's why Christians are only to judge other believers inside the church, and not those outside the church.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
Jesus made a way for us to be saved. He tells us how we should live; how we were made to live. If people want to cherry pick verses to believe, then it's on their shoulders. Only God knows who's truly a converted Christian, that's why Christians are only to judge other believers inside the church, and not those outside the church.
Yes but the way that you know is not necessarily the correct way. If there is one thing we can learn from the huge variety in interpretations it is that there is no clearly definitive answer.
Also you have to cherry pick verses since some are contradictory and some are just random rules that have no logical rationale behind them. Nobody cares about veils and clothing because they have no real theological explanation.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
A true Christian isn't someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity, but rather someone who is in a saved state. It's not particularly easy to tell who those people are though in every instance, I'll give you that
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
A true Christian isn't someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity, but rather someone who is in a saved state. It's not particularly easy to tell who those people are though in every instance, I'll give you that
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
A true Christian isn't someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity, but rather someone who is in a saved state. It's not particularly easy to tell who those people are though in every instance, I'll give you that
This. While we have fundamental beliefs (or simply put: everything we need to know) to be a follower of Christ, we are just as sinful and just as guilty as every human being who ever existed. We can only invite Jesus into our heart, claim his Lordship, and accept his gracious gift of forgiveness. Jesus is the one who saves and transforms the person's heart. No amount of work or money will get you favored in his eyes. As dull as it sounds to most people, we are called to trust Jesus' claims.
As mentioned previously, it's hard to know who is truly a Christian and who isn't. The Bible says you'll know them by their fruits, and even then it's still difficult although there are some people who make it very obvious (like Chris Tomlin). What we do know is that only God knows who's truly converted. That poses a question however: how do you know you're saved then? That's where the Holy Spirit comes into you and assures you, and he lives in all true believers, causing them all to be like-minded. Christians who seek to know God more know how humbling and satisfying it is to be in the presence of other believers after going through a long, hard week.
Anyway I dont' mean to derail the purpose of this thread, just wanted to elaborate a little bit on what Birdie was saying.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
Negative, sir. First and foremost, humans didn't evolve from monkeys, which is what you claimed earlier. Humans and monkeys share a common primate ancestor.
Second, there are conflicting accounts in Genesis as to which came first, humans or animals (although they're both made on the same day):
Man before animal:
Genesis 2:18-20 New International Version (NIV) 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Animal before man:
Genesis 1:25-26 New International Version (NIV) 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
EDIT: Even still, evolution isn't a "pro-god" theory. It's a secular, naturalistic theory. It may allow for a deist deity, but supernatural influence (either via deism or a more hands-on theism) is not going to be a formal part of the scientific theory.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
n the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Well shit but its the same translation so yey?
Basically people back then had no way of comprehending what the sun was so the "stars" is the creation of the separation between the moon and the sun for night and day.
and to the above you should go for whats first I guess in the bible theres a lot of talking about what just happened in the NIV during the OT.
I was pokeing fun on how evolution fit within the genesis story at the end of the day even if its not going to be treated that way in science, thus the science your move part.
On October 10 2013 09:15 IronManSC wrote: The real Christians are about love, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and living by faith in Jesus, who shed his blood on the cross for your sins. Everyone sins, including Christians, but we know who to turn to in the end. We know where we place our hope.
Just because there exist Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, and extremists, doesn't mean their views aren't justified by some parts of the Bible (in the same way that moderates' views are, who happen to be humble and loving and compassionate and "good"). They disagree with others because they've cherry-picked different parts of the text.
No true scotsman is horrendously misused all over the internet, and here's a prime example.
A "true Christian" is an actual thing. If you refer to, say, an Englishman and say he is not a true Scotsman, then you're correct. In the same way, if you refer to a nominal (by name) Christian as a true Christian, you're incorrect.
A "true Christian" may be an actual thing (as opposed to someone who doesn't believe in the tenets of Christianity), but there's enough of a spectrum for what tenets are taken more literally, more seriously, etc., what Bible verses trump the others, and other minor differences, that entire sects of Christianity with different opinions have been created. So saying that some Christians aren't really Christians because they don't take each verse or tenet to the exact level that you do, is falling victim to the fallacy.
A true Christian isn't someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity, but rather someone who is in a saved state. It's not particularly easy to tell who those people are though in every instance, I'll give you that
That's a very Protestant way of putting it, so while in certain parts of the world that might fly as a consensus definition, I feel like that idea is fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism. That said, I haven't ever been to a mass, and most of what I know about Christianity comes from either secular or Protestant sources.
Also, defining a Christian as someone who believes in the tenets of Christianity isn't very useful, because I don't think that there is any consensus as to what those tenets are.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
Personally I've always been amazed that people thousands of years ago actually got things so close. I mean the stars are off, but other than that you have an accurate description: Big Bang -> Earth/atmosphere -> plants -> fish -> mammals -> humans. That is startlingly accurate.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
Personally I've always been amazed that people thousands of years ago actually got things so close. I mean the stars are off, but other than that you have an accurate description: Big Bang -> Earth/atmosphere -> plants -> fish -> mammals -> humans. That is startlingly accurate.
Well there have been countless Creation myths of varying correctness, and it's obviously a given that the earth had to exist before things could live on it... so flipping a coin would get you plants before animals correct (instead of animals before plants) lol. The rest is filled in by you, trying to make it fit better (e.g., the big bang isn't actually mentioned, the order of many groups of animals is either ambiguous or switched (one verse has humans before animals, another has animals before humans), there's certainly no mention of actual evolution between those animals, let alone over a long period of time, etc.). But we tend to do that when we want an older story to fit in with new discoveries; it's rather natural.
I'd like to bow out of the religion conversation for obvious reasons. Have a good night everyone
Genesis 2:18-20 New International Version (NIV) 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Where did you come up with this idea that this says "Man before animal"? If you finished verse 20, you'd read "But for Adam no suitable helper was found." Why is that important?
Because this isn't the story of the creation of the animals, but the story of Adam naming the animals, and then God creating Eve. You are interpreting the text as saying that God is creating the animals as the "helper" for him, but there's a reason the verses are divided the way they are in this chapter. Each verse is a separate thought(Not the right word, but I can't think of the word I want to say here)
I highly doubt those survey results, considering like 80% of the US is christian or so (iirc; simple google would fix)
also considering like half of US is explicitly anti-gay (let's say at least 40%, otherwise the various ballot initiatives and all would pass easily)
I doubt a random christian on the street would describe himself as anti-gay as first choice of words. Or judgemental. Maybe hypocritical (them catholics using birth control!)
"If you could use one word to describe Christians, what would you use?"
The top three were anti-gay, judgemental, and hypocritical. Other words that were used were hateful, condescending, and excluding.
The saddest part of it all was that the word which describes the entirety of Christianity was no where at the top of the list; love
How the fuck does the word "love" describe Christianity? I mean, I recognize that as a christian, you may be disappointed in the fact that many people think lowly of your religion and I would argue that in many regards, it's unfair to describe christians as generally anti-gay, judgmental or hypocritical... but it's even more wrong to describe them as "love" (??? how can you describe people as love anyway, loving perhaps?).
So, maybe the people who answered the question are a little bit wrong, maybe the guy who gave the lecture is full of shit (that's actually most likely the case) and those words were not the most common and he was just trying to get you kids riled up against the big bad adversity, and lastly maybe you need to consider the fact that "LOVE" is only what they tell you your religion is all about.
They tell muslims that their religion is that of peace, but that's fundamentally incorrect and it shows in their scripture, even if we disregard the violent wordly events that are done in the name of Islam. The same thing can be said about Christianity. You guys dance about with your super positive pep talks about how Jesus forgives you for being a shitty individual who sins, and God loves you specifically because you're awesome and special, and it's a religion is PEACEFUL.
Actions speak louder than words though. In reality, Christians are no less flawed than the rest of us heathens and misguided ungodly folks. Many Christians ARE needlessly anti-gay for religious and dumb traditional reasons. Many Christians are judgmental even though the scripture tells them not to be, because some of them are so ****ing proud to be in the "right" religion, and some of them are hypocritical, condescending and excluding.
Much more so than they are loving. Relatively few Christians go out of their way to share love. They just say they do because it's better for PR than what the literalists do.
And forgive me for perhaps coming off as rude but it's quite clear to me that love is a characteristic of Christianity in title only. In other words, the great Christians are not any more representative of Christianity than the terrible ones.
But I want to say it again: The speaker was lying about the survey, or his methodology was flawed to completely mad levels.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
The fact that the Genesis account talks about the "let there be light" before there is any actual material thing that can provide the light is something that theologians were aware of and puzzled over since very early on in the history of Christianity. It's one of the many things that caused many central figures of Christian thought to conclude that much of scripture just can't be read literally. Augustine delves into a sustained exegesis of Genesis in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis where he essentially lays out that the "literal" meaning of Genesis isn't actually literal.
And something like this
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
Approaches both evolution and reads the Genesis account pretty incorrectly. Evolution isn't about how "humans evolved from animals" - it's about a constant process of all life without an ordained teleology. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it reads as if you're positing that humans aren't "animals" or as if humanity is the point of evolution. And if we are to follow the Genesis account, Adam was created in a way that was utterly different from the rest of God's creation in such a way that for Christianity the anthropological statement is that mankind was made in the image and likeness of God. Simply stating the sequence of creation in Genesis as if it is congruous with evolution is just wrong.
"If you could use one word to describe Christians, what would you use?"
The top three were anti-gay, judgemental, and hypocritical. Other words that were used were hateful, condescending, and excluding.
The saddest part of it all was that the word which describes the entirety of Christianity was no where at the top of the list; love
How the fuck does the word "love" describe Christianity? I mean, I recognize that as a christian, you may be disappointed in the fact that many people think lowly of your religion and I would argue that in many regards, it's unfair to describe christians as generally anti-gay, judgmental or hypocritical... but it's even more wrong to describe them as "love" (??? how can you describe people as love anyway, loving perhaps?).
So, maybe the people who answered the question are a little bit wrong, maybe the guy who gave the lecture is full of shit (that's actually most likely the case) and those words were not the most common and he was just trying to get you kids riled up against the big bad adversity, and lastly maybe you need to consider the fact that "LOVE" is only what they tell you your religion is all about.
They tell muslims that their religion is that of peace, but that's fundamentally incorrect and it shows in their scripture, even if we disregard the violent wordly events that are done in the name of Islam. The same thing can be said about Christianity. You guys dance about with your super positive pep talks about how Jesus forgives you for being a shitty individual who sins, and God loves you specifically because you're awesome and special, and it's a religion is PEACEFUL.
Actions speak louder than words though. In reality, Christians are no less flawed than the rest of us heathens and misguided ungodly folks. Many Christians ARE needlessly anti-gay for religious and dumb traditional reasons. Many Christians are judgmental even though the scripture tells them not to be, because some of them are so ****ing proud to be in the "right" religion, and some of them are hypocritical, condescending and excluding.
Much more so than they are loving. Relatively few Christians go out of their way to share love. They just say they do because it's better for PR than what the literalists do.
And forgive me for perhaps coming off as rude but it's quite clear to me that love is a characteristic of Christianity in title only. In other words, the great Christians are not any more representative of Christianity than the terrible ones.
But I want to say it again: The speaker was lying about the survey, or his methodology was flawed to completely mad levels.
You don't come off as rude, you come off as ignorant. That you think statements like "Relatively few Christians go out of their way to share love." even make sense to say in the first place speaks to a healthy dose of confirmation bias and an overindulgence in availability heuristics. It is a shame that you have had so little interaction with those who partake in the "good" aspects of religiosity, but your experiences with Christianity, be they personal, through the media, or through word of mouth, are only one drop in the bucket of determining what is representative of Christianity.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
On October 10 2013 01:45 Rimstalker wrote: can't decide between 'narrow-minded' and the adjective for 'long overdue to die out' (extinction-deserving?)
Wait is there a German word for that? Because that is also pretty ironic.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
Personally I've always been amazed that people thousands of years ago actually got things so close. I mean the stars are off, but other than that you have an accurate description: Big Bang -> Earth/atmosphere -> plants -> fish -> mammals -> humans. That is startlingly accurate.
It's not that hard to figure out. It's pretty common sense if you think about it. Without the air and the sun nothing would grow. so plants would logically come first, then small monsters would eat those plants, then other bigger monsters would eat the plant monsters, and so on. I'm sure you could ask a bunch of random uneducated 5-6year olds to organize a list of these things chronologically and it would be pretty accurate.
"If you could use one word to describe Christians, what would you use?"
The top three were anti-gay, judgemental, and hypocritical. Other words that were used were hateful, condescending, and excluding.
The saddest part of it all was that the word which describes the entirety of Christianity was no where at the top of the list; love
How the fuck does the word "love" describe Christianity? I mean, I recognize that as a christian, you may be disappointed in the fact that many people think lowly of your religion and I would argue that in many regards, it's unfair to describe christians as generally anti-gay, judgmental or hypocritical... but it's even more wrong to describe them as "love" (??? how can you describe people as love anyway, loving perhaps?).
So, maybe the people who answered the question are a little bit wrong, maybe the guy who gave the lecture is full of shit (that's actually most likely the case) and those words were not the most common and he was just trying to get you kids riled up against the big bad adversity, and lastly maybe you need to consider the fact that "LOVE" is only what they tell you your religion is all about.
They tell muslims that their religion is that of peace, but that's fundamentally incorrect and it shows in their scripture, even if we disregard the violent wordly events that are done in the name of Islam. The same thing can be said about Christianity. You guys dance about with your super positive pep talks about how Jesus forgives you for being a shitty individual who sins, and God loves you specifically because you're awesome and special, and it's a religion is PEACEFUL.
Actions speak louder than words though. In reality, Christians are no less flawed than the rest of us heathens and misguided ungodly folks. Many Christians ARE needlessly anti-gay for religious and dumb traditional reasons. Many Christians are judgmental even though the scripture tells them not to be, because some of them are so ****ing proud to be in the "right" religion, and some of them are hypocritical, condescending and excluding.
Much more so than they are loving. Relatively few Christians go out of their way to share love. They just say they do because it's better for PR than what the literalists do.
And forgive me for perhaps coming off as rude but it's quite clear to me that love is a characteristic of Christianity in title only. In other words, the great Christians are not any more representative of Christianity than the terrible ones.
But I want to say it again: The speaker was lying about the survey, or his methodology was flawed to completely mad levels.
You don't come off as rude, you come off as ignorant. That you think statements like "Relatively few Christians go out of their way to share love." even make sense to say in the first place speaks to a healthy dose of confirmation bias and an overindulgence in availability heuristics. It is a shame that you have had so little interaction with those who partake in the "good" aspects of religiosity, but your experiences with Christianity, be they personal, through the media, or through word of mouth, are only one drop in the bucket of determining what is representative of Christianity.
I think it's a theme for you to call others ignorant when you disagree, I've seen you do it a couple of times and I'm starting to understand why others accuse your posting of being on the weaker end of the spectrum. Since my post may not have made this clear to you, all I'm saying is that Christians are not better people than non-Christians. To reuse your cheap retort, the fact that you didn't understand that makes you come off as ignorant.
And that's my opinion, too. By calling me ignorant for questioning the turbo-love of Christians, you essentially implied that it's definitely factually correct to say that Christians are more prone to giving out love than others. Hop back to reality, man. You're all as flawed as us even though you'll call us ignorant when we criticize your greatness.
I don't know what grounds you stand on anyway when you criticize my 'assessment' of who's representative of Christianity. I didn't even give an answer myself and yet you still told me I was wrong. All I'm saying is that neither of the extremes are representative of Christianity in general. It's a very fair thing to say. 'Christians' in general aren't represented by Christian-run super awesome charities and humanitarian efforts, nor are they represented by the Abortion clinic bombers. There are a bunch of Christians, moderates and such, who aren't any more loving (or hateful) than an atheist or a good person from any religion other than Christianity.
Hypocrisy confirmed in you. And you had the guts to accuse me of confirmation bias... Come on.
**And before others mention it, yes I'm biased. But I criticized Christians independently here because that's what it's about. But very few broad classifications of people are deserving of the word 'loving' in general. No broad classifications, I would argue.
I mean, that's a word even christians wouldn't have a problem with, right?
Anyone who is a christian followed someone else's logic to come to their conclusions, either directly or indirectly. Because they all have come to conclusions that you can't really come to by following your own intrinsic thoughts. Whether they're loving or hateful, stupid or clever, bigot or tolerant, all chirstians are followers.
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
No, because I'm not a believer myself. I just get annoyed that atheists don't understand the concept of faith. Christianity doesn't endeavor to prove to you that god exists, instead it asks you to believe particularly in spite of lack if evidence (see doubting Thomas). The burden of proof is on you because you are the one that wants proof.
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
Why is there no God? What proof do you have? Cwutididthere
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
No, because I'm not a believer myself. I just get annoyed that atheists don't understand the concept of faith. Christianity doesn't endeavor to prove to you that god exists, instead it asks you to believe particularly in spite of lack if evidence (see doubting Thomas). The burden of proof is on you because you are the one that wants proof.
lol I was not asking proof, I am asking you why do you think there is a god. And for that you should have some claim or proof. And with that I will be "informing" you why I think it is not the case. And with reason, maybe or probably the person can realize how faulty his claim or proof is. The concept of faith comes from that believing from something without logical reason which is plainly wrong. I don't need to understand "faith" because it comes from a faulty logic at the 1st place.
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
Why is there no God? What proof do you have? Cwutididthere
haha yup clever. When they go that route I would like to give an analogy to better explain what they are trying to cook up.
like say in a trial, we are not there to prove that person A did NOT kill person B. We are there to prove if person A is guilty of killing person B.
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
No, because I'm not a believer myself. I just get annoyed that atheists don't understand the concept of faith. Christianity doesn't endeavor to prove to you that god exists, instead it asks you to believe particularly in spite of lack if evidence (see doubting Thomas). The burden of proof is on you because you are the one that wants proof.
lol I was not asking proof, I am asking you why do you think there is a god. And for that you should have some claim or proof. And with that I will be "informing" you why I think it is not the case. And with reason, maybe or probably the person can realize how faulty his claim or proof is. The concept of faith comes from that believing from something without logical reason which is plainly wrong. I don't need to understand "faith" because it comes from a faulty logic at the 1st place.
You are confusing empirics and logic. Believing something where there is no evidence is faith. Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical.
To answer "why do you believe in god" I think the christian response would be that they were asked to believe and it felt right to do so
"If you could use one word to describe Christians, what would you use?"
The top three were anti-gay, judgemental, and hypocritical. Other words that were used were hateful, condescending, and excluding.
Hahahahaha. Well what did you expect?
Christianity / religion might have been a bastion of civility in the dark ages when everything was in chaos, but these days it is the cause of much of the world's chaos and hate. The problem with many religions is that they have no stipulation for tolerating other beliefs. It's not 'be good and go to a nice place!' it's 'be good and be one of us. If you're not one of us you're automatically bad.'
I can respect the place religion has had in history and the good things it accomplished (though it did many bad things too), but in such a globalised world the idea of everyone believing in one god is so ludicrous and misguided it just creates problems. Even if people still want to be spiritual and have faith in this terrifying technocracy, they need a system which preaches tolerance not exclusion. Jesus taught love, but the Christians today don't. They only love each other, and they're more afraid of Hell than morally righteous. To say that love describes Christianity is laughable when they cry that a black man became president, or that gays are going to marry soon, or the bible tells us about the proper way to treat slaves (but doesn't condemn having slaves), or what a man and a woman's place is. They praise Jesus as their teacher but follow none of his teachings. Jesus wanted people to decide for themselves what was right. Very rare to find a Christian like that. I didn't even know that there were Christian universities, and I find it pretty disturbing. Although I guess it is not much worse than all the catholic high schools I've seen.
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
Why is there no God? What proof do you have? Cwutididthere
haha yup clever. When they go that route I would like to give an analogy to better explain what they are trying to cook up.
like say in a trial, we are not there to prove that person A did NOT kill person B. We are there to prove if person A is guilty of killing person B.
The question is : is your analogy half as smart as you think you are ? Aren't you arbitrarily deciding that this is how things work ? Or in other word, is someone going to cite Bertrand Russell, or are we going to go directly to Dawkins and the like ? Am I going to convert to the cult of Quetzacoatl out of despair in my fellow atheists ?
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
No, because I'm not a believer myself. I just get annoyed that atheists don't understand the concept of faith. Christianity doesn't endeavor to prove to you that god exists, instead it asks you to believe particularly in spite of lack if evidence (see doubting Thomas). The burden of proof is on you because you are the one that wants proof.
lol I was not asking proof, I am asking you why do you think there is a god. And for that you should have some claim or proof. And with that I will be "informing" you why I think it is not the case. And with reason, maybe or probably the person can realize how faulty his claim or proof is. The concept of faith comes from that believing from something without logical reason which is plainly wrong. I don't need to understand "faith" because it comes from a faulty logic at the 1st place.
You are confusing empirics and logic. Believing something where there is no evidence is faith. Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical.
To answer "why do you believe in god" I think the christian response would be that they were asked to believe and it felt right to do so
That concept of your nature of a god is again logical fallicy. We can go around in circles and in the end it is an endless loop if that is the case. You cant claim for something and just say "yeah there can be no evidence for that okay?"
Yeah they are asked or brought up / "trained" to believe. Lots of words similar to that like "brainwashed" etc
On October 11 2013 01:53 farvacola wrote: You should check out the academic ratings of the likes of Notre Dame, Boston College, and Gonzaga. You might be surprised
Not to mention that half of the ivy league started as divinity schools
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
No, because I'm not a believer myself. I just get annoyed that atheists don't understand the concept of faith. Christianity doesn't endeavor to prove to you that god exists, instead it asks you to believe particularly in spite of lack if evidence (see doubting Thomas). The burden of proof is on you because you are the one that wants proof.
lol I was not asking proof, I am asking you why do you think there is a god. And for that you should have some claim or proof. And with that I will be "informing" you why I think it is not the case. And with reason, maybe or probably the person can realize how faulty his claim or proof is. The concept of faith comes from that believing from something without logical reason which is plainly wrong. I don't need to understand "faith" because it comes from a faulty logic at the 1st place.
You are confusing empirics and logic. Believing something where there is no evidence is faith. Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical.
To answer "why do you believe in god" I think the christian response would be that they were asked to believe and it felt right to do so
That concept of your nature of a god is again logical fallicy. We can go around in circles and in the end it is an endless loop if that is the case. You cant claim for something and just say "yeah there can be no evidence for that okay?"
Yeah they are asked or brought up / "trained" to believe. Lots of words similar to that like "brainwashed" etc
You're really not getting it. I offer no proof for god. However, lack of empiric evidence does not mean that something is illogical. Logic and empirics are not the same thing. We can induce nothing about god since there is no evidence for or against. All modern attempts to logically deduce something about god have failed. Logic and empirics are silent on the question of whether god exists.
By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
I trust that a pretty smart guy called Emmanuel said something interesting about that question a few hundred years ago
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
Why is there no God? What proof do you have? Cwutididthere
haha yup clever. When they go that route I would like to give an analogy to better explain what they are trying to cook up.
like say in a trial, we are not there to prove that person A did NOT kill person B. We are there to prove if person A is guilty of killing person B.
The question is : is your analogy half as smart as you think you are ? Aren't you arbitrarily deciding that this is how things work ? Or in other word, is someone going to cite Bertrand Russell, or are we going to go directly to Dawkins and the like ? Am I going to convert to the cult of Quetzacoatl out of despair in my fellow atheists ?
At the end of the day, it is really up to the person to decide. No matter how good your point is, if they refuse to reason then nothing will happen. However, trying to reason is always a better option.
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
Why is there no God? What proof do you have? Cwutididthere
haha yup clever. When they go that route I would like to give an analogy to better explain what they are trying to cook up.
like say in a trial, we are not there to prove that person A did NOT kill person B. We are there to prove if person A is guilty of killing person B.
The question is : is your analogy half as smart as you think you are ? Aren't you arbitrarily deciding that this is how things work ? Or in other word, is someone going to cite Bertrand Russell, or are we going to go directly to Dawkins and the like ? Am I going to convert to the cult of Quetzacoatl out of despair in my fellow atheists ?
At the end of the day, it is really up to the person to decide. No matter how good your point is, if they refuse to reason then nothing will happen. However, trying to reason is always a better option.
And I'm telling you, you'll have a hard time coming up with a valid reason for why someone should assume that god exists
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
Why is there no God? What proof do you have? Cwutididthere
haha yup clever. When they go that route I would like to give an analogy to better explain what they are trying to cook up.
like say in a trial, we are not there to prove that person A did NOT kill person B. We are there to prove if person A is guilty of killing person B.
The question is : is your analogy half as smart as you think you are ? Aren't you arbitrarily deciding that this is how things work ? Or in other word, is someone going to cite Bertrand Russell, or are we going to go directly to Dawkins and the like ? Am I going to convert to the cult of Quetzacoatl out of despair in my fellow atheists ?
Missed this post earlier. I'd be down with some Russell. Bring it on you godless commie
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
And even if there would be eventual proof, that god exist then I would still not believe in him because for me he did not do a good job for a supreme being which would translate again to not being god.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
I trust that a pretty smart guy called Emmanuel said something interesting about that question a few hundred years ago
Kant never even claimed to be able to show that there was no God though. He was only really interested in showing that all the arguments for the existence of God was wrong/futile. So while it's obvious that he abhorred various apologetic arguments for having faulty logic, he still nevertheless did engage in some forms of apologia for religion.
ps. Russel sucks massive dick if only because his readings of the post-Hegelian Europeans is so bad. I honestly wouldn't really have any respect for him if he didn't play such a vital role in raising Wittgenstein.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
I trust that a pretty smart guy called Emmanuel said something interesting about that question a few hundred years ago
Kant never even claimed to be able to show that there was no God though. He was only really interested in showing that all the arguments for the existence of God was wrong/futile. So while it's obvious that he abhorred various apologetic arguments for having faulty logic, he still nevertheless did engage in some forms of apologia for religion.
ps. Russel sucks massive dick if only because his readings of the post-Hegelian Europeans is so bad. I honestly wouldn't really have any respect for him if he didn't play such a vital role in raising Wittgenstein.
What i meant is that Kant proved (or seeked to prove, but I thinjk his case is very convincing) that reason can't say anything about god, which "settles" the question in a way.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
I trust that a pretty smart guy called Emmanuel said something interesting about that question a few hundred years ago
Kant never even claimed to be able to show that there was no God though. He was only really interested in showing that all the arguments for the existence of God was wrong/futile. So while it's obvious that he abhorred various apologetic arguments for having faulty logic, he still nevertheless did engage in some forms of apologia for religion.
ps. Russel sucks massive dick if only because his readings of the post-Hegelian Europeans is so bad. I honestly wouldn't really have any respect for him if he didn't play such a vital role in raising Wittgenstein.
What i meant is that Kant proved (or seeked to prove, but I thinjk his case is very convincing) that reason can't say anything about god, which "settles" the question in a way.
Reason is not very apt at dealing with unreasonable claims. It doesn't change anything in this discussion. Kant is right, but it doesn't help with anyone's argument.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
Well when you read the Bible you have to read it from a Geocentric point of view, not a post-Heliocentric one as we have today. The stars were thought to exist in a sphere around the earth, in the same space as heaven and the angels. In this sense, creating the stars in a day is akin to creating the atmosphere in a day, because they were relatively similar sizes. Not only that, but god can do anything.
On October 10 2013 07:22 Zetter wrote: Well, I'd go for "humans".
On October 10 2013 06:56 hp.Shell wrote: So my word to describe Christians would be "Lazy" and my word to describe Christianity would be "Nonliteral"
I picked nonliteral because if you read the Bible the way it is supposed to be interpreted, you will understand that its story is mostly about the human body and the zodiac. So when I think of Christians, I think they are lazy because they have not made the effort to come to the conclusion that someone comes to after the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Edit: and by choosing Christianity for a religion, all Christians are lazy in that they have not interpreted their own religion to see it as a study of the human body and astrology, thereby bypassing Christianity in favor of something like astrotheology and/or holistic spirituality.
Just my curiosity:
Why is the bible supposed to be interpreted as a study of astrology and the human body?
Back in the times before central heat and air, but after the Neolithic revolution in agriculture, the northern hemisphere was very cold in winter. Let's think Geocentrically, with the sun revolving around the earth as early Christians did. We know today that the transit of the sun across the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn creates the seasons, so the sun also creates winter. And so in the winter near the Capricornian solstice the sun's power wanes in the north and the sun-god can be thought of as evil or a devil, He who creates the cold and kills the weak and hungry. But when the sun begins to move back toward the north, he is reborn and his power grows, bringing new life and a new season of agriculture, providing food for everything on the earth.
Christianity comes from the word Christ. 'Christ' means 'light'. Light is what the Bible says god is. God is light. So the church of Christianity comes from the church of light. That's why the Pope carries the sun, also called the Monstrance. He goes around behind the sun.
Catholic means universal, universal means all-encompassing. If it's an all-encompassing church, this means it must not be biased towards one of those orbs, the first being the sun. So there are seven orbs, and they are the seven that the days of the week are named after. Sun = Sunday, Moon = Monday, Mars = Tiw (or Týr) = Tuesday, Mercury = Odin = Wodanaz = Wednesday, Jupiter = Thor = Thursday (also Guruvar = guru var || guru is the style for Brhaspati regent of Jupiter), Venus = Frigg = Frigedaeg = Friday, Saturn = Saturday.
If you care to look in the Bible, you will find reverence for all seven of these orbs. For example, Saints Peter and Paul are named after / have their names related to Jupiter and Apollo, who is associated with Mercury. As for the 12 apostles, they represent the 12 signs of the zodiac.
If you look at da Vinci's Last Supper, you will see Jesus, the sun, with his 12 apostles. The apostles are grouped in 3s, which may be of importance and it in fact represents the division of the signs among the four seasons.
The zodiac signs, from the beginning of spring to the end of winter, run as follows: Ares, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.
The apostle Judas represents Scorpio, the scorpion, the back-biter, the treasonous. According to the Bible, Judas identified Jesus to the soldiers by means of a kiss. A scorpion bite looks like a red mark in the shape of lips, essentially a red dot with a red ring surrounding it, therefore Judas is Scorpio the scorpion, and his kiss the scorpion-bite.
Jesus is sitting between Virgo and Libra, on the transition from Summer to Autumn, when the sun begins to die. The last supper is a story that takes place just before the son Jesus dies on the cross (of the zodiac). The sun moves to the underworld, Autumn and Winter on the zodiac wheel, and is in the south, where the "land down under" Australia sits. Of course in the southern hemisphere the southern sun brings summer, but we are talking about the Roman church, and Rome and the old world that developed Christianity sits in the north, and so we have north = summer, south = winter.
The sun is the true savior of everything on earth, for without it we would all be dead from cold and starvation.
Unfortunately I have spent most of my time explaining the zodiac portion of Biblical teachings. However, the zodiac signs also describe the human body. Ares is the head, Taurus is the bottom of the head (cerebellum), Gemini is the arms, Cancer is the chest/breasts, Leo is the heart (Leo is called the lion-heart), Virgo is the belly or womb (where the woman grows during pregnancy), Libra are the kidneys, Scorpio is the genital region, Sagittarius is the hips, Capricorn is the knee-Caps, Aquarius are the shins, and Pisces, the two (Latin=) fish, represent the two feet (the pedites in Latin).
The seven chakras form the seven major colors of the visible light spectrum (the rainbow). When you go to the lower three chakras, you have red, orange and yellow. These are associated with hell. The green heart middle chakra is associated with the earth, and the top three blue indigo violet are associated with heaven, which is a word related to "head" and has similar origin.
This rising from the lower three towards the higher three has been called Jacob's Ladder, the Stairway to Heaven (think Led Zeppelin), and the Caduceus, which the sun-god Hermes carried. The Caduceus is the symbol of commerce, theft, deception and death, though it is also used in place of the similar Rod of Asclepius as a symbol for medicine. (Or perhaps it is simply used in the medical field as a symbol of deception and death? Cue failed FDA chemical pills causing death and disease.)
Jesus dies at 33, there are 33 spinal vertebre including the 24 major bones and the 9 smaller ones at the bottom of the spine that fuse into 2 during adolescence. You will therefore find this number to be 26 in many medical texts, though the original number is 33 before fusion.
There is so much more to learn, obviously I have only touched the surface of this topic with so many words, but if you want more I will not give it myself, rather please ask or PM me and I will direct you to appropriate sources where you can learn it yourself.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
Well when you read the Bible you have to read it from a Geocentric point of view, not a post-Heliocentric one as we have today. The stars were thought to exist in a sphere around the earth, in the same space as heaven and the angels. In this sense, creating the stars in a day is akin to creating the atmosphere in a day, because they were relatively similar sizes. Not only that, but god can do anything.
On October 10 2013 07:22 Zetter wrote: Well, I'd go for "humans".
On October 10 2013 06:56 hp.Shell wrote: So my word to describe Christians would be "Lazy" and my word to describe Christianity would be "Nonliteral"
I picked nonliteral because if you read the Bible the way it is supposed to be interpreted, you will understand that its story is mostly about the human body and the zodiac. So when I think of Christians, I think they are lazy because they have not made the effort to come to the conclusion that someone comes to after the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Edit: and by choosing Christianity for a religion, all Christians are lazy in that they have not interpreted their own religion to see it as a study of the human body and astrology, thereby bypassing Christianity in favor of something like astrotheology and/or holistic spirituality.
Just my curiosity:
Why is the bible supposed to be interpreted as a study of astrology and the human body?
Back in the times before central heat and air, but after the Neolithic revolution in agriculture, the northern hemisphere was very cold in winter. Let's think Geocentrically, with the sun revolving around the earth as early Christians did. We know today that the transit of the sun across the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn creates the seasons, so the sun also creates winter. And so in the winter near the Capricornian solstice the sun's power wanes in the north and the sun-god can be thought of as evil or a devil, He who creates the cold and kills the weak and hungry. But when the sun begins to move back toward the north, he is reborn and his power grows, bringing new life and a new season of agriculture, providing food for everything on the earth.
Christianity comes from the word Christ. 'Christ' means 'light'. Light is what the Bible says god is. God is light. So the church of Christianity comes from the church of light. That's why the Pope carries the sun, also called the Monstrance. He goes around behind the sun.
Catholic means universal, universal means all-encompassing. If it's an all-encompassing church, this means it must not be biased towards one of those orbs, the first being the sun. So there are seven orbs, and they are the seven that the days of the week are named after. Sun = Sunday, Moon = Monday, Mars = Tiw (or Týr) = Tuesday, Mercury = Odin = Wodanaz = Wednesday, Jupiter = Thor = Thursday (also Guruvar = guru var || guru is the style for Brhaspati regent of Jupiter), Venus = Frigg = Frigedaeg = Friday, Saturn = Saturday.
If you care to look in the Bible, you will find reverence for all seven of these orbs. For example, Saints Peter and Paul are named after / have their names related to Jupiter and Apollo, who is associated with Mercury. As for the 12 apostles, they represent the 12 signs of the zodiac.
If you look at da Vinci's Last Supper, you will see Jesus, the sun, with his 12 apostles. The apostles are grouped in 3s, which may be of importance and it in fact represents the division of the signs among the four seasons.
The zodiac signs, from the beginning of spring to the end of winter, run as follows: Ares, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.
The apostle Judas represents Scorpio, the scorpion, the back-biter, the treasonous. According to the Bible, Judas identified Jesus to the soldiers by means of a kiss. A scorpion bite looks like a red mark in the shape of lips, essentially a red dot with a red ring surrounding it, therefore Judas is Scorpio the scorpion, and his kiss the scorpion-bite.
Jesus is sitting between Virgo and Libra, on the transition from Summer to Autumn, when the sun begins to die. The last supper is a story that takes place just before the son Jesus dies on the cross (of the zodiac). The sun moves to the underworld, Autumn and Winter on the zodiac wheel, and is in the south, where the "land down under" Australia sits. Of course in the southern hemisphere the southern sun brings summer, but we are talking about the Roman church, and Rome and the old world that developed Christianity sits in the north, and so we have north = summer, south = winter.
The sun is the true savior of everything on earth, for without it we would all be dead from cold and starvation.
Unfortunately I have spent most of my time explaining the zodiac portion of Biblical teachings. However, the zodiac signs also describe the human body. Ares is the head, Taurus is the bottom of the head (cerebellum), Gemini is the arms, Cancer is the chest/breasts, Leo is the heart (Leo is called the lion-heart), Virgo is the belly or womb (where the woman grows during pregnancy), Libra are the kidneys, Scorpio is the genital region, Sagittarius is the hips, Capricorn is the knee-Caps, Aquarius are the shins, and Pisces, the two (Latin=) fish, represent the two feet (the pedites in Latin).
The seven chakras form the seven major colors of the visible light spectrum (the rainbow). When you go to the lower three chakras, you have red, orange and yellow. These are associated with hell. The green heart middle chakra is associated with the earth, and the top three blue indigo violet are associated with heaven, which is a word related to "head" and has similar origin.
This rising from the lower three towards the higher three has been called Jacob's Ladder, the Stairway to Heaven (think Led Zeppelin), and the Caduceus, which the sun-god Hermes carried. The Caduceus is the symbol of commerce, theft, deception and death, though it is also used in place of the similar Rod of Asclepius as a symbol for medicine. (Or perhaps it is simply used in the medical field as a symbol of deception and death? Cue failed FDA chemical pills causing death and disease.)
Jesus dies at 33, there are 33 spinal vertebre including the 24 major bones and the 9 smaller ones at the bottom of the spine that fuse into 2 during adolescence. You will therefore find this number to be 26 in many medical texts, though the original number is 33 before fusion.
There is so much more to learn, obviously I have only touched the surface of this topic with so many words, but if you want more I will not give it myself, rather please ask or PM me and I will direct you to appropriate sources where you can learn it yourself.
Thanks for reading.
Is "Thinking geocentrically" code for "smoking weed"?
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
Well when you read the Bible you have to read it from a Geocentric point of view, not a post-Heliocentric one as we have today. The stars were thought to exist in a sphere around the earth, in the same space as heaven and the angels. In this sense, creating the stars in a day is akin to creating the atmosphere in a day, because they were relatively similar sizes. Not only that, but god can do anything.
On October 10 2013 07:22 Zetter wrote: Well, I'd go for "humans".
On October 10 2013 06:56 hp.Shell wrote: So my word to describe Christians would be "Lazy" and my word to describe Christianity would be "Nonliteral"
I picked nonliteral because if you read the Bible the way it is supposed to be interpreted, you will understand that its story is mostly about the human body and the zodiac. So when I think of Christians, I think they are lazy because they have not made the effort to come to the conclusion that someone comes to after the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Edit: and by choosing Christianity for a religion, all Christians are lazy in that they have not interpreted their own religion to see it as a study of the human body and astrology, thereby bypassing Christianity in favor of something like astrotheology and/or holistic spirituality.
Just my curiosity:
Why is the bible supposed to be interpreted as a study of astrology and the human body?
Back in the times before central heat and air, but after the Neolithic revolution in agriculture, the northern hemisphere was very cold in winter. Let's think Geocentrically, with the sun revolving around the earth as early Christians did. We know today that the transit of the sun across the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn creates the seasons, so the sun also creates winter. And so in the winter near the Capricornian solstice the sun's power wanes in the north and the sun-god can be thought of as evil or a devil, He who creates the cold and kills the weak and hungry. But when the sun begins to move back toward the north, he is reborn and his power grows, bringing new life and a new season of agriculture, providing food for everything on the earth.
Christianity comes from the word Christ. 'Christ' means 'light'. Light is what the Bible says god is. God is light. So the church of Christianity comes from the church of light. That's why the Pope carries the sun, also called the Monstrance. He goes around behind the sun.
Catholic means universal, universal means all-encompassing. If it's an all-encompassing church, this means it must not be biased towards one of those orbs, the first being the sun. So there are seven orbs, and they are the seven that the days of the week are named after. Sun = Sunday, Moon = Monday, Mars = Tiw (or Týr) = Tuesday, Mercury = Odin = Wodanaz = Wednesday, Jupiter = Thor = Thursday (also Guruvar = guru var || guru is the style for Brhaspati regent of Jupiter), Venus = Frigg = Frigedaeg = Friday, Saturn = Saturday.
If you care to look in the Bible, you will find reverence for all seven of these orbs. For example, Saints Peter and Paul are named after / have their names related to Jupiter and Apollo, who is associated with Mercury. As for the 12 apostles, they represent the 12 signs of the zodiac.
If you look at da Vinci's Last Supper, you will see Jesus, the sun, with his 12 apostles. The apostles are grouped in 3s, which may be of importance and it in fact represents the division of the signs among the four seasons.
The zodiac signs, from the beginning of spring to the end of winter, run as follows: Ares, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.
The apostle Judas represents Scorpio, the scorpion, the back-biter, the treasonous. According to the Bible, Judas identified Jesus to the soldiers by means of a kiss. A scorpion bite looks like a red mark in the shape of lips, essentially a red dot with a red ring surrounding it, therefore Judas is Scorpio the scorpion, and his kiss the scorpion-bite.
Jesus is sitting between Virgo and Libra, on the transition from Summer to Autumn, when the sun begins to die. The last supper is a story that takes place just before the son Jesus dies on the cross (of the zodiac). The sun moves to the underworld, Autumn and Winter on the zodiac wheel, and is in the south, where the "land down under" Australia sits. Of course in the southern hemisphere the southern sun brings summer, but we are talking about the Roman church, and Rome and the old world that developed Christianity sits in the north, and so we have north = summer, south = winter.
The sun is the true savior of everything on earth, for without it we would all be dead from cold and starvation.
Unfortunately I have spent most of my time explaining the zodiac portion of Biblical teachings. However, the zodiac signs also describe the human body. Ares is the head, Taurus is the bottom of the head (cerebellum), Gemini is the arms, Cancer is the chest/breasts, Leo is the heart (Leo is called the lion-heart), Virgo is the belly or womb (where the woman grows during pregnancy), Libra are the kidneys, Scorpio is the genital region, Sagittarius is the hips, Capricorn is the knee-Caps, Aquarius are the shins, and Pisces, the two (Latin=) fish, represent the two feet (the pedites in Latin).
The seven chakras form the seven major colors of the visible light spectrum (the rainbow). When you go to the lower three chakras, you have red, orange and yellow. These are associated with hell. The green heart middle chakra is associated with the earth, and the top three blue indigo violet are associated with heaven, which is a word related to "head" and has similar origin.
This rising from the lower three towards the higher three has been called Jacob's Ladder, the Stairway to Heaven (think Led Zeppelin), and the Caduceus, which the sun-god Hermes carried. The Caduceus is the symbol of commerce, theft, deception and death, though it is also used in place of the similar Rod of Asclepius as a symbol for medicine. (Or perhaps it is simply used in the medical field as a symbol of deception and death? Cue failed FDA chemical pills causing death and disease.)
Jesus dies at 33, there are 33 spinal vertebre including the 24 major bones and the 9 smaller ones at the bottom of the spine that fuse into 2 during adolescence. You will therefore find this number to be 26 in many medical texts, though the original number is 33 before fusion.
There is so much more to learn, obviously I have only touched the surface of this topic with so many words, but if you want more I will not give it myself, rather please ask or PM me and I will direct you to appropriate sources where you can learn it yourself.
Thanks for reading.
Is "Thinking geocentrically" code for "smoking weed"?
Yes, yes it is. Smoking weed and eating chocolate cake. Yes, precious cake!
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
No, because I'm not a believer myself. I just get annoyed that atheists don't understand the concept of faith. Christianity doesn't endeavor to prove to you that god exists, instead it asks you to believe particularly in spite of lack if evidence (see doubting Thomas). The burden of proof is on you because you are the one that wants proof.
lol I was not asking proof, I am asking you why do you think there is a god. And for that you should have some claim or proof. And with that I will be "informing" you why I think it is not the case. And with reason, maybe or probably the person can realize how faulty his claim or proof is. The concept of faith comes from that believing from something without logical reason which is plainly wrong. I don't need to understand "faith" because it comes from a faulty logic at the 1st place.
You are confusing empirics and logic. Believing something where there is no evidence is faith. Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical.
To answer "why do you believe in god" I think the christian response would be that they were asked to believe and it felt right to do so
I very much doubt that any significant portion of people who identify as Christian are agnostic theists like you are claiming. If there is some sect of deists who for some bizarre reason choose to call themselves christian out there that you are referring to(and with 22,000+ christian faiths, who knows) then go ahead. Congratulations, but you have made a meaningless claim.
However, if we are actually going to talk about what 99.9% of Christians believe, then we have a god that Christians claim manifests in reality, and we then have a claim that can be empirically tested. Either you are not talking the Christian God, or Christianity bares the burden of proof.
On October 10 2013 08:03 Sermokala wrote: If god created all the animals before making the humans that means that if humans evolved from Monkeys it is compliant with the creation of the universe story. boom evolution is now a pro god theory.
I've been waiting for a suitable thread for this for a really long time.
I'm going to assume sarcasm? That made no sense, both on the evolutionary explanation and on the Genesis order of Creation.
You are wrong on both counts. God created adam right after creating the land animals. And evolution is about how humans evovled from animals.
specificaly it says that he created plants then aquatic and airborne life then he said the land should produce and support life. All this works alongside evolution your move science.
I just have to point this out, not to be mean or anything, but there's one thing that always bugs me about the order of creation in Genesis:
Day 1: Light and Darkness Day 2: Earth's atmosphere Day 3: Land and Sea / vegetation Day 4: Stars <------------------------------------ wait what Day 5: Fish / Birds Day 6: Land animals / Humans Day 7: Rested
Well when you read the Bible you have to read it from a Geocentric point of view, not a post-Heliocentric one as we have today. The stars were thought to exist in a sphere around the earth, in the same space as heaven and the angels. In this sense, creating the stars in a day is akin to creating the atmosphere in a day, because they were relatively similar sizes. Not only that, but god can do anything.
On October 10 2013 07:22 Zetter wrote: Well, I'd go for "humans".
On October 10 2013 06:56 hp.Shell wrote: So my word to describe Christians would be "Lazy" and my word to describe Christianity would be "Nonliteral"
I picked nonliteral because if you read the Bible the way it is supposed to be interpreted, you will understand that its story is mostly about the human body and the zodiac. So when I think of Christians, I think they are lazy because they have not made the effort to come to the conclusion that someone comes to after the correct interpretation of the Bible.
Edit: and by choosing Christianity for a religion, all Christians are lazy in that they have not interpreted their own religion to see it as a study of the human body and astrology, thereby bypassing Christianity in favor of something like astrotheology and/or holistic spirituality.
Just my curiosity:
Why is the bible supposed to be interpreted as a study of astrology and the human body?
Back in the times before central heat and air, but after the Neolithic revolution in agriculture, the northern hemisphere was very cold in winter. Let's think Geocentrically, with the sun revolving around the earth as early Christians did. We know today that the transit of the sun across the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn creates the seasons, so the sun also creates winter. And so in the winter near the Capricornian solstice the sun's power wanes in the north and the sun-god can be thought of as evil or a devil, He who creates the cold and kills the weak and hungry. But when the sun begins to move back toward the north, he is reborn and his power grows, bringing new life and a new season of agriculture, providing food for everything on the earth.
Christianity comes from the word Christ. 'Christ' means 'light'. Light is what the Bible says god is. God is light. So the church of Christianity comes from the church of light. That's why the Pope carries the sun, also called the Monstrance. He goes around behind the sun.
Catholic means universal, universal means all-encompassing. If it's an all-encompassing church, this means it must not be biased towards one of those orbs, the first being the sun. So there are seven orbs, and they are the seven that the days of the week are named after. Sun = Sunday, Moon = Monday, Mars = Tiw (or Týr) = Tuesday, Mercury = Odin = Wodanaz = Wednesday, Jupiter = Thor = Thursday (also Guruvar = guru var || guru is the style for Brhaspati regent of Jupiter), Venus = Frigg = Frigedaeg = Friday, Saturn = Saturday.
If you care to look in the Bible, you will find reverence for all seven of these orbs. For example, Saints Peter and Paul are named after / have their names related to Jupiter and Apollo, who is associated with Mercury. As for the 12 apostles, they represent the 12 signs of the zodiac.
If you look at da Vinci's Last Supper, you will see Jesus, the sun, with his 12 apostles. The apostles are grouped in 3s, which may be of importance and it in fact represents the division of the signs among the four seasons.
The zodiac signs, from the beginning of spring to the end of winter, run as follows: Ares, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.
The apostle Judas represents Scorpio, the scorpion, the back-biter, the treasonous. According to the Bible, Judas identified Jesus to the soldiers by means of a kiss. A scorpion bite looks like a red mark in the shape of lips, essentially a red dot with a red ring surrounding it, therefore Judas is Scorpio the scorpion, and his kiss the scorpion-bite.
Jesus is sitting between Virgo and Libra, on the transition from Summer to Autumn, when the sun begins to die. The last supper is a story that takes place just before the son Jesus dies on the cross (of the zodiac). The sun moves to the underworld, Autumn and Winter on the zodiac wheel, and is in the south, where the "land down under" Australia sits. Of course in the southern hemisphere the southern sun brings summer, but we are talking about the Roman church, and Rome and the old world that developed Christianity sits in the north, and so we have north = summer, south = winter.
The sun is the true savior of everything on earth, for without it we would all be dead from cold and starvation.
Unfortunately I have spent most of my time explaining the zodiac portion of Biblical teachings. However, the zodiac signs also describe the human body. Ares is the head, Taurus is the bottom of the head (cerebellum), Gemini is the arms, Cancer is the chest/breasts, Leo is the heart (Leo is called the lion-heart), Virgo is the belly or womb (where the woman grows during pregnancy), Libra are the kidneys, Scorpio is the genital region, Sagittarius is the hips, Capricorn is the knee-Caps, Aquarius are the shins, and Pisces, the two (Latin=) fish, represent the two feet (the pedites in Latin).
The seven chakras form the seven major colors of the visible light spectrum (the rainbow). When you go to the lower three chakras, you have red, orange and yellow. These are associated with hell. The green heart middle chakra is associated with the earth, and the top three blue indigo violet are associated with heaven, which is a word related to "head" and has similar origin.
This rising from the lower three towards the higher three has been called Jacob's Ladder, the Stairway to Heaven (think Led Zeppelin), and the Caduceus, which the sun-god Hermes carried. The Caduceus is the symbol of commerce, theft, deception and death, though it is also used in place of the similar Rod of Asclepius as a symbol for medicine. (Or perhaps it is simply used in the medical field as a symbol of deception and death? Cue failed FDA chemical pills causing death and disease.)
Jesus dies at 33, there are 33 spinal vertebre including the 24 major bones and the 9 smaller ones at the bottom of the spine that fuse into 2 during adolescence. You will therefore find this number to be 26 in many medical texts, though the original number is 33 before fusion.
There is so much more to learn, obviously I have only touched the surface of this topic with so many words, but if you want more I will not give it myself, rather please ask or PM me and I will direct you to appropriate sources where you can learn it yourself.
Thanks for reading.
Thanks for the explanation, though I'm not interested enough in that subject to dig deeper about this. =D
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
I think he means informing people that there is no evidence for any religion, and therefor no more reason to believe in any of them, than lepricons, santa claus, or other silly nonsense.
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
No, because I'm not a believer myself. I just get annoyed that atheists don't understand the concept of faith. Christianity doesn't endeavor to prove to you that god exists, instead it asks you to believe particularly in spite of lack if evidence (see doubting Thomas). The burden of proof is on you because you are the one that wants proof.
lol I was not asking proof, I am asking you why do you think there is a god. And for that you should have some claim or proof. And with that I will be "informing" you why I think it is not the case. And with reason, maybe or probably the person can realize how faulty his claim or proof is. The concept of faith comes from that believing from something without logical reason which is plainly wrong. I don't need to understand "faith" because it comes from a faulty logic at the 1st place.
You are confusing empirics and logic. Believing something where there is no evidence is faith. Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical.
To answer "why do you believe in god" I think the christian response would be that they were asked to believe and it felt right to do so
I very much doubt that any significant portion of people who identify as Christian are agnostic theists like you are claiming. If there is some sect of deists who for some bizarre reason choose to call themselves christian out there that you are referring to(and with 22,000+ christian faiths, who knows) then go ahead. Congratulations, but you have made a meaningless claim.
However, if we are actually going to talk about what 99.9% of Christians believe, then we have a god that Christians claim manifests in reality, and we then have a claim that can be empirically tested. Either you are not talking the Christian God, or Christianity bares the burden of proof.
Yeah but in the gospels Jesus is talking to the devil and the devil says "jump off the cliff god will save you" but Jesus responds" No way bro, god shall not be tested". Its not faithful to try and prove god!
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
No, because I'm not a believer myself. I just get annoyed that atheists don't understand the concept of faith. Christianity doesn't endeavor to prove to you that god exists, instead it asks you to believe particularly in spite of lack if evidence (see doubting Thomas). The burden of proof is on you because you are the one that wants proof.
lol I was not asking proof, I am asking you why do you think there is a god. And for that you should have some claim or proof. And with that I will be "informing" you why I think it is not the case. And with reason, maybe or probably the person can realize how faulty his claim or proof is. The concept of faith comes from that believing from something without logical reason which is plainly wrong. I don't need to understand "faith" because it comes from a faulty logic at the 1st place.
You are confusing empirics and logic. Believing something where there is no evidence is faith. Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical.
To answer "why do you believe in god" I think the christian response would be that they were asked to believe and it felt right to do so
I very much doubt that any significant portion of people who identify as Christian are agnostic theists like you are claiming. If there is some sect of deists who for some bizarre reason choose to call themselves christian out there that you are referring to(and with 22,000+ christian faiths, who knows) then go ahead. Congratulations, but you have made a meaningless claim.
However, if we are actually going to talk about what 99.9% of Christians believe, then we have a god that Christians claim manifests in reality, and we then have a claim that can be empirically tested. Either you are not talking the Christian God, or Christianity bares the burden of proof.
Yeah but in the gospels Jesus is talking to the devil and the devil says "jump off the cliff god will save you" but Jesus responds" No way bro, god shall not be tested". Its not faithful to try and prove god!
On October 10 2013 00:49 PaqMan wrote: And so I come to TL and ask all of you, if you could use any one word to describe Christians, what word would you use?
Describe christians or christianity?
Christians: Sheeple Christianity: Unnecessary
Christians are people who can't make up their own mind, or have been brainwashed and lost that ability in the process. Christianity at its foundation is, just like every other religion a guide on how to live your life. Smart people don't need a guide.
On October 14 2013 03:19 farvacola wrote: Better clumsy than blind or unwilling to acknowledge.
I could say the same thing about you. You are blind to a reality that you tint with your imagination, and you're unwilling to acknowledge that your senses have failed you. But that would be confirmation bias .
Consistent in your cheap arguments, farva. Guess that's why you didn't even tackle my response from a few days ago. Can't be bothered to ever make an effort when you can just dismiss everything by insinuating that others are stupid. So lazy.
But I've said nothing of my beliefs nor of my idea of reality. I can only assume that you are reading things into my defense of Christianity that are not really there. Then again, that strategy seems rather popular these days. Besides, reality cannot exist in the human mind untinted by imagination.
I did not reply to your previous post because it was not worth replying to. Lazy would something like forgetting punctuation or the like.
On October 14 2013 03:35 farvacola wrote: But I've said nothing of my beliefs nor of my idea of reality. I can only assume that you are reading things into my defense of Christianity that are not really there. Then again, that strategy seems rather popular these days. Besides, reality cannot exist in the human mind untinted by imagination.
I did not reply to your previous post because it was not worth replying to. Lazy would something like forgetting punctuation or the like.
In the first part, you argue that I'm making assumptions, but the thing is I'm forced to because you intentionally write minimalist BS to avoid being cornered. You're essentially saying that smart people recognize that we need a guide. I'm willing to accept that maybe I didn't interpret what you mean by that properly. If I were to ask you to elaborate on what you meant, you'd probably give me some cheap answer again. So what did you mean? Tell us about you - why do you think smart people are aware that they "need a guide"? No need to continue hiding, everybody knows what you are (at least in general).
As for the second part, you're lying and it's part of your bullshit persona of trash posts and trash arguments. So fine. I'm pretty sure everybody knows anyway. It's an interesting little show you're running for yourself.
Part of me is getting frustrated with you because you probably don't even realize how cheap and ridiculous you are. You dismiss everything with the back of your hand and I'm convinced that there's some kind of psychological mechanism in your head that makes you not even realize how dishonest you are and it feeds that weak little ego of yours and makes you feel like you're actually doing this like a respectable person.
Consistent in your cheap arguments, farva. Can't be bothered to ever make an effort when you can just dismiss everything by insinuating that others are stupid.
you argue that I'm making assumptions, but the thing is I'm forced to because you intentionally write minimalist BS to avoid being cornered.
You dismiss everything with the back of your hand and I'm convinced that there's some kind of psychological mechanism in your head that makes you not even realize how dishonest you are and it feeds that weak little ego of yours and makes you feel like you're actually doing this like a respectable person.
Everyone uses guides, even smart people. That was my only point. As to my reticence in going more in depth, that mostly has to do with how many times posters such as yourself use words like "trash" and "cheap" in a thread full to the brim with one word insults. I'd rather just agree to disagree and maintain that these discussions can be had without cheap shots, but maybe that's just optimism.
On October 14 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote: Everyone uses guides, even smart people. That was my only point. As to my reticence in going more in depth, that mostly has to do with how many times posters such as yourself use words like "trash" and "cheap" in a thread full to the brim with one word insults. I'd rather just agree to disagree and maintain that these discussions can be had without cheap shots, but maybe that's just optimism.
At least you got JD in your corner
Guides like what, my mom, my previous knowledge, the various people who affect my life? The first person who used "guide" meant that smart people don't need God. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the way he said it, but when you say "everyone uses guides", it's vague as hell, considering the meaning of "guide" that was first used in this thread.
As for your criticism of my use of the words "trash" and "cheap", don't forget, you hypocrite, that you have called me an ignorant out of the gate, TWICE in recent weeks, without ever explaining why my positions were that of an ignorant. You make no arguments, you made statements of belief and you insulted my intelligence without ever giving us any reason to think you've got any credibility on any matter whatsoever.
I wouldn't insult you, I would try to pick at your brain and I would try to understand you - but you kicked in the door insulting me, and now I'm doing what I can with the little information you're willing to give me. I specifically asked you to tell me what you meant by "guide" and you give me an answer that's even more confusing than before.
I can't even agree to disagree because I don't know what you even think besides the very surface, the only part of you that you haven't been able to completely hide with general language and the general "shitting all over the chess board and declaring victory" persona. I'm willing to be done because this won't lead to anything but I hope that people know what you're doing on these forums :/
Yes, I am too quick to use words like ignorant, but can you at least understand why someone might be quick with that language given the way threads like this develop? Most people coming to drop one word insults have already made up their mind, and then when I read statements like, "relatively few Christians go out of their way to share love.", it is difficult to avoid mocking such a thing. Ascertaining the behaviors of a group so large enough to decide where relativity lies is practically impossible, as is putting forth an essential representation of Christianity. The nature of the internet and media only makes this harder; it is very easy to forget who is working in the soup kitchen when all one sees are Westboro Baptists and anti-gay, anti-women religious conservatives. It is far better, and safer, to say that Christians do both bad and good things and that it would be best for the "good" Christians to do their part in reeling in the harmful ideas of fundamentalism and the like.
It is along these lines that my unadorned "Christians aren't necessarily like that" statements are motivated; it is in the interest of those who want Christianity to mean love to remind those outside of the Christian spectrum that those who speak most loudly and are most visible are not the rule, and that the "rule" as to what constitutes a Christian is being fought over on a daily basis, very much like how Republicans are now divided and fighting over exactly what it is their party stands for.
That's fair. I do hope, however, that by now you understand that when I said "relatively few Christians go out of their way to share love.", I essentially meant that Christians are no more loving than the rest of us. As a general rule, people in general, Christians included, are pretty self-centered. I did not mean to say that Christians are exceptionally bad or anything like that.
Well considering that I do not count as a legitimate Christian in the eyes of many other Christian doctrines, I do not disagree with that at all. That's what makes this all pretty ironic.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
On October 10 2013 01:00 Rodberd wrote: besides anti-gay, judgemental,hypocritical,hateful, condescending and excluding?
i think narrow-minded hits it quite well... [add the normal stuff like, "think they have the only and all-solving belive" "their god is the greatest" "there is no other thing" "explain science than? cant? HA we won" or "evolution is crap" here]
Could it be that these opinions of yours have just formed recently? Really sorry for you loss. Coincidentally, the preacher said yesterday that the thing nonbelievers know most about Christians are the things we are not allowed to do. Describing christians in one word? Human. (props to Zetter) Sadly it looks like many of our armchair keyboard computerscreen philosophasters can't even state the very obvious/think outside the box and go for the average instead. Like this very classic example:
On October 15 2013 02:59 Hryul wrote: Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
An answer without metashit? Just teleport the rock on the moon where gravity is much lower, then I think even God may be able to do it.
On October 10 2013 21:38 MarlieChurphy wrote: I find op to be spot on and hilariously ironic.
As for me, it would be pretty hard to choose one word to describe Christians, and don't be so contrived to think I have a different word for christians as I do for muslims or catholics or whatever. I'd use the same word. Probably something like nutjobs, idiots, ignorant, etc.
yea this:
On October 10 2013 02:23 Salv wrote: If I could use one word to describe the majority of Christians I would choose ignorant. I think there are far too many Christians who are unaware of:
Their own Bible.
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Scientific theory
Fallacies
That's not to suggest all Christians are like this though and as an atheist from a semi-religious family I understand where some people are coming from when describing their faith.
I've actually been christian, catholic, mormon, baptist and been to other churches as well. My parents did a great job (unwittingly) making me understand that all these people are basically speaking the same crazy language but arguing semantics. It's all just nonsense. They should actually force kids in elemntary schools to be a different religion each year and it would produce a lot more intelligent athiests imho. I think it was Penn Jillette who said that when he read the bible it served as a catalyst to make him more atheist. I mean a lot of the stuff in there is on some fantasy fiction novel level.
PS- Does anyone else think the semantic issue of being called 'athiest' versus 'an atheist' is an important distinction? 'An athiest' sort of implies you practice some anti religion rules or go to athiest group meetings. 'Atheist' is just like nobody knows or will know so idgaf. So like if someone asks you like; "What church do you go to?", you would reply with "I'm atheist." and leave it at that. Where as an atheist would be more sort of militant about it and say something like; "I'm an atheist, you believe in that crap?"
they have this new term, "Religious Activist" or "Anti-Theist" for that I think. Yeah I am becoming one of those guys coming from just not believing in "god". I really think it is time we inform and push back as some people are just guillible and they need some people to explain or reason out with them to really make them realize for themselves.
Please enlighten us all with your logical proof that there is not a god. You can't "inform" people about something for which no conclusions can be drawn from the evidence that we have
well lucky me, for a few seconds I snag a believer
Alright, here we go! As I atheist, the burden of proof is not with me as I am not claiming somthing. I just dont believe in a "god". So tell me what is your proof or claim and it would be my pleasure to enlighten you. Shall we dance?
Why is there no God? What proof do you have? Cwutididthere
haha yup clever. When they go that route I would like to give an analogy to better explain what they are trying to cook up.
like say in a trial, we are not there to prove that person A did NOT kill person B. We are there to prove if person A is guilty of killing person B.
The question is : is your analogy half as smart as you think you are ? Aren't you arbitrarily deciding that this is how things work ? Or in other word, is someone going to cite Bertrand Russell, or are we going to go directly to Dawkins and the like ? Am I going to convert to the cult of Quetzacoatl out of despair in my fellow atheists ?
Falsification>Burden of Proof I realised recently. Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean
The word that best describes Christianity in 1 word is fear. The entire religion is based on fear of heaven/hell. All religions have something they're based on though.
Christianity, Fear Buddhism, Suffering Judaism, Forgiveness
Every religion has it's thing. Most of the traits like anti-gay or judgemental stem from his core value. You can take that core value & make it a positive or a negative. Sadly most people go with a negative because it's easier
Christianity is not about fear lol. We fear God, but not in its negative sense. We don't fear God as being scary, but we know who he is and what he is capable of. We fear his power. We fear hell because we know how sinful and human we are, just like everybody else, and we know that God determines our destiny. While God is just, he is also gracious, merciful, and abounding in love, and a lot of people forget those things about God. The Christian life is about living by faith. Many people say we have a "blind faith," but faith is only as good as the object you place it in. We place our faith and hope in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose again and will come back again someday.
I can see why a lot of people hate Christians and view them as being ignorant, stubborn, close-minded, and all the other hateful words you can think of, but there is a true Christian faith on this earth, and that faith in Jesus is not of this world. Granted it is hard to come by genuine, faithful believers who are loving and forgiving and all, but seeing how many divisions and cults there are in Christianity as a whole (and bible thumpers, "you're going to hell" type people, and all that) only shows how persistent Satan is to derail people and keep them away from the one true, living God. Satan's objective is to confuse the faith and appear wonderful and right, but somewhere he will twist words and/or beliefs. As long as Satan keeps you away from Jesus, his love and forgiveness, in some way or form, he's happy. That's why there are a lot of weird or scary believers out there. It's a spiritual strategy to keep people away from coming to Jesus.
But, bear in mind that not all people in these groups are necessarily non-believers. Every believer at some point will struggle on some level of being a "light that shines before men." We may be too harsh, too judgmental, or too direct and can come off as any of the names listed previously in this thread. This is why we can't judge people because only God knows the heart.
I've been to plenty of churches over the years and most of them are very nice, friendly, welcoming, and wonderful people who pray for you and get to know you. A lot of the messages are great too. But i've also been to churches where people barely notice you at all after several months of attendance (because there's so many people there). Don't get me wrong, but it appears that people generally talk like they've walked into a church and someone cursed them or tried to convert them on the spot and now we're this evil group of people... and honestly i've never heard or seen such a thing. I don't know, I think you just have to go to the right church. Don't stop at just one or two churches, go to multiple.
On October 15 2013 05:33 IronManSC wrote: Christianity is not about fear lol. We fear God, but not in its negative sense. We don't fear God as being scary, but we know who he is and what he is capable of. We fear his power. We fear hell because we know how sinful and human we are, just like everybody else, and we know that God determines our destiny.
Pretty sure fear is correct actually. Don't do that you'll go to hell. You're sinful, your behavior is disgusting, you'll go to hell. Repent or suffer for eternity. It scares the "fag" out of people it it forces others to maintain their belief out of fear. FEAR is what got people to continue to "believe"
While God is just, he is also gracious, merciful, and abounding in love, and a lot of people forget those things about God. The Christian life is about living by faith. Many people say we have a "blind faith," but faith is only as good as the object you place it in. We place our faith and hope in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose again and will come back again someday.
Just: Inegality is abound. Where's the justice? There's no justice on Earth. There's no justice in determining who goes to hell and who goes to heaven (assuming only believers go to heaven). And if you think there's justice in Heaven, well that's just what you believe. Gracious: God is gracious, God is gracious they say. That's just one of the words from the list of words they use. Merciful: Binary system decides who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. A single factor. Love: Genocide (committed by God himself in the bible and by humans in reality), plagues and disease in general, suffering, etc.
Even if I believed in a God, especially if I believed him to be omniscient and omnipotent, I couldn't possibly convince myself that said creator is just, merciful and loving (and I won't even consider "graceful" because that's meaningless). If the biblical God exists, he's way too full of himself to be considered "loving" or "good", he's way too harsh about the punishment of non-believers to be considered "merciful".
So you say that you don't "fear" god, you're not truly afraid. If that's so, why are you praising a profoundly immoral God? Fear. Unadulterated fear of hell.
And I'm basing this on interpretations of the Bible that you may not agree with personally IronManSC, but that'd put you in some sort of minority opinion regarding the scripture.
On October 15 2013 05:33 IronManSC wrote: Christianity is not about fear lol. We fear God, but not in its negative sense. We don't fear God as being scary, but we know who he is and what he is capable of. We fear his power. We fear hell because we know how sinful and human we are, just like everybody else, and we know that God determines our destiny.
Pretty sure fear is correct actually. Don't do that you'll go to hell. You're sinful, your behavior is disgusting, you'll go to hell. Repent or suffer for eternity. It scares the "fag" out of people it it forces others to maintain their belief out of fear. FEAR is what got people to continue to "believe"
While God is just, he is also gracious, merciful, and abounding in love, and a lot of people forget those things about God. The Christian life is about living by faith. Many people say we have a "blind faith," but faith is only as good as the object you place it in. We place our faith and hope in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose again and will come back again someday.
Just: Inegality is abound. Where's the justice? There's no justice on Earth. There's no justice in determining who goes to hell and who goes to heaven (assuming only believers go to heaven). And if you think there's justice in Heaven, well that's just what you believe. Gracious: God is gracious, God is gracious they say. That's just one of the words from the list of words they use. Merciful: Binary system decides who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. A single factor. Love: Genocide (committed by God himself in the bible and by humans in reality), plagues and disease in general, suffering, etc.
Even if I believed in a God, especially if I believed him to be omniscient and omnipotent, I couldn't possibly convince myself that said creator is just, merciful and loving (and I won't even consider "graceful" because that's meaningless). If the biblical God exists, he's way too full of himself to be considered "loving" or "good", he's way too harsh about the punishment of non-believers to be considered "merciful".
So you say that you don't "fear" god, you're not truly afraid. If that's so, why are you praising a profoundly immoral God? Fear. Unadulterated fear of hell.
And I'm basing this on interpretations of the Bible that you may not agree with personally IronManSC, but that'd put you in some sort of minority opinion regarding the scripture.
Yes, there is a "fear" to it, but we don't live in fear as you assume. When we fear hell, it's because we recognize our sinfulness and rebellion against God. God made us perfect in the beginning. WE turned our backs on him, and we deserve to be punished for it. When we come to Jesus and recognize our sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state we're in, we fear hell because we ultimately know that we would be separated from God forever. We are not the way God made us to be and that was our choice, not his. So yes, there is fear, but again, we don't live in fear after accepting Jesus because he regenerates you. He takes away your fear of death and hell and assures you that you are his, and when you accept Jesus personally, there is nothing that can separate his love from you.
God does not force us to obey him or worship him. He wants us to genuinely choose to love him and follow him. If we were forced to obey then either the entire world would be hardcore Christianity (or basically 'faith robots'), or we'd all be extinct because of our natural inclination to run away from God and be our own god of our lives. The fact that we wake up every day and continue to breath is in itself a mercy that God gives to all of us; another day of life, another chance to repent and turn to him.
On October 15 2013 05:33 IronManSC wrote: Christianity is not about fear lol. We fear God, but not in its negative sense. We don't fear God as being scary, but we know who he is and what he is capable of. We fear his power. We fear hell because we know how sinful and human we are, just like everybody else, and we know that God determines our destiny.
Pretty sure fear is correct actually. Don't do that you'll go to hell. You're sinful, your behavior is disgusting, you'll go to hell. Repent or suffer for eternity. It scares the "fag" out of people it it forces others to maintain their belief out of fear. FEAR is what got people to continue to "believe"
While God is just, he is also gracious, merciful, and abounding in love, and a lot of people forget those things about God. The Christian life is about living by faith. Many people say we have a "blind faith," but faith is only as good as the object you place it in. We place our faith and hope in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose again and will come back again someday.
Just: Inegality is abound. Where's the justice? There's no justice on Earth. There's no justice in determining who goes to hell and who goes to heaven (assuming only believers go to heaven). And if you think there's justice in Heaven, well that's just what you believe. Gracious: God is gracious, God is gracious they say. That's just one of the words from the list of words they use. Merciful: Binary system decides who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. A single factor. Love: Genocide (committed by God himself in the bible and by humans in reality), plagues and disease in general, suffering, etc.
Even if I believed in a God, especially if I believed him to be omniscient and omnipotent, I couldn't possibly convince myself that said creator is just, merciful and loving (and I won't even consider "graceful" because that's meaningless). If the biblical God exists, he's way too full of himself to be considered "loving" or "good", he's way too harsh about the punishment of non-believers to be considered "merciful".
So you say that you don't "fear" god, you're not truly afraid. If that's so, why are you praising a profoundly immoral God? Fear. Unadulterated fear of hell.
And I'm basing this on interpretations of the Bible that you may not agree with personally IronManSC, but that'd put you in some sort of minority opinion regarding the scripture.
Yes, there is a "fear" to it, but we don't live in fear as you assume. When we fear hell, it's because we recognize our sinfulness and rebellion against God. God made us perfect in the beginning. WE turned our backs on him, and we deserve to be punished for it.
Why? Why is it so bad? I can turn my back on anybody who wrongs me even if they previously were nice. It's only bad because you're told it's bad to turn our backs to God, even though he doesn't care enough to give the people of Earth a good livinghood. Why would I not turn my back on him when he flooded Earth and killed everybody in the bible, and lets a bunch of people die even today?
You'd never be willing to accept that God should be able to let people die cruel deaths like those if you weren't conditioned to think it's normal for a merciful, loving God to let little kids starve in Africa. What's the excuse, we're "sinful" so it's fine? Come on.
God does not force us to obey him or worship him. He wants us to genuinely choose to love him and follow him.
So essentially the argument is "you don't HAVE to obey... but you'll go to hell". He genuinely wants us to make that choice, right. Like nobody's hand is being forced at all here. Nope!
If we were forced to obey then either the entire world would be hardcore Christianity (or basically 'faith robots'), or we'd all be extinct because of our natural inclination to run away from God and be our own god of our lives. The fact that we wake up every day and continue to breath is in itself a mercy that God gives to all of us; another day of life, another chance to repent and turn to him.
Woa calm down now, you jump to conclusions. If we were forced to obey, God, who btw is all-powerful, could make us obey. And since he's loving and merciful, we wouldn't have to run or be afraid, because we'd all be cool with him. And given his love and mercy, he'd be cool with us.
He wouldn't spend so much time being angry at how inadequate we, his creation, are.
On October 15 2013 05:33 IronManSC wrote: Christianity is not about fear lol. We fear God, but not in its negative sense. We don't fear God as being scary, but we know who he is and what he is capable of. We fear his power. We fear hell because we know how sinful and human we are, just like everybody else, and we know that God determines our destiny.
Pretty sure fear is correct actually. Don't do that you'll go to hell. You're sinful, your behavior is disgusting, you'll go to hell. Repent or suffer for eternity. It scares the "fag" out of people it it forces others to maintain their belief out of fear. FEAR is what got people to continue to "believe"
While God is just, he is also gracious, merciful, and abounding in love, and a lot of people forget those things about God. The Christian life is about living by faith. Many people say we have a "blind faith," but faith is only as good as the object you place it in. We place our faith and hope in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose again and will come back again someday.
Just: Inegality is abound. Where's the justice? There's no justice on Earth. There's no justice in determining who goes to hell and who goes to heaven (assuming only believers go to heaven). And if you think there's justice in Heaven, well that's just what you believe. Gracious: God is gracious, God is gracious they say. That's just one of the words from the list of words they use. Merciful: Binary system decides who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. A single factor. Love: Genocide (committed by God himself in the bible and by humans in reality), plagues and disease in general, suffering, etc.
Even if I believed in a God, especially if I believed him to be omniscient and omnipotent, I couldn't possibly convince myself that said creator is just, merciful and loving (and I won't even consider "graceful" because that's meaningless). If the biblical God exists, he's way too full of himself to be considered "loving" or "good", he's way too harsh about the punishment of non-believers to be considered "merciful".
So you say that you don't "fear" god, you're not truly afraid. If that's so, why are you praising a profoundly immoral God? Fear. Unadulterated fear of hell.
And I'm basing this on interpretations of the Bible that you may not agree with personally IronManSC, but that'd put you in some sort of minority opinion regarding the scripture.
Yes, there is a "fear" to it, but we don't live in fear as you assume. When we fear hell, it's because we recognize our sinfulness and rebellion against God. God made us perfect in the beginning. WE turned our backs on him, and we deserve to be punished for it.
Why? Why is it so bad? I can turn my back on anybody who wrongs me even if they previously were nice. It's only bad because you're told it's bad to turn our backs to God, even though he doesn't care enough to give the people of Earth a good livinghood. Why would I not turn my back on him when he flooded Earth and killed everybody in the bible, and lets a bunch of people die even today?
You'd never be willing to accept that God should be able to let people die cruel deaths like those if you weren't conditioned to think it's normal for a merciful, loving God to let little kids starve in Africa. What's the excuse, we're "sinful" so it's fine? Come on.
God does not force us to obey him or worship him. He wants us to genuinely choose to love him and follow him.
So essentially the argument is "you don't HAVE to obey... but you'll go to hell". He genuinely wants us to make that choice, right. Like nobody's hand is being forced at all here. Nope!
If we were forced to obey then either the entire world would be hardcore Christianity (or basically 'faith robots'), or we'd all be extinct because of our natural inclination to run away from God and be our own god of our lives. The fact that we wake up every day and continue to breath is in itself a mercy that God gives to all of us; another day of life, another chance to repent and turn to him.
Woa calm down now, you jump to conclusions. If we were forced to obey, God, who btw is all-powerful, could make us obey. And since he's loving and merciful, we wouldn't have to run or be afraid, because we'd all be cool with him. And given his love and mercy, he'd be cool with us.
He wouldn't spend so much time being angry at how inadequate we, his creation, are.
See, here's the thing. A lot of people think God either hates you and slaughters you for not listening to him, or he controls you and doesn't let you live the way you want. We have to understand why Jesus died on the cross for our sins (yours and mine alike).
God made us perfect and holy and in his image. We were made to be in relationship with God and to reflect his qualities and love. But... we wanted to live life on our own, thus sin came into the world and infected us all. According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. Because God is holy and just, he cannot allow sin to go on forever or live with it.
So, knowing how sinful we are, God had a plan in mind to send Jesus, the sinless Son of God (also named Lamb of God) to be a substitute for us. In the Old Testament, people sacrificed animals to atone for their sins as a substitute, which God accepted, in place of their own bodies. The blood atones, and they had to do this quite frequently. This was symbolic in the Old Testament and points to Jesus, who would come to die for us. Jesus, who was sinless, and is God himself, represented all of humanity and took the sins of the world upon himself. He shed his blood for us. That is why we look to Jesus for forgiveness from sins we commit, because he is holy and blameless and gave his life as a ransom. He took the death and punishment that we should have. Because he was blameless and sinless, he was the only one qualified to die for sins once and for all. We no longer have to offer sacrifices for our sins, we can freely and boldly go to Jesus and ask for forgiveness "in Jesus' name."
So one may say that Christians still sin, and it is true, we do. However, when we accept Jesus, his sacrifice, and know who he is, he "covers us with his blood" (justification) and "declares us righteous before his eyes." All we can do is accept his claims and promises, trust them, and live by faith in him with the power and help of the Holy Spirit that he gives you. We're so tainted with sin that he even has to give us a GUIDE to help us get through life.
Knowing the sin we brought upon ourselves, God was still loving and merciful to make a way back to himself. He's basically saying "you brought this sin upon yourselves, and here I am dying for you, covering your sins with my blood, and making a way for you to be made right in the eyes of God." It is a free gift, believe it or not. He made it so simple for us. He wants us to accept him, but if we don't and decide to live in our sin, then there is a place prepared for all evil and sin someday, which is hell. Keep in mind that hell wasn't even made for people, nor was it meant for them. It was made for Satan and his demons who rebelled against God. Unfortunately, the sin that came into the world through Satan results in us going there as well by rejecting the only way out. If you want nothing to do with God who lovingly died for you so that you might know him, then there is a place someday that has nothing to do with him.
When Jesus was on his way to raise Lazerus, he wept. He knew he would raise Lazerus, but he wept because he felt the sorrow of his family when they lost him. He tasted the bitterness of sin and what it does to the human race (death), the masterpiece that he enjoys the most out of all creation. He doesn't like death, nor does he want anyone to die. He made a way for us to be made righteous in his eyes and to someday live with him forever. Sin infects us so much that it takes only the power of God to cleanse us. Sin is nasty, and that's the reality of what we see all over the world today. The opposite of good is evil. The absence of God is hell. While there are horrible things going on in the world, there are also a lot of good things.
I wouldn't say that God is mean or controlling. He's basically offering to rescue you, but sadly most people don't want it.
On October 15 2013 06:43 IronManSC wrote: See, here's the thing. A lot of people think God either hates you and slaughters you for not listening to him, or he controls you and doesn't let you live the way you want. We have to understand why Jesus died on the cross for our sins (yours and mine alike).
See I understand that you're saying these things and you don't question them for a second but try to put yourself in my shoes here. I have never felt the presence of God, I have never had any such impression. I was raised without a belief in God, so to me, when you tell me that Jesus died for my sins, it sounds exactly like the rambles of any sect or cult or harry potter voodoo magic. People speak to me like Jesus was this great dood who died for my sins, but as it turns out Jesus is not dead, he's alive - except no he's in the sky, and he's actually God. So I ask, what's the sacrifice? A part of God, Jesus, who's also the totality of God, died, but lived, in order to redeem my sins, to God, (himself)? Why was that necessary! He did it himself to fix a standard that he decided by himself! Jesus didn't have to die for my sins if God could have forgiven my sins but decided to send Jesus to do it.
This is all completely arbitrary. Why was Jesus a necessity? It's some kind of rule that says sins can only be forgiven by God through the action of God, but he can't just decide to forgive, he has to jump through some administrative hoops first??? Fill form 27B, then send Jesus, get him killed and then sins are rendered inadmissible in court.
God made us perfect and holy and in his image. We were made to be in relationship with God and to reflect his qualities and love. But... we wanted to live life on our own, thus sin came into the world and infected us all. According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. Because God is holy and just, he cannot allow sin to go on forever or live with it.
We were perfect but we fucked up. Therefore we weren't perfect.
So, knowing how sinful we are, God had a plan in mind to send Jesus, the sinless Son of God (also named Lamb of God) to be a substitute for us.
Why not pick up the good ole' wrench and fixed the broken, previously perfect creation?
people sacrificed animals to atone for their sins as a substitute, which God accepted
Even I wouldn't accept that. It's sloppy.
He wants us to accept him, but if we don't and decide to live in our sin, then there is a place prepared for all evil and sin someday, which is hell.
I can't understand why that's acceptable behavior. Seems like the dude wants attention. You'd think an all-powerful loving and benevolent being would understand that from the perspective of people, like myself, his existence is not obvious. What am I guilty of? My brain is the way it is - it just is. And I don't think God exists. Why wouldn't he have mercy in this case? I'm a good guy in most ways that matter...
I wouldn't say that God is mean or controlling. He's basically offering to rescue you, but sadly most people don't want it.
People would want it if some effort was made to convince us that he's "offering rescue". Unfortunately, either our senses have failed us or his message is grossly unclear.
On October 15 2013 04:25 Rainbow Cuddles wrote: The word that best describes Christianity in 1 word is fear. The entire religion is based on fear of heaven/hell. All religions have something they're based on though.
Christianity, Fear Buddhism, Suffering Judaism, Forgiveness
Every religion has it's thing. Most of the traits like anti-gay or judgemental stem from his core value. You can take that core value & make it a positive or a negative. Sadly most people go with a negative because it's easier
I would say judaism is far more about tradition than forgiveness and that christianity is far more about forgiveness than fear.
On October 15 2013 04:25 Rainbow Cuddles wrote: The word that best describes Christianity in 1 word is fear. The entire religion is based on fear of heaven/hell. All religions have something they're based on though.
Christianity, Fear Buddhism, Suffering Judaism, Forgiveness
Every religion has it's thing. Most of the traits like anti-gay or judgemental stem from his core value. You can take that core value & make it a positive or a negative. Sadly most people go with a negative because it's easier
I like this a lot, though personally I'd argue that the Core principle in Christianity is Sin not fear. Jesus died for our sins, original sin, confession, all that are pretty central to the christian faith. I also think that is why Fear is often seen as the main factor, because we are inherently sinful in the christian belief system and must "save" ourselves or be damned for eternity by it.
I don't know enough about Judaism to comment, but comparing to Buddhism draws a nice parallel. Christians try and remove their sin and thus improve their lives, Buddhists try to remove their suffering and thus improve their lives. It's always been funny to me how religions all aim to do the same thing, improve our lives, but they squabble and bicker over details and create all this confusion and generally loose sight of that goal.
To me I can find good and bad in just about all religion (buddhism is one of the harder, but there's always stupid, ignorant people of any faith who can ruin something good) so I just prefer to stand outside of all of them. I don't really like how religions tend to have their own unique guide book that has "the Truth" or "the Answer" (we all know it's 42 anyways) that they reffer back to for everything. This is especially the case with Christianity where you get told to follow the Bible, or God's word, and to just have faith in God. To me this removes thinking and stagnates humanity, it teaches people not to think for themselves but trust in a book or the word of an all-mighty yet totally intangible god.
It reminds me of that joke where there is very bad flooding and a small town has to evacuate. There is one man in the town who is devoutly faithful in god and knows that gob will take care of him. So even when the flood waters have forced him onto the 2nd lv of his house and a boat comes by to rescue him, he tells the people on the boat "Do not worry, I know the lord will provide for me and keep me safe." Later he has been forced to the roof and another boat comes, but again he says, "I will be fine, the lord will provide and keep me safe". Still later he is clinging to his chimney and a helicopter comes and offers him a rope, once again he says "No, I have faith in my god. He will keep in safe." So the man drowns and finds himself in heaven. He turns to God (usually it's actually St. Peter at the Pearly Gates) and asks, "Why did you let me die? I trusted you completely!?" To which God replies, "Dude, I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"
On October 15 2013 09:41 CosmicSpiral wrote: Anyone who says Judaism is about forgiveness does not understand Judaism in the slightest.
We all say things based on our own limited interpretations and impressions. So rather than simply bashing someone for their opinion perhaps you'd care to enlighten us?
On October 15 2013 09:41 CosmicSpiral wrote: Anyone who says Judaism is about forgiveness does not understand Judaism in the slightest.
We all say things based on our own limited interpretations and impressions. So rather than simply bashing someone for their opinion perhaps you'd care to enlighten us?
I did not bash anyone. I said that the person who equated Judaism with forgiveness does not understand the religion. It's not an insult as much as a criticism of a shallow interpretation; you could say the same of any attempt to find the definitive tenet of an evolving entity. You would be hard-pressed to find any emphasis on it in the Old Testament or other works. Perhaps you could cite the book of Lamentations but even it ultimately rejects the concept as unworthy of God.
It's not like Jews themselves were any better at defining the tenets of their own religion. Maimonides was heavily criticized for the 13 Principles of Faith by other prominent Jewish scholars, and his declaration was ignored for centuries.
On October 15 2013 06:43 IronManSC wrote:I wouldn't say that God is mean or controlling. He's basically offering to rescue you, but sadly most people don't want it.
I would say that according to Scripture he is somewhat hypocritical, but Christian scholars generally do a good job of reconciling the depictions of God in the Old and New Testament.
On October 10 2013 00:49 PaqMan wrote: I attend a private Christian university in Texas (Baylor University, sic 'em Bears!) and all incoming freshman are required to take two classes, Chapel and Religious Scriptures. Well today at Chapel we had a really awesome speaker come and talk to us, and he told us about one of the projects he worked on. I can't remember the name of the project, but he traveled to all 50 states in the US and polled people the following question: "If you could use one word to describe Christians, what would you use?"
The top three were anti-gay, judgemental, and hypocritical. Other words that were used were hateful, condescending, and excluding.
The saddest part of it all was that the word which describes the entirety of Christianity was no where at the top of the list; love
And so I come to TL and ask all of you, if you could use any one word to describe Christians, what word would you use?
Were these polls properly conducted? Sounds like mild martyring/ rally cries as most of this country identifies themselves as Christian... Sample sizes? Random sampling? Cities are more likely to be politically/socially liberal, so if he just traveled to say Austin, Seattle, LA, of course he'd get those as "top" answers.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
yeah that one too, but it would be so hard for them to work out, they will just claim he can do it because he is "god" end of story lol they cant even explain the bible yet they claim it as evidence.. it is really hard to reason when their minds are clouded with dogmas and fear is instilled. Mere thinking of things may be a sign of doubting and in the process "sinning" well played whoever started this, he did an endless loop to "shepherd" the sheep.
On October 15 2013 05:33 IronManSC wrote: Christianity is not about fear lol. We fear God, but not in its negative sense. We don't fear God as being scary, but we know who he is and what he is capable of. We fear his power. We fear hell because we know how sinful and human we are, just like everybody else, and we know that God determines our destiny.
Pretty sure fear is correct actually. Don't do that you'll go to hell. You're sinful, your behavior is disgusting, you'll go to hell. Repent or suffer for eternity. It scares the "fag" out of people it it forces others to maintain their belief out of fear. FEAR is what got people to continue to "believe"
While God is just, he is also gracious, merciful, and abounding in love, and a lot of people forget those things about God. The Christian life is about living by faith. Many people say we have a "blind faith," but faith is only as good as the object you place it in. We place our faith and hope in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose again and will come back again someday.
Just: Inegality is abound. Where's the justice? There's no justice on Earth. There's no justice in determining who goes to hell and who goes to heaven (assuming only believers go to heaven). And if you think there's justice in Heaven, well that's just what you believe. Gracious: God is gracious, God is gracious they say. That's just one of the words from the list of words they use. Merciful: Binary system decides who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. A single factor. Love: Genocide (committed by God himself in the bible and by humans in reality), plagues and disease in general, suffering, etc.
Even if I believed in a God, especially if I believed him to be omniscient and omnipotent, I couldn't possibly convince myself that said creator is just, merciful and loving (and I won't even consider "graceful" because that's meaningless). If the biblical God exists, he's way too full of himself to be considered "loving" or "good", he's way too harsh about the punishment of non-believers to be considered "merciful".
So you say that you don't "fear" god, you're not truly afraid. If that's so, why are you praising a profoundly immoral God? Fear. Unadulterated fear of hell.
And I'm basing this on interpretations of the Bible that you may not agree with personally IronManSC, but that'd put you in some sort of minority opinion regarding the scripture.
Yes, there is a "fear" to it, but we don't live in fear as you assume. When we fear hell, it's because we recognize our sinfulness and rebellion against God. 1. God made us perfect in the beginning. WE turned our backs on him, and we deserve to be punished for it. 2. When we come to Jesus and recognize our sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state we're in, we fear hell because we ultimately know that we would be separated from God forever.3. We are not the way God made us to be and that was our choice, not his. So yes, there is fear, but again, 4. we don't live in fear after accepting Jesus because he regenerates you. He takes away your fear of death and hell and assures you that you are his, and when you accept Jesus personally, there is nothing that can separate his love from you.
5. God does not force us to obey him or worship him. He wants us to genuinely choose to love him and follow him. If we were forced to obey then either the entire world would be hardcore Christianity (or basically 'faith robots'), or we'd all be extinct because of our natural inclination to run away from God and be our own god of our lives. The fact that we wake up every day and continue to breath is in itself a mercy that God gives to all of us; another day of life, another chance to repent and turn to him.
Let me just point out why it is just plain wrong. bolded some lines..
1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them? why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment? That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote: Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean
Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them? why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment? That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20
So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9
Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened.
You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell.
That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people.
So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices. God's providing a way out.
He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him. God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning. We are all to be punished for it. God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty. If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10-10
On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote: Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it (2)doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? (3)A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)(1)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean
Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with?
I never said I know that there exists a teapot. 1) my ignorance does not invalidate the teapot 2)a bit of semantics n logics n shit, if we have evidence that there is no evidence whatsoever that a teapot exists, if doesn't follow that there is no teapot, it also could be that it is a non-teapot (whatever that may be), or that the teapot actually is a coffemug. 3) this one is self-explaining
Anyway, keep up the good work, your posts are the best thus far in this thread. And I mean it.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
yeah that one too, but it would be so hard for them to work out, they will just claim he can do it because he is "god" end of story lol they cant even explain the bible yet they claim it as evidence.. it is really hard to reason when their minds are clouded with dogmas and fear is instilled. Mere thinking of things may be a sign of doubting and in the process "sinning" well played whoever started this, he did an endless loop to "shepherd" the sheep.
U guys ever thought about that "create a task you cannot solve" is a "meta" question and can be answered with a "meta" answer, as things in vectorspaces stay in vectorspaces? And second, the true question is: "Can God create a gravity field and a surface strong enough so he can create a rock which he cannot lift?" Feel free to quote me on your next trip to gnutown.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them? why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment? That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20
So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9
Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened.
You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell.
That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people.
So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices. God's providing a way out.
He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him. God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning. We are all to be punished for it. God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty. If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10-10
Do Christians not realise how ridiculous it looks to quote the Bible when trying to explain things to non-believers? In case it's somehow unclear, the guy talking to you don't believe in that thing. You couldn't look more ludicrous even if u quoted Snow White while trying to explain The General Theory of Relativity.
Anyway back on topic:
Untrue. Would probably my word of choice, though many already echoed (and i agree) the sentiment that 1 word is really not enough for such a thing. To my limited knowledge, after Jesus up until around 50AD, Christianity and its books/records are passed down by words of mouth. To still claim absolute truth (ex: The Bible) after 50 years of mouth-to-mouth information passing is.... tough to believe. If you ever played that game where a bunch people try to pass a message down a line, it doesn't take more than 10 people for an Earthworm to turn into a Dinosaur. And we are talking ~50 years of that stuff.
I've nothing against the religion (other than the occasional attempt at conversion, which sometimes can be a nuisance). It certainly does a fine job providing spiritual shelter for some people who need it (as does many other religions). But beyond that, i wouldn't trust it with much else.
@blubbdavid
There's nothing "true" about your question, neither is it cool or particularly creative, just another way to phrase the "create the impossible" idea.
Regarding the teapot thing: "Absence" is the natural state of things. Would you assume there's an invisible piece of shit sitting on your head even though u can't see/feel it? There's no shit on your head until people show you proof that there are some.
Same thing, no teapot, until you point me to some proof that there is 1.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them? why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment? That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20
So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9
Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened.
You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell.
That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people.
So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices. God's providing a way out.
He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him. God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning. We are all to be punished for it. God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty. If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10-10
Do Christians not realise how ridiculous it looks to quote the Bible when trying to explain things to non-believers? In case it's somehow unclear, the guy talking to you don't believe in that thing. You couldn't look more ludicrous even if u quoted Snow White while trying to explain The General Theory of Relativity.
Anyway back on topic:
Untrue. Would probably my word of choice, though many already echoed (and i agree) the sentiment that 1 word is really not enough for such a thing. To my limited knowledge, after Jesus up until around 50AD, Christianity and its books/records are passed down by words of mouth. To still claim absolute truth (ex: The Bible) after 50 years of mouth-to-mouth information passing is.... tough to believe. If you ever played that game where a bunch people try to pass a message down a line, it doesn't take more than 10 people for an Earthworm to turn into a Dinosaur. And we are talking ~50 years of that stuff.
I've nothing against the religion (other than the occasional attempt at conversion, which sometimes can be a nuisance). It certainly does a fine job providing spiritual shelter for some people who need it (as does many other religions). But beyond that, i wouldn't trust it with much else.
@blubbdavid
There's nothing "true" about your question, neither is it cool or particularly creative, just another way to phrase the "create the impossible" idea.
I found it creative. And it is an extension of the create the impossible idea.
Regarding the teapot thing: "Absence" is the natural state of things. Would you assume there's an invisible piece of shit sitting on your head even though u can't see/feel it? There's no shit on your head until people show you proof that there are some.
Same thing, no teapot, until you point me to some proof that there is 1.
As far from the target as you could get. The point I was trying to make is that there are other/different viewpoints/considerations than the standard notion ""Absence" is the natural state of things." Really. Black Swans don't exist. You heard it here first. Besides, what a twisted use of the word "natural". Is nature "unnatural" since it is not absent?
I'm a Christian and I don't fear God; use of the word "fear" in that sense (something like "awe") is archaic. As the rest, I'm just posting to say I don't agree with IronMan about any of his theology, so please do not take that as a descriptor for all Christians.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging.
Like he said, it's a paradox. A omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, therefore, no being can be both omnipotent in the purest sense of the term.
It doesn't beg the question because it's logically sound. If omnipotent being cannot do something, then it isn't omnipotent. Two questions: Can omnipotent being create a rock so heavy it can't lift it? If the answer is yes, we move on to question two. Can omnipotent being lift the rock? If the answer is yes, then it failed in the first place and therefore isn't omnipotent. If the answer is no, then it cannot lift a rock and therefore isn't omnipotent.
The conclusion is that no being can be omnipotent. At best, it's pretty-fucking-potent. . I don't think it begs the question given that the conclusion explains itself through the logic of the problem.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging.
Like he said, it's a paradox. A omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, therefore, no being can be both omnipotent in the purest sense of the term.
It doesn't beg the question because it's logically sound. If omnipotent being cannot do something, then it isn't omnipotent. Two questions: Can omnipotent being create a rock so heavy it can't lift it? If the answer is yes, we move on to question two. Can omnipotent being lift the rock? If the answer is yes, then it failed in the first place and therefore isn't omnipotent. If the answer is no, then it cannot lift a rock and therefore isn't omnipotent.
The conclusion is that no being can be omnipotent. At best, it's pretty-fucking-potent. . I don't think it begs the question given that the conclusion explains itself through the logic of the problem.
Except there's no reason to think that omnipotence should require the ability to, as it were, "do the [literally] impossible."
It's in no way a logically sound argument, because you're cheating with the premises. This is like saying omnipotence is paradoxical because an omnipotent being couldn't make a (planar) square circle. No, and omnipotent being couldn't make a square circle. But that's because "square circle" isn't actually intelligible; it just sounds like it is.
If an omnipotent being exists, then asking whether it can create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it is exactly like asking whether it can create a square circle. It can't, because both sentences are meaningless. They refer to things beyond themselves which have already been ruled out.
You'd be best suited, IMO, to actually give a definition of omnipotence before going about producing paradoxes. Is omnipotence the ability to do everything possible, or everything, including the impossible? I see no reason why it should be the latter, given that logic is not an imposition on entities in the sense that it would be "stronger" than the omnipotent entity, but is actually just a description of reality. Frankly, though, the debate is pointless, because
1) these paradoxes are pretty weak, given that they refute something nobody believes and which doesn't require a paradox to refute (can X do the impossible? The answer is no regardless of what property X possesses because impossible "things" do not actually refer to anything).
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them? why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment? That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20
So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9
Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened.
You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell.
That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people.
So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices. God's providing a way out.
He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him. God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning. We are all to be punished for it. God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty. If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10-10
Do Christians not realise how ridiculous it looks to quote the Bible when trying to explain things to non-believers? In case it's somehow unclear, the guy talking to you don't believe in that thing. You couldn't look more ludicrous even if u quoted Snow White while trying to explain The General Theory of Relativity.
Anyway back on topic:
Untrue. Would probably my word of choice, though many already echoed (and i agree) the sentiment that 1 word is really not enough for such a thing. To my limited knowledge, after Jesus up until around 50AD, Christianity and its books/records are passed down by words of mouth. To still claim absolute truth (ex: The Bible) after 50 years of mouth-to-mouth information passing is.... tough to believe. If you ever played that game where a bunch people try to pass a message down a line, it doesn't take more than 10 people for an Earthworm to turn into a Dinosaur. And we are talking ~50 years of that stuff.
I've nothing against the religion (other than the occasional attempt at conversion, which sometimes can be a nuisance). It certainly does a fine job providing spiritual shelter for some people who need it (as does many other religions). But beyond that, i wouldn't trust it with much else.
It's not uncommon for people to be against the teachings of Scripture, or to shun it whenever it's brought up. Most people don't like what it has to say, either because it's true or it's just some "dusty old book" as some people call it and therefore it has no relevance to today's world. What's always funny to me is the same people who tell me I take verses out of context (even after explaining what the verses mean) are the same people who take Matthew 7:1 out of context, which reads "Do not judge, or you will be judged." Anyway that's beside the point. He was asking biblical questions, and I am answering from a Bible-believing perspective. I can tell you things that are in the Bible in normal language and you probably wouldn't notice it, but as soon as I bold it and reference it, suddenly you (or any others) feel threatened by it. Interesting
There are 365 prophecies that were told hundreds of years before the Messiah (Jesus) came. Jesus not only fulfilled all of them, but 109 of those prophecies could only be fulfilled by Jesus himself. Here is a list of the prophecies/foreshadowing of the coming Christ long before he even came: http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm
On October 16 2013 06:06 Shiori wrote: I'm a Christian and I don't fear God; use of the word "fear" in that sense (something like "awe") is archaic. As the rest, I'm just posting to say I don't agree with IronMan about any of his theology, so please do not take that as a descriptor for all Christians.
A true Christian/believer/saint is someone who believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, who shed his blood on the cross to atone for our sins, and was resurrected to life three days later. Salvation comes through Christ alone. He is the one, true living God, and there is no one like him, and we should strive to have a personal relationship with the one who created you. I hate to burst your bubble but unless someone believes these things in their heart, they are not a real Christian, no matter how much you may proclaim it to yourself.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging.
Like he said, it's a paradox. A omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, therefore, no being can be both omnipotent in the purest sense of the term.
It doesn't beg the question because it's logically sound. If omnipotent being cannot do something, then it isn't omnipotent. Two questions: Can omnipotent being create a rock so heavy it can't lift it? If the answer is yes, we move on to question two. Can omnipotent being lift the rock? If the answer is yes, then it failed in the first place and therefore isn't omnipotent. If the answer is no, then it cannot lift a rock and therefore isn't omnipotent.
The conclusion is that no being can be omnipotent. At best, it's pretty-fucking-potent. . I don't think it begs the question given that the conclusion explains itself through the logic of the problem.
Except there's no reason to think that omnipotence should require the ability to, as it were, "do the [literally] impossible."
It's in no way a logically sound argument, because you're cheating with the premises. This is like saying omnipotence is paradoxical because an omnipotent being couldn't make a (planar) square circle. No, and omnipotent being couldn't make a square circle. But that's because "square circle" isn't actually intelligible; it just sounds like it is.
If an omnipotent being exists, then asking whether it can create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it is exactly like asking whether it can create a square circle. It can't, because both sentences are meaningless. They refer to things beyond themselves which have already been ruled out.
You'd be best suited, IMO, to actually give a definition of omnipotence before going about producing paradoxes. Is omnipotence the ability to do everything possible, or everything, including the impossible? I see no reason why it should be the latter, given that logic is not an imposition on entities in the sense that it would be "stronger" than the omnipotent entity, but is actually just a description of reality. Frankly, though, the debate is pointless, because
1) these paradoxes are pretty weak, given that they refute something nobody believes and which doesn't require a paradox to refute (can X do the impossible? The answer is no regardless of what property X possesses because impossible "things" do not actually refer to anything).
2) It would be indiscernible anyway.
I didn't think I cheated with the premises: I wrote "all powerful" as in "nothing is impossible". This may be a naive definition since you run into problems, but it also suggests itself, because it is the common meaning associated with it.
I also don't know why If an omnipotent being exists, then asking whether it can create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it is exactly like asking whether it can create a square circle. It can't, because both sentences are meaningless. They refer to things beyond themselves which have already been ruled out.
Care to elaborate? For me it is a meaningful sentence and your reason is unclear. I also like the abstract one better for the circumvention of physical problems but it's just a personal taste.
But just to give it back: [...] given that logic [...] is actually just a description of reality [of omnipotent entities]. Now this is a meaningless sentence.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them? why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment? That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20
So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9
Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened.
You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell.
That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people.
So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices. God's providing a way out.
He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him. God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning. We are all to be punished for it. God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty. If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10-10
Do Christians not realise how ridiculous it looks to quote the Bible when trying to explain things to non-believers? In case it's somehow unclear, the guy talking to you don't believe in that thing. You couldn't look more ludicrous even if u quoted Snow White while trying to explain The General Theory of Relativity.
Anyway back on topic:
Untrue. Would probably my word of choice, though many already echoed (and i agree) the sentiment that 1 word is really not enough for such a thing. To my limited knowledge, after Jesus up until around 50AD, Christianity and its books/records are passed down by words of mouth. To still claim absolute truth (ex: The Bible) after 50 years of mouth-to-mouth information passing is.... tough to believe. If you ever played that game where a bunch people try to pass a message down a line, it doesn't take more than 10 people for an Earthworm to turn into a Dinosaur. And we are talking ~50 years of that stuff.
I've nothing against the religion (other than the occasional attempt at conversion, which sometimes can be a nuisance). It certainly does a fine job providing spiritual shelter for some people who need it (as does many other religions). But beyond that, i wouldn't trust it with much else.
It's not uncommon for people to be against the teachings of Scripture, or to shun it whenever it's brought up. Most people don't like what it has to say, either because it's true or it's just some "dusty old book" as some people call it and therefore it has no relevance to today's world. What's always funny to me is the same people who tell me I take verses out of context (even after explaining what the verses mean) are the same people who take Matthew 7:1 out of context, which reads "Do not judge, or you will be judged." Anyway that's beside the point. He was asking biblical questions, and I am answering from a Bible-believing perspective. I can tell you things that are in the Bible in normal language and you probably wouldn't notice it, but as soon as I bold it and reference it, suddenly you (or any others) feel threatened by it. Interesting
There are 365 prophecies that were told hundreds of years before the Messiah (Jesus) came. Jesus not only fulfilled all of them, but 109 of those prophecies could only be fulfilled by Jesus himself. Here is a list of the prophecies/foreshadowing of the coming Christ long before he even came: http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm
Most nonreligious people probably don't oppose the use of Biblical scripture because they "don't like it", they oppose it because it is not by itself a historically reliable or credible source of information.
Also all of those prophecies are from the Bible. You are using the Bible to prove itself, circular reasoning much?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them? why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment? That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20
So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9
Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened.
You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell.
That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people.
So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices. God's providing a way out.
He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him. God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning. We are all to be punished for it. God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty. If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10-10
Do Christians not realise how ridiculous it looks to quote the Bible when trying to explain things to non-believers? In case it's somehow unclear, the guy talking to you don't believe in that thing. You couldn't look more ludicrous even if u quoted Snow White while trying to explain The General Theory of Relativity.
Anyway back on topic:
Untrue. Would probably my word of choice, though many already echoed (and i agree) the sentiment that 1 word is really not enough for such a thing. To my limited knowledge, after Jesus up until around 50AD, Christianity and its books/records are passed down by words of mouth. To still claim absolute truth (ex: The Bible) after 50 years of mouth-to-mouth information passing is.... tough to believe. If you ever played that game where a bunch people try to pass a message down a line, it doesn't take more than 10 people for an Earthworm to turn into a Dinosaur. And we are talking ~50 years of that stuff.
I've nothing against the religion (other than the occasional attempt at conversion, which sometimes can be a nuisance). It certainly does a fine job providing spiritual shelter for some people who need it (as does many other religions). But beyond that, i wouldn't trust it with much else.
It's not uncommon for people to be against the teachings of Scripture, or to shun it whenever it's brought up. Most people don't like what it has to say, either because it's true or it's just some "dusty old book" as some people call it and therefore it has no relevance to today's world. What's always funny to me is the same people who tell me I take verses out of context (even after explaining what the verses mean) are the same people who take Matthew 7:1 out of context, which reads "Do not judge, or you will be judged." Anyway that's beside the point. He was asking biblical questions, and I am answering from a Bible-believing perspective. I can tell you things that are in the Bible in normal language and you probably wouldn't notice it, but as soon as I bold it and reference it, suddenly you (or any others) feel threatened by it. Interesting
There are 365 prophecies that were told hundreds of years before the Messiah (Jesus) came. Jesus not only fulfilled all of them, but 109 of those prophecies could only be fulfilled by Jesus himself. Here is a list of the prophecies/foreshadowing of the coming Christ long before he even came: http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm
On October 16 2013 06:06 Shiori wrote: I'm a Christian and I don't fear God; use of the word "fear" in that sense (something like "awe") is archaic. As the rest, I'm just posting to say I don't agree with IronMan about any of his theology, so please do not take that as a descriptor for all Christians.
A true Christian/believer/saint is someone who believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, who shed his blood on the cross to atone for our sins, and was resurrected to life three days later. Salvation comes through Christ alone. He is the one, true living God, and there is no one like him, and we should strive to have a personal relationship with the one who created you. I hate to burst your bubble but unless someone believes these things in their heart, they are not a real Christian, no matter how much you may proclaim it to yourself.
And NO ONE can know the heart. The only one who is aware of the relationship between a man and God is that man and God. So you nor anyone else can say for sure who is a true Christian. Regardless of their actions or their words, you will never be able to be 100% sure of what they have in their heart. I've read a couple of your posts before and it seems at times that you're calling people out on the credibility of their relationship with Christ. Maybe that's not your intention, and if so I apologize, but if it is, people like you really piss me off.
A true Christian/believer/saint is someone who believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior,[/quote] Obviously.
who shed his blood on the cross to atone for our sins,
No. Atonement theory is not necessary for being a Christian. That's not to say that it wasn't the defeat of sin, and stuff, but I reject penal substitution.
and was resurrected to life three days later.
Yes.
Salvation comes through Christ alone.
Yes. Although you don't know what this means. I like to think Christ isn't a huge douchebag and that he wouldn't send people to eternal punishment for (anything) being otherwise decent but being Hindu. That'd make Christ a shittier person than me.
He is the one, true living God, and there is no one like him,
There are tonnes of people like him. Every person who does good works is being Christlike. That's the whole point. If Christ were nothing like us, his life and death would have been irrelevant, because he'd have been like an alien.
and we should strive to have a personal relationship with the one who created you.
It's nice, yes.
I hate to burst your bubble but unless someone believes these things in their heart, they are not a real Christian, no matter how much you may proclaim it to yourself.
Didn't claim otherwise. I just think your exegesis and divine command theory and substitutionary atonement ideas are wrong. I don't think you need to be a Christian to be saved, either, but technically you didn't say otherwise, so it's whatever. Also, I don't think the point of Christianity is to be saved, but rather to have a personal relationship with God.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging.
Like he said, it's a paradox. A omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, therefore, no being can be both omnipotent in the purest sense of the term.
It doesn't beg the question because it's logically sound. If omnipotent being cannot do something, then it isn't omnipotent. Two questions: Can omnipotent being create a rock so heavy it can't lift it? If the answer is yes, we move on to question two. Can omnipotent being lift the rock? If the answer is yes, then it failed in the first place and therefore isn't omnipotent. If the answer is no, then it cannot lift a rock and therefore isn't omnipotent.
The conclusion is that no being can be omnipotent. At best, it's pretty-fucking-potent. . I don't think it begs the question given that the conclusion explains itself through the logic of the problem.
Except there's no reason to think that omnipotence should require the ability to, as it were, "do the [literally] impossible."
It's in no way a logically sound argument, because you're cheating with the premises. This is like saying omnipotence is paradoxical because an omnipotent being couldn't make a (planar) square circle. No, and omnipotent being couldn't make a square circle. But that's because "square circle" isn't actually intelligible; it just sounds like it is.
If an omnipotent being exists, then asking whether it can create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it is exactly like asking whether it can create a square circle. It can't, because both sentences are meaningless. They refer to things beyond themselves which have already been ruled out.
You'd be best suited, IMO, to actually give a definition of omnipotence before going about producing paradoxes. Is omnipotence the ability to do everything possible, or everything, including the impossible? I see no reason why it should be the latter, given that logic is not an imposition on entities in the sense that it would be "stronger" than the omnipotent entity, but is actually just a description of reality. Frankly, though, the debate is pointless, because
1) these paradoxes are pretty weak, given that they refute something nobody believes and which doesn't require a paradox to refute (can X do the impossible? The answer is no regardless of what property X possesses because impossible "things" do not actually refer to anything).
On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote: Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it (2)doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? (3)A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)(1)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean
Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with?
I never said I know that there exists a teapot. 1) my ignorance does not invalidate the teapot 2)a bit of semantics n logics n shit, if we have evidence that there is no evidence whatsoever that a teapot exists, if doesn't follow that there is no teapot, it also could be that it is a non-teapot (whatever that may be), or that the teapot actually is a coffemug. 3) this one is self-explaining
I didn't say there's a teapot, because I'm not an idiot and know it's allegorical. Sure, it could exist, and "burden of proof" does not preclude the unknown from existing. The moment someone makes a claim that the teapot exists, and someone disagrees with their assertion of the teapot's existence, then it is up to the person with the knowledge of the teapot to go "Here's my proof" or simply say "You know what, I can't prove it, but I know it's there". At this point, the Teapot Cynic has many choices on how to proceed, but most of the conscious decisions will boil down to:
- He sees the Teapot Proponent has offered no proof of any kind to back up his claim that the teapot exists, and decide to not to believe that it exists. - He does not see any evidence of a teapot, but decides that, despite a lack of proof, has decided that the teapot exists, because the Teapot Proponent said so.
The reality may be different than the conclusion that the Teapot Cynic came to, but he came to his conclusion based on the best measure of judgement that he could employ at that point in his life. However, the Teapot Proponent's argument favoring the teapot's existence was completely empty, and therefore, he was not able to persuade his friend that the teapot existed.
Now, my question is: how did the Teapot Proponent come to believe that the teapot existed? Either one of the following happened:
1. Another person told him that the teapot definitely existed, but did not give him any proof of its existence, so he was unable to pass on the proof.
2. He just made the whole thing up just to fuck with everyone.
3. He has a mental condition that has detached him from reality, so that he genuinely believes the teapot exists, but when confronted with evidence, he simply becomes angry and tells them that they don't know what they're talking about.
4. He was able to perceive the existence of the teapot in some manner.
Only the fourth example would lend any sort of credence to the actual existence of the teapot. However, there remain many questions, such as: Can other people also perceive the teapot, or was he the only one who was able to perceive its existence? Did he believe that he had perceived the teapot, but was actually in an altered mental state due to hypnosis, drugs, mental illnesses, or other psychological conditions?
In reality, the first and fourth examples above are the reasons behind people believing in the existence of God. The first is that someone in a position of authority and/or trust says that God definitely exists. The fourth example is something many Christians claim to experience, which is to perceive God mentally, audibly, and even visually. Now, if you can get two people together and one goes "I was able to hear God clearly with my ears." and another goes "I had a near-death experience and was with God in Heaven for a short time." then you have something there that is worth investigating. So if God is perceptible, then the burden of proof is lifted, because you at least have something. But to go "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist." is just a waste of breath or keystrokes. You see what I mean? You'd not be adding anything to the table in the search for the truth, and if you're discussing the truth with someone, then everything should be on the table.
who shed his blood on the cross to atone for our sins,
No. Atonement theory is not necessary for being a Christian. That's not to say that it wasn't the defeat of sin, and stuff, but I reject penal substitution.
Yes. Although you don't know what this means. I like to think Christ isn't a huge douchebag and that he wouldn't send people to eternal punishment for (anything) being otherwise decent but being Hindu. That'd make Christ a shittier person than me.
He is the one, true living God, and there is no one like him,
There are tonnes of people like him. Every person who does good works is being Christlike. That's the whole point. If Christ were nothing like us, his life and death would have been irrelevant, because he'd have been like an alien.
I hate to burst your bubble but unless someone believes these things in their heart, they are not a real Christian, no matter how much you may proclaim it to yourself.
Didn't claim otherwise. I just think your exegesis and divine command theory and substitutionary atonement ideas are wrong. I don't think you need to be a Christian to be saved, either, but technically you didn't say otherwise, so it's whatever. Also, I don't think the point of Christianity is to be saved, but rather to have a personal relationship with God.
Everyone has the capacity to do good works in life because we were made in his image; to reflect him. The question though is why do you do what you do? What's the driving force/motivation that inclines you to do good things in life? For the believer, we do good things because of what Christ did for us. We love him because he first loved us. Good works alone will not merit a ticket to heaven or his favor (he has no favorites). That's why we humbly accept Jesus as Lord, his gift of forgiveness and eternal life, and trust in his claims and promises. God saves -- we cannot save ourselves, so we must trust God and that he is who he says he is. That is how helpless we really are.
You're right, the Christian walk is about having a personal relationship with God - after you are saved. When you are saved, he gives you the faith to believe in him and trust in him. You can't please God without faith, which comes from not only hearing but believing the Word of God. Alongside that, he gives you the Holy Spirit who counsels you as life goes on and sanctifies you throughout your lifetime to become more and more Christ-like. The Holy Spirit enables you to understand Scripture and spiritual truths, and helps you see and think the way that God does (not completely, but enough to understand what he wants for you).
Ok, I have a question for you. Why did Jesus die? How do we receive forgiveness?
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging.
Like he said, it's a paradox. A omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, therefore, no being can be both omnipotent in the purest sense of the term.
It doesn't beg the question because it's logically sound. If omnipotent being cannot do something, then it isn't omnipotent. Two questions: Can omnipotent being create a rock so heavy it can't lift it? If the answer is yes, we move on to question two. Can omnipotent being lift the rock? If the answer is yes, then it failed in the first place and therefore isn't omnipotent. If the answer is no, then it cannot lift a rock and therefore isn't omnipotent.
The conclusion is that no being can be omnipotent. At best, it's pretty-fucking-potent. . I don't think it begs the question given that the conclusion explains itself through the logic of the problem.
Except there's no reason to think that omnipotence should require the ability to, as it were, "do the [literally] impossible."
It's in no way a logically sound argument, because you're cheating with the premises. This is like saying omnipotence is paradoxical because an omnipotent being couldn't make a (planar) square circle. No, and omnipotent being couldn't make a square circle. But that's because "square circle" isn't actually intelligible; it just sounds like it is.
If an omnipotent being exists, then asking whether it can create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it is exactly like asking whether it can create a square circle. It can't, because both sentences are meaningless. They refer to things beyond themselves which have already been ruled out.
You'd be best suited, IMO, to actually give a definition of omnipotence before going about producing paradoxes. Is omnipotence the ability to do everything possible, or everything, including the impossible? I see no reason why it should be the latter, given that logic is not an imposition on entities in the sense that it would be "stronger" than the omnipotent entity, but is actually just a description of reality. Frankly, though, the debate is pointless, because
1) these paradoxes are pretty weak, given that they refute something nobody believes and which doesn't require a paradox to refute (can X do the impossible? The answer is no regardless of what property X possesses because impossible "things" do not actually refer to anything).
2) It would be indiscernible anyway.
I didn't think I cheated with the premises: I wrote "all powerful" as in "nothing is impossible". This may be a naive definition since you run into problems, but it also suggests itself, because it is the common meaning associated with it.
I also don't know why If an omnipotent being exists, then asking whether it can create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it is exactly like asking whether it can create a square circle. It can't, because both sentences are meaningless. They refer to things beyond themselves which have already been ruled out.
Care to elaborate? For me it is a meaningful sentence and your reason is unclear. I also like the abstract one better for the circumvention of physical problems but it's just a personal taste.
But just to give it back: [...] given that logic [...] is actually just a description of reality [of omnipotent entities]. Now this is a meaningless sentence.
The problem with the "logical paradox" argument against omnipotence is that it's absolutely meaningless, in all regards.
To start with, it's pointless semantics. Omnipotence is a descriptor, not a requirement. If an all-powerful being existed, it would not cease to exist because you created a logic bomb.
Secondly, it's a constantly moving goalpost using arbitrary constraints. Even the "rock too heavy to lift" example is faulty in that you're forcing the concepts of weight and the action of lifting...movement is entirely relative, weight isn't even a scientific property (and the scientific geek would say "a rock of infinite mass collapses the universe from its gravitational pull, and now weight and movement are nonexistent").
Same with a "Squared-Circle"...it requires an arbitrary 3-dimensional orientation, because a 2-d plane perspective wouldn't see a difference.
And after I've logicked those examples, you'll just keep making more...hence the moving goalpost.
And at no real point in the discussion will you have actually disproven "God", only that an arbitrary word used to describe him might be slightly inaccurate.
On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote: Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it (2)doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? (3)A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)(1)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean
Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with?
I never said I know that there exists a teapot. 1) my ignorance does not invalidate the teapot 2)a bit of semantics n logics n shit, if we have evidence that there is no evidence whatsoever that a teapot exists, if doesn't follow that there is no teapot, it also could be that it is a non-teapot (whatever that may be), or that the teapot actually is a coffemug. 3) this one is self-explaining
I didn't say there's a teapot, because I'm not an idiot and know it's allegorical. Sure, it could exist, and "burden of proof" does not preclude the unknown from existing. The moment someone makes a claim that the teapot exists, and someone disagrees with their assertion of the teapot's existence, then it is up to the person with the knowledge of the teapot to go "Here's my proof" or simply say "You know what, I can't prove it, but I know it's there". At this point, the Teapot Cynic has many choices on how to proceed, but most of the conscious decisions will boil down to:
- He sees the Teapot Proponent has offered no proof of any kind to back up his claim that the teapot exists, and decide to not to believe that it exists. - He does not see any evidence of a teapot, but decides that, despite a lack of proof, has decided that the teapot exists, because the Teapot Proponent said so.
The reality may be different than the conclusion that the Teapot Cynic came to, but he came to his conclusion based on the best measure of judgement that he could employ at that point in his life. However, the Teapot Proponent's argument favoring the teapot's existence was completely empty, and therefore, he was not able to persuade his friend that the teapot existed.
Now, my question is: how did the Teapot Proponent come to believe that the teapot existed? Either one of the following happened:
1. Another person told him that the teapot definitely existed, but did not give him any proof of its existence, so he was unable to pass on the proof.
2. He just made the whole thing up just to fuck with everyone.
3. He has a mental condition that has detached him from reality, so that he genuinely believes the teapot exists, but when confronted with evidence, he simply becomes angry and tells them that they don't know what they're talking about.
4. He was able to perceive the existence of the teapot in some manner.
Only the fourth example would lend any sort of credence to the actual existence of the teapot. However, there remain many questions, such as: Can other people also perceive the teapot, or was he the only one who was able to perceive its existence? Did he believe that he had perceived the teapot, but was actually in an altered mental state due to hypnosis, drugs, mental illnesses, or other psychological conditions?
In reality, the first and fourth examples above are the reasons behind people believing in the existence of God. The first is that someone in a position of authority and/or trust says that God definitely exists. The fourth example is something many Christians claim to experience, which is to perceive God mentally, audibly, and even visually. Now, if you can get two people together and one goes "I was able to hear God clearly with my ears." and another goes "I had a near-death experience and was with God in Heaven for a short time." then you have something there that is worth investigating. So if God is perceptible, then the burden of proof is lifted, because you at least have something. But to go "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist." is just a waste of breath or keystrokes. You see what I mean? You'd not be adding anything to the table in the search for the truth, and if you're discussing the truth with someone, then everything should be on the table.
+1 for this. Though ninazerg mostly elaborated on the same old "burden of proof" thingie, it was elaborated well. One can claim a lot of things, but to actually convince people, sufficient evidence is usually required.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them? why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment? That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20
So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9
Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened.
You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell.
That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote: 5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people.
So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices. God's providing a way out.
He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him. God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning. We are all to be punished for it. God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty. If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10-10
you did not answer my questions, instead you kept quoting the good old book :D (i will give u details as to why not to refer to the good old book later)
also bolded some parts that needs to be better explained as they dont really make sense
let me make it simpler:
1. Why believe in your christian god and not allah, and other more "bigger" religion god as well, vishnu and the hindu gods. I wont be using thor and zues here to make it simpler.
2. If he is so perfect and knows what will happen, why go over all these "you have sinned, now get saved" program? that nullifies freewill right? as he already knows what will happen anyway.
3. Do you think inheriting sins is fair? I mean eve could have been just a bitch and said #yolo eats fruit and all. Not everyone would do it, if it was a weird fruit I wont eat it, why do you think we need to suffer from that? So you think deflecting north koreans jailed in war camps by their tyrant is cool? and not only that deflector is jailed, his family as well plus 3 generations of his children. I dont think its cool, much worse for your god to condemn all of humanity for a stupid mistake eve did even adam did not have a clue. Anyway the talking snake made me stop and blew it for me.
As for why you dont follow the good old book.
1. It is so outdated even the dinosaurs wont agree with it. Why was it not updated or why did not god made a new update to clean out the wordings errors compiled? Example: bible bears, genesis stories etc.
2. It could be a kinda "fan fiction" compilation compiled by fans of god and jesus. Example: I am a fan of starwars and I would write my version of yoda being a sith lord. People would still love it but then we know yoda was a good guy. See what happened there? for all we know those said authors would have been fans of jesus who wrote stuff about him on what they "heard" or believed he was supposed to be. And what the people in the coucil of nicea compiled, nit picked jesus stories that were to them "cool" no wonder the bible is so inconsistent.
3. Bible was made from different letters (who knows who) was passed from word from mouth, lost in translation etc that think the modern illiad is closer to the original than the 1st scrapbook compiled by those "shepherds" long ago.
On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country
Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something
If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others.
Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong?
Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it.
what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends.
Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve".
If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging.
Like he said, it's a paradox. A omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, therefore, no being can be both omnipotent in the purest sense of the term.
It doesn't beg the question because it's logically sound. If omnipotent being cannot do something, then it isn't omnipotent. Two questions: Can omnipotent being create a rock so heavy it can't lift it? If the answer is yes, we move on to question two. Can omnipotent being lift the rock? If the answer is yes, then it failed in the first place and therefore isn't omnipotent. If the answer is no, then it cannot lift a rock and therefore isn't omnipotent.
The conclusion is that no being can be omnipotent. At best, it's pretty-fucking-potent. . I don't think it begs the question given that the conclusion explains itself through the logic of the problem.
Except there's no reason to think that omnipotence should require the ability to, as it were, "do the [literally] impossible."
It's in no way a logically sound argument, because you're cheating with the premises. This is like saying omnipotence is paradoxical because an omnipotent being couldn't make a (planar) square circle. No, and omnipotent being couldn't make a square circle. But that's because "square circle" isn't actually intelligible; it just sounds like it is.
If an omnipotent being exists, then asking whether it can create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it is exactly like asking whether it can create a square circle. It can't, because both sentences are meaningless. They refer to things beyond themselves which have already been ruled out.
You'd be best suited, IMO, to actually give a definition of omnipotence before going about producing paradoxes. Is omnipotence the ability to do everything possible, or everything, including the impossible? I see no reason why it should be the latter, given that logic is not an imposition on entities in the sense that it would be "stronger" than the omnipotent entity, but is actually just a description of reality. Frankly, though, the debate is pointless, because
1) these paradoxes are pretty weak, given that they refute something nobody believes and which doesn't require a paradox to refute (can X do the impossible? The answer is no regardless of what property X possesses because impossible "things" do not actually refer to anything).
2) It would be indiscernible anyway.
I didn't think I cheated with the premises: I wrote "all powerful" as in "nothing is impossible". This may be a naive definition since you run into problems, but it also suggests itself, because it is the common meaning associated with it.
I also don't know why If an omnipotent being exists, then asking whether it can create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it is exactly like asking whether it can create a square circle. It can't, because both sentences are meaningless. They refer to things beyond themselves which have already been ruled out.
Care to elaborate? For me it is a meaningful sentence and your reason is unclear. I also like the abstract one better for the circumvention of physical problems but it's just a personal taste.
But just to give it back: [...] given that logic [...] is actually just a description of reality [of omnipotent entities]. Now this is a meaningless sentence.
The problem with the "logical paradox" argument against omnipotence is that it's absolutely meaningless, in all regards.
To start with, it's pointless semantics. Omnipotence is a descriptor, not a requirement. If an all-powerful being existed, it would not cease to exist because you created a logic bomb.
The original claim from packrat was: By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country. And I just used one adjective I assumed would be shared by all three monotheistic religions: The omnipotent god.
Of course such a being would not cease to exist. But it would be illogical for such a being to exist.
On October 16 2013 16:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: Secondly, it's a constantly moving goalpost using arbitrary constraints. Even the "rock too heavy to lift" example is faulty in that you're forcing the concepts of weight and the action of lifting...movement is entirely relative, weight isn't even a scientific property (and the scientific geek would say "a rock of infinite mass collapses the universe from its gravitational pull, and now weight and movement are nonexistent").
Same with a "Squared-Circle"...it requires an arbitrary 3-dimensional orientation, because a 2-d plane perspective wouldn't see a difference.
You should read more carefully and use a little "text sensitive" reading. I didn't introduce the Squared-circle. And you are wrong. both a square and a circle are two-dimensional objects. You don't need the third dimension.
And then you are arguing against something I already hinted at: I also like the abstract one better for the circumvention of physical problems. Great work Sherlock. really.
On October 16 2013 16:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: And after I've logicked those examples, you'll just keep making more...hence the moving goalpost.
And at no real point in the discussion will you have actually disproven "God", only that an arbitrary word used to describe him might be slightly inaccurate.
Well that might be because there is no real "globally accepted" definition of God in a strict sense I could work with. And as I already said it ties in to what packrat originally said. Also: burden of proof is a useful concept because it ties in so nicely with occams razor.
Apparently my post was the cause of some debate. As far as the "rock too big to move" thing, I think people have pointed out why assuming that omnipotent means "my defy logic" is faulty. As shiori said, you're refuting something nobody believes in.
Hyrul, probably the best version of this argument is the argument that god can't guarantee free will and still be omnipotent (can an omnipotent being limit it's own power?). However, that one is already taken, no faculty position for you
On October 16 2013 23:34 packrat386 wrote: Hyrul, probably the best version of this argument is the argument that god can't guarantee free will and still be omnipotent (can an omnipotent being limit it's own power?). However, that one is already taken, no faculty position for you
damn it! And I already wrote my applications. . . E:I'm not too happy with the free will paradox since "free will" itself is not well-defined. But faith is disconnected from logic anyways so there is no point in arguing about it anyways.
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that is how they would stop the arguement or you will know that they cant say more. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
also to add, how sure are u that your god is the real god? why jesus? why not zoidberg or the flying spaghetti monster?
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about.
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about.
I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist.
As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions.
On October 17 2013 02:56 sam!zdat wrote: did you know that godel spent a fair amount of time working on a logical proof of the existence of god? fun fact
On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote: Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it (2)doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? (3)A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)(1)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean
Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with?
I never said I know that there exists a teapot. 1) my ignorance does not invalidate the teapot 2)a bit of semantics n logics n shit, if we have evidence that there is no evidence whatsoever that a teapot exists, if doesn't follow that there is no teapot, it also could be that it is a non-teapot (whatever that may be), or that the teapot actually is a coffemug. 3) this one is self-explaining
I didn't say there's a teapot, because I'm not an idiot and know it's allegorical. Sure, it could exist, and "burden of proof" does not preclude the unknown from existing. The moment someone makes a claim that the teapot exists, and someone disagrees with their assertion of the teapot's existence, then it is up to the person with the knowledge of the teapot to go "Here's my proof" or simply say "You know what, I can't prove it, but I know it's there". At this point, the Teapot Cynic has many choices on how to proceed, but most of the conscious decisions will boil down to:
- He sees the Teapot Proponent has offered no proof of any kind to back up his claim that the teapot exists, and decide to not to believe that it exists. - He does not see any evidence of a teapot, but decides that, despite a lack of proof, has decided that the teapot exists, because the Teapot Proponent said so.
The reality may be different than the conclusion that the Teapot Cynic came to, but he came to his conclusion based on the best measure of judgement that he could employ at that point in his life. However, the Teapot Proponent's argument favoring the teapot's existence was completely empty, and therefore, he was not able to persuade his friend that the teapot existed.
Now, my question is: how did the Teapot Proponent come to believe that the teapot existed? Either one of the following happened:
1. Another person told him that the teapot definitely existed, but did not give him any proof of its existence, so he was unable to pass on the proof.
2. He just made the whole thing up just to fuck with everyone.
3. He has a mental condition that has detached him from reality, so that he genuinely believes the teapot exists, but when confronted with evidence, he simply becomes angry and tells them that they don't know what they're talking about.
4. He was able to perceive the existence of the teapot in some manner.
Only the fourth example would lend any sort of credence to the actual existence of the teapot. However, there remain many questions, such as: Can other people also perceive the teapot, or was he the only one who was able to perceive its existence? Did he believe that he had perceived the teapot, but was actually in an altered mental state due to hypnosis, drugs, mental illnesses, or other psychological conditions?
In reality, the first and fourth examples above are the reasons behind people believing in the existence of God. The first is that someone in a position of authority and/or trust says that God definitely exists. The fourth example is something many Christians claim to experience, which is to perceive God mentally, audibly, and even visually. Now, if you can get two people together and one goes "I was able to hear God clearly with my ears." and another goes "I had a near-death experience and was with God in Heaven for a short time." then you have something there that is worth investigating. So if God is perceptible, then the burden of proof is lifted, because you at least have something. But to go "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist." is just a waste of breath or keystrokes. You see what I mean? You'd not be adding anything to the table in the search for the truth, and if you're discussing the truth with someone, then everything should be on the table.
First off, good that you got the gist of my message.
Now onto your points: I would add that knowledge of God comes from points 1 and 4, I would also say that the true process was 4->1. Someone experiences something, writes it down/retells it, and latter generations gain knowledge on that. How accurate the process itself is I don't want to discuss since even Biblical Scholars can't really give you an answer (except those guys who are 100% confident their opinion is right, stay away from such experts, there is no 100% in history). Additionally I sincereley doubt that Romans or some dark power made up Christianity to sheeple the people, as some people in this thread would argue.
"you can't prove that God doesn't exist": While in the initial reaction I would agree that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" shouldn't be used as an actual argument in discourse I think there may be certain edge cases where this sentence can become handy. (I don't know of any example, but I think it may come up in Naturalism debates (although in much more sophisticated form me thinks, sry I don't know much about that, someone correct me if I am wrong.))
Another question you pose is a very interesting one and I fear I can't give you a satisfying answer since my knowledge and logical capabilites are limited. The question: We Christians believe in a deity, and there are theoretical proofs and disproofs for existence of such. Now, we (or most) also believe that this deity also manifests in physical form through miracles and voices and stuff. If it is so, then there surely also must be empirical data waiting to be gathered.
And here shit goes down the drain. (Following is only one example why the "miracle" discussion is difficult.) Moving the goalposts Assume NDE experiments find out that NDE's are true. What will the hardcore atheist do? Either ignore it or move the goalpost. Assume NDE experiments find out that NDE's are false. What will the hardcore theist do? Either ignore it or move the goalpost. Assume a miracle healing. There is no possible scientific explanation. What will the hardcore atheist do?Ignore it or will move the goalpost since there surely must be a scientific explanation. Assume evolution. What will the creationist do? Ignore it or move the goalpost, there surely somewhere is divine intervention with life.
See what I mean with unsolvability? While there is not much wrong with moving goalposts, in the end it will only prolong discussion with the possible result that everyone just stands by his position.
I guess that is it for me, I don't have time atm and probably won't have the desire to discuss this further indepth. Obv I still can answer if it is important. Well, anyway I hope I could show through my incoherent jumpy posting that woreyur's silly accusations about Christians being [insert negative trait here] are not true.
ööööööööö it's Gödel you silly mericans ööööööööööööööööööööö
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about.
I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist.
As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions.
Sorry, I've been unclear. I meant you changed the expected stance of a believer, which I would assume is "god exists" to a more careful/devout in "I believe that god exists".
This actually changes the dynamic of the whole argument since you can not give any reason why you should be right. It's something I wouldn't even consider a proper debate since all you could do is beg me to accept your stance. I still fail to see why this shifts the burden of proof away from you other than that you deny a "classical" debate with arguments from both sides.
But I know I can't "win" this debate since you are immunized to all arguments by retreating to an (absolute) subjective stance. The only way to resolve this would be if God would come down from the heavens to reveal himself.
I also can't offer proofs against god. My strongest argument would be the arbitrariness of properties of any deity.
It isn't just methodologically questionable both philosophically and theologically, but natural theology ultimately isn't even really biblical. Yeah, sure, through it theologians can make some kind of space for the continuance of some sort of validity of the faith against the "cultured despisers" but does it actually convince anyone to actually have faith or be more secured in their faith? No, not really. When has theology ever convinced anyone of the validity of faith through logical games no matter how sophisticated? It's just a form of a God-of-the-gaps that isn't productive for believer or unbeliever.
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about.
I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist.
As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions.
Sorry, I've been unclear. I meant you changed the expected stance of a believer, which I would assume is "god exists" to a more careful/devout in "I believe that god exists".
This actually changes the dynamic of the whole argument since you can not give any reason why you should be right. It's something I wouldn't even consider a proper debate since all you could do is beg me to accept your stance. I still fail to see why this shifts the burden of proof away from you other than that you deny a "classical" debate with arguments from both sides.
But I know I can't "win" this debate since you are immunized to all arguments by retreating to an (absolute) subjective stance. The only way to resolve this would be if God would come down from the heavens to reveal himself.
I also can't offer proofs against god. My strongest argument would be the arbitrariness of properties of any deity.
This slipperiness is because my argument was in response to those who think that it is "obvious" that I ought not believe. I am only trying to show that my belief does not go against logic and empirics because there is no logical or empirical reason that god cannot exist.
Also, don't give up so easily on proof that there is no god. There are some better args out there than the immovable object
Well, I guess Anselm of Canterbury was surely convinced by his arguments. And at the same time I guess you would be one of his critics, am I right? (U mentioned somewhere u are kierkegaardian, so I can see where u are coming from, even though I am not familiar with him (yet)) Well, fair enough, going from theory to practice is hard. I have to reflect on things.
On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote: Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it (2)doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? (3)A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)(1)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean
Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with?
I never said I know that there exists a teapot. 1) my ignorance does not invalidate the teapot 2)a bit of semantics n logics n shit, if we have evidence that there is no evidence whatsoever that a teapot exists, if doesn't follow that there is no teapot, it also could be that it is a non-teapot (whatever that may be), or that the teapot actually is a coffemug. 3) this one is self-explaining
I didn't say there's a teapot, because I'm not an idiot and know it's allegorical. Sure, it could exist, and "burden of proof" does not preclude the unknown from existing. The moment someone makes a claim that the teapot exists, and someone disagrees with their assertion of the teapot's existence, then it is up to the person with the knowledge of the teapot to go "Here's my proof" or simply say "You know what, I can't prove it, but I know it's there". At this point, the Teapot Cynic has many choices on how to proceed, but most of the conscious decisions will boil down to:
- He sees the Teapot Proponent has offered no proof of any kind to back up his claim that the teapot exists, and decide to not to believe that it exists. - He does not see any evidence of a teapot, but decides that, despite a lack of proof, has decided that the teapot exists, because the Teapot Proponent said so.
The reality may be different than the conclusion that the Teapot Cynic came to, but he came to his conclusion based on the best measure of judgement that he could employ at that point in his life. However, the Teapot Proponent's argument favoring the teapot's existence was completely empty, and therefore, he was not able to persuade his friend that the teapot existed.
Now, my question is: how did the Teapot Proponent come to believe that the teapot existed? Either one of the following happened:
1. Another person told him that the teapot definitely existed, but did not give him any proof of its existence, so he was unable to pass on the proof.
2. He just made the whole thing up just to fuck with everyone.
3. He has a mental condition that has detached him from reality, so that he genuinely believes the teapot exists, but when confronted with evidence, he simply becomes angry and tells them that they don't know what they're talking about.
4. He was able to perceive the existence of the teapot in some manner.
Only the fourth example would lend any sort of credence to the actual existence of the teapot. However, there remain many questions, such as: Can other people also perceive the teapot, or was he the only one who was able to perceive its existence? Did he believe that he had perceived the teapot, but was actually in an altered mental state due to hypnosis, drugs, mental illnesses, or other psychological conditions?
In reality, the first and fourth examples above are the reasons behind people believing in the existence of God. The first is that someone in a position of authority and/or trust says that God definitely exists. The fourth example is something many Christians claim to experience, which is to perceive God mentally, audibly, and even visually. Now, if you can get two people together and one goes "I was able to hear God clearly with my ears." and another goes "I had a near-death experience and was with God in Heaven for a short time." then you have something there that is worth investigating. So if God is perceptible, then the burden of proof is lifted, because you at least have something. But to go "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist." is just a waste of breath or keystrokes. You see what I mean? You'd not be adding anything to the table in the search for the truth, and if you're discussing the truth with someone, then everything should be on the table.
First off, good that you got the gist of my message.
Now onto your points: I would add that knowledge of God comes from points 1 and 4, I would also say that the true process was 4->1. Someone experiences something, writes it down/retells it, and latter generations gain knowledge on that. How accurate the process itself is I don't want to discuss since even Biblical Scholars can't really give you an answer (except those guys who are 100% confident their opinion is right, stay away from such experts, there is no 100% in history). Additionally I sincereley doubt that Romans or some dark power made up Christianity to sheeple the people, as some people in this thread would argue.
"you can't prove that God doesn't exist": While in the initial reaction I would agree that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" shouldn't be used as an actual argument in discourse I think there may be certain edge cases where this sentence can become handy. (I don't know of any example, but I think it may come up in Naturalism debates (although in much more sophisticated form me thinks, sry I don't know much about that, someone correct me if I am wrong.))
Another question you pose is a very interesting one and I fear I can't give you a satisfying answer since my knowledge and logical capabilites are limited. The question: We Christians believe in a deity, and there are theoretical proofs and disproofs for existence of such. Now, we (or most) also believe that this deity also manifests in physical form through miracles and voices and stuff. If it is so, then there surely also must be empirical data waiting to be gathered.
And here shit goes down the drain. (Following is only one example why the "miracle" discussion is difficult.) Moving the goalposts Assume NDE experiments find out that NDE's are true. What will the hardcore atheist do? Either ignore it or move the goalpost. Assume NDE experiments find out that NDE's are false. What will the hardcore theist do? Either ignore it or move the goalpost. Assume a miracle healing. There is no possible scientific explanation. What will the hardcore atheist do?Ignore it or will move the goalpost since there surely must be a scientific explanation. Assume evolution. What will the creationist do? Ignore it or move the goalpost, there surely somewhere is divine intervention with life.
See what I mean with unsolvability? While there is not much wrong with moving goalposts, in the end it will only prolong discussion with the possible result that everyone just stands by his position.
I guess that is it for me, I don't have time atm and probably won't have the desire to discuss this further indepth. Obv I still can answer if it is important. Well, anyway I hope I could show through my incoherent jumpy posting that woreyur's silly accusations about Christians being [insert negative trait here] are not true.
ööööööööö it's Gödel you silly mericans ööööööööööööööööööööö
So you are saying?
"I may have the "burden of proof", but in some edge cases (your word) i don't. I can't give examples, neither do i know why, but i think so."
Nevermind the fact that you are assuming that proving God is somehow one of these edge cases. That you can come to a conclusion without example or any kind of reasoning/evidence that suggest said conclusion is true speak volumes about how logic-driven or reasoning driven you are. No wonder you were led to believe those "fan-fictions" (as someone put it pretty aptly earlier).
Considering the 4->1 issue. You point being that originally someone somehow established a connection to the higher being, and write it down to tell the next generation. The next generations somehow blindly believe this thing, and pass it down to more future generations without actually having established this same connection like ther original one.
1/ Blindly believing without verification is generally bad practice. There are no shortage of conmen/swindlers out there that are all too happy to take advantage of this. 2/ Even assuming a high level of credibility of the person who actually pass this down (say... 90%). Considering the number of generations that has passed, the chance of this being actually correct is abysmal. (assuming ~100 generations, 90%^100 = 0.000026).
Yeah, I think Anselm's ontological argument is a load of hogwash. I do have respect for some of his other writings though, as I do for most thinkers. When I lost faith all the words of all the apologists that tried to defend the faith by attempting to make it reasonable or at the very least not irrational by taking refuge in the limits of knowledge and reason was always so vulgar to me. That hasn't changed since I returned to the faith. I mean, so lets say that natural theology does succeed in making a valid philosophical argument (which there are many). So what? Kierkegaard expresses my feelings more succinctly than I can, so I will quote him here.
From the chapter "Historical Point of View" from Concluding Unscientific Postscript Has anyone who previously did not have faith been brought a single step nearer to its acquisition? No, not a single step.
"I may have the "burden of proof", but in some edge cases (your word) i don't. I can't give examples, neither do i know why, but i think so."
Wtf I have been telling u guys the whole time that the burden of proof can suck my dick, nowhere I said I had it. My big post doesn't touch the concept of burden of proof. I was clarifiying about "you can't prove that God doesn't exist". Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I mean the sentence ["you can't prove that God doesn't exist"] itself.
Nevermind the fact that you are assuming that proving God is somehow one of these edge cases.
again, wut. I said that the specific sentence ["you can't prove that God doesn't exist"] may have some appliability in discussion about Naturalism.
the 4->1 issue: 1) agreed 2) I am pretty much fucking sure that the bible is pretty similar as one from thousand years ago.You can't use your calculation when it comes to the written word.
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about.
I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist.
As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions.
Sorry, I've been unclear. I meant you changed the expected stance of a believer, which I would assume is "god exists" to a more careful/devout in "I believe that god exists".
This actually changes the dynamic of the whole argument since you can not give any reason why you should be right. It's something I wouldn't even consider a proper debate since all you could do is beg me to accept your stance. I still fail to see why this shifts the burden of proof away from you other than that you deny a "classical" debate with arguments from both sides.
But I know I can't "win" this debate since you are immunized to all arguments by retreating to an (absolute) subjective stance. The only way to resolve this would be if God would come down from the heavens to reveal himself.
I also can't offer proofs against god. My strongest argument would be the arbitrariness of properties of any deity.
This slipperiness is because my argument was in response to those who think that it is "obvious" that I ought not believe. I am only trying to show that my belief does not go against logic and empirics because there is no logical or empirical reason that god cannot exist.
Also, don't give up so easily on proof that there is no god. There are some better args out there than the immovable object
fair enough.
I somehow lost interest in theological proofs once it mostly settled for me. And the problem with faith is that it's not a proper rational thing and intertwined with a lot of feelings like fear (of death), hope, comfort, etc. Reason won't carry you through until the end.
Edit: corumjhaelen, it's useful because otherwise hells of arbitrariness and subjectivity and post-modernism break lose.
Although I am a scientist I firmly believe that there are areas where logic and empirics will not help you. I think the proofs are fun to argue about, but none in my eyes are conclusive
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about.
I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist.
As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions.
Just to clarify so I can understand you here. The god that you are defending is one that is outside of the physical realm and has zero(not minute, zero) interaction with the physical realm. Not the Christian god, correct?
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about.
I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist.
As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions.
Just to clarify so I can understand you here. The god that you are defending is one that is outside of the physical realm and has zero(not minute, zero) interaction with the physical realm. Not the Christian god, correct?
For starters, this isn't necessarily a god that I believe in, but one that I am defending. I would argue that arbitrarily minute is sufficient, and yes the god exists outside of the physical realm. This is a common Christian conception of god.
On October 17 2013 04:21 Hryul wrote: Edit: corumjhaelen, it's useful because otherwise hells of arbitrariness and subjectivity and post-modernism break lose.
Nah. Just consider black swans, and even worse, Black Swans. The burden of proof can be life threatening and is not a principle one should live by (if it is a principle).
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct?
On October 17 2013 04:38 Myrkskog wrote: I didn't say you believed in this god.
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct?
So I would say that this god had much more influence on the world in the past, but has very little now.
people need something to blame problems on. People need something to make them feel better about themselves. (a lot) of religious people only believe because it makes them feel superior. (a lot) of atheists speak out because it makes them feel superior. Because it's easier to blame society problems on religion. Makes for a convenient excuse for not doing anything yourself.
On October 17 2013 04:38 Myrkskog wrote: I didn't say you believed in this god.
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct?
So I would say that this god had much more influence on the world in the past, but has very little now.
Am I right to say that the god that you are defending did indeed interact with the Hebrews in Egypt, impregnated Mary and all of the past related stuff I mentioned, but he does not answer prayers or anything like that today?
On October 17 2013 04:38 Myrkskog wrote: I didn't say you believed in this god.
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct?
So I would say that this god had much more influence on the world in the past, but has very little now.
On October 17 2013 04:38 Myrkskog wrote: I didn't say you believed in this god.
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct?
So I would say that this god had much more influence on the world in the past, but has very little now.
Am I right to say that the god that you are defending did indeed interact with the Hebrews in Egypt, impregnated Mary and all of the past related stuff I mentioned, but he does not answer prayers or anything like that today?
I would say that it depends on the definition of "answer prayers", but probably not in the sense you're implying ("pls give me a hot tub").
So you are not defending the god claim that IronManSC is making. I am asking this because I don't think that the common god claim that you are saying Christians hold is the one that Christians actually hold.
On October 17 2013 04:21 Hryul wrote: Edit: corumjhaelen, it's useful because otherwise hells of arbitrariness and subjectivity and post-modernism break lose.
Nah. Just consider black swans, and even worse, Black Swans. The burden of proof can be life threatening and is not a principle one should live by (if it is a principle).
So you are saying that we can't predict the future and that there will be unforeseen events that shake the very foundation of today's knowledge? what an insight sherlock.
Ofc there might be electrons with a mass other than 0.5 MeV but until we actually discover them I know no reasonable way to include this into my knowledge other than: might be, might not be. Or in other words: Yes, there is a difference between logical/mathematical proof and proof by physicists (tm).
On October 17 2013 05:16 Myrkskog wrote: So you are not defending the god claim that IronManSC is making. I am asking this because I don't think that the common god claim that you are saying Christians hold is the one that Christians actually hold.
I know many christians that hold views similar to those. At the risk of making an argument from personal experience, I believe it is not an incredibly rare system to believe in.
On October 17 2013 05:29 Myrkskog wrote: So the god that you are defending 1. exists outside of the physical world, and 2. does not interact with the physical world?
I would edit 2
2. interacted with the physical world a lot in the past but now interacts with the physical world incredibly little.
On October 17 2013 05:29 Myrkskog wrote: So the god that you are defending 1. exists outside of the physical world, and 2. does not interact with the physical world?
I would edit 2
2. interacted with the physical world a lot in the past but now interacts with the physical world incredibly little.
Or could it just be that you're expecting him to do something big and obvious, like parting the sea or revealing himself in a pillar of fire.
On October 17 2013 05:34 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending interacts with the physical world today?
Not much. I basically only defend some small interaction for the purposes of prayer. In order to talk to god he must somehow affect your consciousness, unless we want to believe that the conscious brain is immaterial.
I want to stress that my conception of god is very different from IronMan
On October 17 2013 04:21 Hryul wrote: Edit: corumjhaelen, it's useful because otherwise hells of arbitrariness and subjectivity and post-modernism break lose.
Nah. Just consider black swans, and even worse, Black Swans. The burden of proof can be life threatening and is not a principle one should live by (if it is a principle).
So you are saying that we can't predict the future and that there will be unforeseen events that shake the very foundation of today's knowledge? what an insight sherlock.
Ofc there might be electrons with a mass other than 0.5 MeV but until we actually discover them I know no reasonable way to include this into my knowledge other than: might be, might not be. Or in other words: Yes, there is a difference between logical/mathematical proof and proof by physicists (tm).
Yes. As there is difference between proof by physicists and all else (theology, economics, biology etc.). The burden of proof can only reliably applied in physics, but not in the real world. Or did I have to show you proof in 2007 that there will be financial crisis (subjective Black Swan)? Non-existent till proven true, sadly it's already too late then. That's what I mean with life threatening.
On October 17 2013 05:34 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending interacts with the physical world today?
Not much. I basically only defend some small interaction for the purposes of prayer. In order to talk to god he must somehow affect your consciousness, unless we want to believe that the conscious brain is immaterial.
I want to stress that my conception of god is very different from IronMan
Prayer is powerful. When you pray "in the Spirit," you are spiritually in God's presence talking to him, though physically speaking it doesn't seem or feel like it. It's not a matter of God turning on a switch in our brain to get us to pray, or even to prompt us to. We pray because we know God is sovereign and he wants us to spend time with him, and we seek his guidance. The very fact that we even GO to Christ in prayer is evidence that he lives inside us. We Christians (at least I try to) generally use the 'ACTS' acronym:
A - Adoration (praising God for who he is) C - Confession (confessing that you've sinned in God's eyes and ask for forgiveness) T - Thanksgiving (Thanking God for all he's done) S - Supplication (Giving requests to God)
It is true that we ask God for ridiculous things, like possessions, a job promotion, or that we ask certain things to go in our favor. That is also why the Holy Spirit prays for us, because he knows what we actually need. Our selfishness, intentions and secret motives are very plain in God's eyes when we pray. An example, and we all struggle with it sometimes, is asking God for forgiveness for a particular sin you've committed, and then once you're done praying you go and do it. This is the wrong way to ask for forgiveness.
When we pray we have to pray with God's will in mind, that's why we say "Your will be done, not mine." Even Jesus said this in the garden before his arrest. He begged his Father to release him from the torture he would endure, but ended his prayer with "Your will be done, not mine." We need to pray for things that matter in God's eyes, like asking for wisdom and guidance to rebuilding a marriage, discernment when attending a new church, words of encouragement to lift up a friend, and so forth. Most of all, when we pray, we need to believe who God is and that in Christ, all things are possible.
On October 17 2013 04:21 Hryul wrote: Edit: corumjhaelen, it's useful because otherwise hells of arbitrariness and subjectivity and post-modernism break lose.
Nah. Just consider black swans, and even worse, Black Swans. The burden of proof can be life threatening and is not a principle one should live by (if it is a principle).
So you are saying that we can't predict the future and that there will be unforeseen events that shake the very foundation of today's knowledge? what an insight sherlock.
Ofc there might be electrons with a mass other than 0.5 MeV but until we actually discover them I know no reasonable way to include this into my knowledge other than: might be, might not be. Or in other words: Yes, there is a difference between logical/mathematical proof and proof by physicists (tm).
Yes. As there is difference between proof by physicists and all else (theology, economics, biology etc.). The burden of proof can only reliably applied in physics, but not in the real world. Or did I have to show you proof in 2007 that there will be financial crisis (subjective Black Swan)? Non-existent till proven true, sadly it's already too late then. That's what I mean with life threatening.
If it pleases you I can change "burden of proof" to "reasonable evidence" to account for the complexity of the world. It doesn't change the core that you shouldn't go around with "X because X" or "X because I said so".
I can't react to a financial crisis that isn't there. I can just sharpen my tools to detect signs earlier.
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
What you need to understand is that God gave us all we need in the Bible. Prophecies, how to live life, how to be saved, and how to trust Jesus for what's yet to come, and many more things. When people today say they had a vision or prophecy of a future event, I actually feel slightly uneasy about it because why do we need another vision of revelation when we have all we need to know already written down? I'm not judging them or anything of course. The core message in many visions and "afterlife" testimonies are all in line with who God is and what the Bible says, but it is still something that should be taken cautiously and with careful discernment, which I choose not to go in depth more.
It is difficult to fully explain your spiritual experiences since they are personal. John, the author of several books in the Bible including Revelation, can't even describe in human words what he was really seeing in his vision of the end times. He used a lot of metaphors to describe it, and that the holiness of God was so surreal and unimaginable that he "fell as though dead at his feet." I can recall perhaps two times in my life where I distinctly heard the voice of God, and for some reason I just knew it inside my heart that it was him. It wasn't audible, but somehow I just knew it, and I listened to it.
There are a vast number of visions, dreams, and moments where God can talk to someone (and still can today), which goes to explain that there is something, or someone bigger out there that is communicating with us. However God wants to talk to you (through a friend, elder, study, Bible, nature, prayer, circumstance, etc) is his choice alone, and it's sufficient for you. When I say sufficient, I mean it's something that works for you: it's noticeable, it meets you where you're at spiritually, and it produces some sort of change to increase your faith in God.
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Everyone has the capacity to do good works in life because we were made in his image; to reflect him.
God's image? Or Christ's? Because, strictly speaking, Christ wasn't a human being when human beings first came into existence. But yes, we are "in God's image" in some sense, although the meaning of that is pretty vague. I take it to mean that, unlike other creatures, human beings are capable of relationships with God (and with other people) in a deep way.
The question though is why do you do what you do? What's the driving force/motivation that inclines you to do good things in life? For the believer, we do good things because of what Christ did for us.
You're mixing up two things, here. There's motivation for a moral action on the one hand, and then there's the ontological grounding of a moral system, on the other. While the example given by Christ is definitely a motivating factor for me when I'm making ethical decisions (though I should note that Christ is by no means the only person who inspires me, morally speaking) it has nothing to do with the real reason I do good things, which is because I think they are good things based on logical argument.
We love him because he first loved us. Good works alone will not merit a ticket to heaven or his favor (he has no favorites).
I don't think you need a ticket to get to heaven.
That's why we humbly accept Jesus as Lord, his gift of forgiveness and eternal life, and trust in his claims and promises. God saves -- we cannot save ourselves, so we must trust God and that he is who he says he is. That is how helpless we really are.
This is nonsense. If human beings are this worthless, you might want to ask why God should bother creating them to begin with. It's not so much that all of what you say is false, but that you mean it so literally. Yes, God "saves," but that doesn't mean human beings are fundamentally disgusting creatures that aren't worth saving. God doesn't love us out of pity, or something; he loves us because, among other things, humanity is valuable and fundamentally good.
You're right, the Christian walk is about having a personal relationship with God - after you are saved. When you are saved, he gives you the faith to believe in him and trust in him.
I think there's a hell of a lot more to being a Christian than this.
You can't please God without faith, which comes from not only hearing but believing the Word of God.
I'm not sure what this even means. Are we reading God's mind, now? Do you seriously think that an entity that literally knows everything and whose mind is so far beyond anything we can comprehend would behave as if it had the moral compass of a jealous eleven year-old? While I'm aware that loving God is one of Christ's two commandments, nobody ever seems to mention the second one, without which the first one doesn't even make sense: love your neighbour as yourself. Evidently that pleases God, whether or not you're thinking about Jesus when you do it or whether you're an atheist. Good things are of God, necessarily. The claim that without faith everything becomes essentially meaningless/worthless to God is stupid, and only exists out of a desire to exclude otherwise good people from your club.
Alongside that, he gives you the Holy Spirit who counsels you as life goes on and sanctifies you throughout your lifetime to become more and more Christ-like. The Holy Spirit enables you to understand Scripture and spiritual truths, and helps you see and think the way that God does (not completely, but enough to understand what he wants for you).
This is conjecture. The Holy Spirit isn't some magical force that imparts years of scripture study to you within a second. Besides, if your hypothesis were actually true, then either pretty much everyone is lying about their exegeses, or the Holy Spirit is doing an awful job at helping people understand things.
Ok, I have a question for you. Why did Jesus die? How do we receive forgiveness?
Jesus died because dying was a necessary consequence of his perfect fidelity to God. Without his life, Jesus' death would have been absolutely and totally meaningless. The point of Jesus, to my mind, was bringing God into the world in a real, tangible, personal manner. He showed what humanity is capable of, and evidently that had a great effect on a lot of people. That Jesus died was really just part of the job description, in a sense. At no point does Jesus try to get himself killed for the sake of some petty ritual, but merely says that it's going to happen (well, those are the words the Gospel authors put in his mouth, anyway, and those particular phrases are less-than-perfectly-reliable compared to others, historically speaking) and continues preaching the kingdom of God.
Jesus died for no other reason than that certain people wanted him to die, and that those certain people succeeded in, more or less, convicting him in an unjust manner. Jesus, really, could have survived if he recanted, but that he chose not to is significant not because of death and blood, or whatever, but because the totality of his life was in fidelity to God. He didn't slip up and neglect what he was trying to do, not even in the face of death.
How do we receive forgiveness? Well, from what? From sin? Which sins? I'm of the mind that morality is fundamentally a rational enterprise (because every other definition is basically really abusive) so I think that we obtain forgiveness from a particular wrongdoing by realizing that it's wrong in an authentic manner. Why should someone be begrudged forgiveness if they understand their error? This is, ultimately, why I reject that having Christ in your heart (and, more annoyingly, on your lips) explicitly is a prerequisite for salvation. It would make God, the supposed source of goodness/justice/love, guilty of condemning to eternal punishment people who, for the most part, didn't even do anything especially bad. If someone doesn't believe in Christ, it's not because they're douchebags, or sinners; it's because they really don't feel that such a belief is justified. How can you fault them for that, really? How could God fault them for that?
It's not like there's a limited amount of space in heaven, or something ("God wills all to be saved," remember). See, the fundamental problem I have with this kind of thing is that, well, it doesn't make any sense. God sentences you to hell because you didn't believe that Christ was God, or that God existed, or whatever? Since when were beliefs a choice? We do the best we can with the evidence presented to us. A God with the mindset above would be the worst kind of egotist. Given that God is supposed to be loving, you'd expect that he's at least more loving than the average human being, and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't sentence anyone in the universe to infinite punishment for finite crimes (setting aside the fact that punishment for crimes is utterly useless in this sense, because it's not like it's going to reform anyone; it's just God being a prick, for no real reason).
Seriously, you really have to think about this one. Who the fuck cares if you honestly didn't believe in God? Obviously you thought you had some pretty good reasons. Why wouldn't God just explain where you went wrong, give you a pat on the back, and then go back to being your friend? Better yet, why would he deliberately not do this in favour of throwing you into hell? Because of some twisted conception of justice that divine command theorists endlessly philosophize about?
I mean, if you really think that imperfection (which is really what sin is) in the human condition is worthy of eternal suffering, I'm not sure what to tell you. It's not like God would be doing you some selfless, massive favour by not sentencing you to this, because there's no reason to sentence you to it to start with! So you sinned! Okay, that's bad! Here's why it's bad! Okay! Problem solved!
Basically it comes down to the fact that if God really decides the fate of human beings for all eternity on the basis of whether they believed in him while they were on earth, then he's kinda like that kid in your first grade class who wouldn't let you come to his birthday party because of something you did six months ago. Basically, a child. If what you say is literally true, then not only is God unspeakably evil, as there is no crime which merits infinite torture and if you dispute this you're just wrong, but he's also kinda an idiot.
I think that Jesus would have existed even if human beings couldn't sin at all, simply because he loved us and wanted to encounter us. This notion that he was substituting himself as punishment (or ransom, or whatever) for our sins makes no sense whatsoever and totally undercuts the notion that God actually loves humanity in a way that actually has anything to do with what the word "love" means.
What you need to understand is that God gave us all we need in the Bible. Prophecies, how to live life, how to be saved, and how to trust Jesus for what's yet to come, and many more things. When people today say they had a vision or prophecy of a future event, I actually feel slightly uneasy about it because why do we need another vision of revelation when we have all we need to know already written down?
I'm pretty sure the Bible does not constitute the sum-total of human knowledge necessary for effective living, and it has never claimed to do so. The Bible is about humanity's relationship with God. It's not about science. It's not about prophecy (prophets in the pre-Christian sense were not people who predicted the future in an oracular way; they were more about speaking for God in the context of the present conditions) or fortune-telling. The book of Revelation (which was probably not written by the same guy as the Gospel, and was definitely not written by an apostle) is a giant allegory. John wasn't necessarily literally seeing what he describes in such explicit detail, because most of it would make no sense if you thought about it in such a case, but was trying to communicate, in my estimation, a spiritual feeling. I don't think the end-times even exist, and if they do, certainly not in the way described in Revelation, given that, again, it would be very twisted and unreal.
I mean, while scripture is divinely inspired (I believe so, anyway) that doesn't mean that it's literally God speaking through an author as if by mind control. The people writing the New Testament didn't actually expect their writings to be used for thousands of years worldwide. They didn't even think about that stuff. They didn't even think about other Gospels! They wrote for the people in their immediate community (which is obvious from the content of the Gospels) and assumed that their community would use their Gospel, because why would it need another one? It wasn't until centuries later that people started talking about four Gospels (and don't even get me started on John, which is a totally different beast).
It always amazes me to realize that Paul didn't set out to write his letters as universal declarations about Christianity (which wasn't even really a thing back then, but just a brand of radical Judaism) but really just wrote them to specific churches scattered around. He was arguing against other theologians, and evidently a lot of people sided with Paul (even Peter, for instance, was against Paul on circumcision). But he was a human being and a theologian. Paul was not a deity, and his theology is a product of the first century AD. It cannot be lifted straight into the 21st century because Paul believed things about reality/God that are almost certainly false (for instance, his interpretation of Sara/Hagar as literally allegorical has no basis in OT scholarship) but which are nonetheless still meaningful in some sense.
His moral proscriptions about homosexuality and women being subservient, and all that, are actually just not true in the context of the modern world.
On October 17 2013 06:47 Shiori wrote: His moral proscriptions about homosexuality and women being subservient, and all that, are actually just not true in the context of the modern world.
It has always been strange to me that many Christians have convinced themselves that, on one hand, the scripture is the word of God and it's somewhat timeless, except the parts that are not convenient anymore. It appears that in your mind, God's morals are derived from ours in some ways.
So God doesn't dislike homosexuals as suggested by the Bible because he keeps up with the morals of progressive occidentals? Ain't that sweet. You speak of the context of the modern world as if we had somehow eradicated proscriptions about homosexuality and women being subservient, when not only it's not even remotely the case, why in fuck's name would God happen to become a bit more "progressive" all of a sudden?
It seems to me like God doesn't make this decision, you see - the Church, or should I say, some PARTS of the Church have changed the rules of their game. Your God is a modular God, with interchangeable bits and pieces. It can be customized to fit anybody, and then it justifies YOUR opinion when YOU say that God happens to think like you do. Although you, Shiori, may not use that card, others certainly do.
Someone should make a "make your God" website where you can find out which church you should go to based on what opinions you want to justify with your religion. 10 questions questionnaire asking you which people you hate and who you want to fuck and what you think of pastors who fuck and all that. After you're done answering the questionnaire, it'll give you a selection of churches. Strangely most questions will be about fucking and which holes you can fuck and whatnot because they seem to be big distinctive factors...
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
What you need to understand is that God gave us all we need in the Bible. Prophecies, how to live life, how to be saved, and how to trust Jesus for what's yet to come, and many more things. When people today say they had a vision or prophecy of a future event, I actually feel slightly uneasy about it because why do we need another vision of revelation when we have all we need to know already written down? I'm not judging them or anything of course. The core message in many visions and "afterlife" testimonies are all in line with who God is and what the Bible says, but it is still something that should be taken cautiously and with careful discernment, which I choose not to go in depth more.
It is difficult to fully explain your spiritual experiences since they are personal. John, the author of several books in the Bible including Revelation, can't even describe in human words what he was really seeing in his vision of the end times. He used a lot of metaphors to describe it, and that the holiness of God was so surreal and unimaginable that he "fell as though dead at his feet." I can recall perhaps two times in my life where I distinctly heard the voice of God, and for some reason I just knew it inside my heart that it was him. It wasn't audible, but somehow I just knew it, and I listened to it.
There are a vast number of visions, dreams, and moments where God can talk to someone (and still can today), which goes to explain that there is something, or someone bigger out there that is communicating with us. However God wants to talk to you (through a friend, elder, study, Bible, nature, prayer, circumstance, etc) is his choice alone, and it's sufficient for you. When I say sufficient, I mean it's something that works for you: it's noticeable, it meets you where you're at spiritually, and it produces some sort of change to increase your faith in God.
You know it's a different John, right IronMan?
You never came back to the thread you started. It's languishing in purgatory right now.
On October 17 2013 06:47 Shiori wrote: His moral proscriptions about homosexuality and women being subservient, and all that, are actually just not true in the context of the modern world.
It has always been strange to me that many Christians have convinced themselves that, on one hand, the scripture is the word of God and it's somewhat timeless, except the parts that are not convenient anymore. It appears that in your mind, God's morals are derived from ours in some ways.
All divinely inspired means is that the fullness of the means to salvation are present in the Bible. At least, that's the way I look at it.
So God doesn't dislike homosexuals as suggested by the Bible because he keeps up with the morals of progressive occidentals? Ain't that sweet. You speak of the context of the modern world as if we had somehow eradicated proscriptions about homosexuality and women being subservient, when not only it's not even remotely the case, why in fuck's name would God happen to become a bit more "progressive" all of a sudden?
God didn't change. We did. More than anything, the Bible is a history of the Israelites' relationship to God. It changes and evolves as they do, as one would expect, much like a child's understanding of their parents evolves (infants, for example, may believe their parents are omnipotent).
It seems to me like God doesn't make this decision, you see - the Church, or should I say, some PARTS of the Church have changed the rules of their game. Your God is a modular God, with interchangeable bits and pieces. It can be customized to fit anybody, and then it justifies YOUR opinion when YOU say that God happens to think like you do. Although you, Shiori, may not use that card, others certainly do.
I agree; some people do this, and it's annoying. But it's worth noting that most of the stuff in the Bible that people find objectionable in light modern morality (the big, common examples like homosexuality, subservience of women, etc.) are actually really not important lines or passages even in the context of the work itself. Seriously, Jesus doesn't even touch any of these things. You really hit the nail on the head when you said that it's people who are the problem. I'd even argue that people are the problem in this regard; see, Scripture, taken in a measured, constructivist sense, really doesn't say much at all about homosexuality. It doesn't say much at all about women being bad people, either. But people in history have taken these like collective 5 lines amid thousands and trumpeted them at the top of their lungs, so that others come away with the impression that, say, homosexuality being immoral (or whatever) is actually fundamental to Scripture, when it never has been. It's not revisionism or modular anything, in that context. The stuff about homosexuality in the NT is a tangent which has little to do with the actual thesis of the writing. The bit about women is a paradoxical metaphor (given that the next sentence is husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church; that is, with utter servitude. So if both people are serving each other...yeah). Not that I'm saying Paul wasn't a chauvinist. He obviously was. But chauvinism is not central in Scripture.
Someone should make a "make your God" website where you can find out which church you should go to based on what opinions you want to justify with your religion. 10 questions questionnaire asking you which people you hate and who you want to fuck and what you think of pastors who fuck and all that. After you're done answering the questionnaire, it'll give you a selection of churches. Strangely most questions will be about fucking and which holes you can fuck and whatnot because they seem to be big distinctive factors...
The way I look at it is that God doesn't hate anyone, so if you're asking that question, you've already fucked up. If only more Christians though that way, I guess.
On October 17 2013 09:47 Shiori wrote: God didn't change. We did.
Why did you say that God's stuff was no longer relevant anymore? Sure, we changed, but weren't you saying that God did too and now he's a little laxer with the gays? x_x
I agree; some people do this, and it's annoying. But it's worth noting that most of the stuff in the Bible that people find objectionable in light modern morality (the big, common examples like homosexuality, subservience of women, etc.) are actually really not important lines or passages even in the context of the work itself. Seriously, Jesus doesn't even touch any of these things. You really hit the nail on the head when you said that it's people who are the problem. I'd even argue that people are the problem in this regard; see, Scripture, taken in a measured, constructivist sense, really doesn't say much at all about homosexuality. It doesn't say much at all about women being bad people, either. But people in history have taken these like collective 5 lines amid thousands and trumpeted them at the top of their lungs, so that others come away with the impression that, say, homosexuality being immoral (or whatever) is actually fundamental to Scripture, when it never has been. It's not revisionism or modular anything, in that context. The stuff about homosexuality in the NT is a tangent which has little to do with the actual thesis of the writing. The bit about women is a paradoxical metaphor (given that the next sentence is husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church; that is, with utter servitude. So if both people are serving each other...yeah). Not that I'm saying Paul wasn't a chauvinist. He obviously was. But chauvinism is not central in Scripture.
You say that those passages are not important but in today's world, they're some of the most consequential because they affect people's lives directly. I'll write more on this at the end of my post.
The way I look at it is that God doesn't hate anyone, so if you're asking that question, you've already fucked up. If only more Christians though that way, I guess.
I don't think I fucked up though, God "says" in the scripture that he doesn't hate anybody, and that he "loves" everybody, but I could say the same thing and it wouldn't necessarily be true. In the Bible, God does many things that aren't very representative (by normal standards) to that of a loving individual. Regardless, I didn't mean that God hates people, but I meant that hateful christians will congregate in hateful christian churches and they will use the scripture to justify their hatred of homosexuals and their views that women are inferior to men.
So to me this brings up another question. If God is perfect and whatnot, why write this shit about slavery, women, "sodomites", in the Bible? Presumably, he knew that it would drag on for centuries and those people would be persecuted by HIS followers for bullshit reasons!!! So how the fuck are those passages not important Shiori? Because you say they aren't?
And you say they aren't because they aren't important to you. This is what I was talking about isn't it, your interpretation of the Bible is completely tinted by your own moral standards - which is great in your case because you appear to be a great person, but it's not a very good way to look for the intended message.
So sure the horrible sexist and homophobic shit wasn't at the center of the scripture... I'm willing to give you that. It's still there. It's still the Bible. So what should we understand? That God was a bit of a dick but didn't make it the core of his biography?
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
Also, IronManSC. Peddle your bullshit elsewhere. I'm not interested in your born again viewpoint and intolerant views.
If God is perfect and whatnot, why write this shit about slavery, women, "sodomites", in the Bible?
God didn't write the Bible. That's really the gist of my answer. That God "says" things is obviously a literary device (every exegete would agree). God didn't literally pen the words.
People have interpreted God differently throughout history. The Christian is only really committed to the claim that the fullness of the message of salvation is contained in the Bible. It's not a requirement to think that the Biblical authors were infallible or that they somehow didn't exist in the context of their eras. It also strikes me as silly to think (as you appear to) of the Bible as one really big book, when in fact it's dozens of very different ones.
On October 17 2013 10:16 Shiori wrote: It also strikes me as silly to think (as you appear to) of the Bible as one really big book, when in fact it's dozens of very different ones.
i think this is really all one need say about the topic, tbh
On October 17 2013 10:16 Shiori wrote: It also strikes me as silly to think (as you appear to) of the Bible as one really big book, when in fact it's dozens of very different ones.
i think this is really all one need say about the topic, tbh
Yeah. I know it's vogue to consider scriptural study some sort of joke-field, but history is history. The authorship and context and content and references in all of these passages is the subject of intense study, from a historical PoV. It annoys me when people tacitly assume anything other than the most literal innerantism is somehow wrong or arbitrary, and that the "real" interpretation is literalism.
EDIT: I don't think (nor have I ever claimed) that the Bible is biography of God, nor that God changed his mind about gay people. You're assuming a premise in here, or something.
If God is perfect and whatnot, why write this shit about slavery, women, "sodomites", in the Bible?
God didn't write the Bible. That's really the gist of my answer. That God "says" things is obviously a literary device (every exegete would agree). God didn't literally pen the words.
People have interpreted God differently throughout history. The Christian is only really committed to the claim that the fullness of the message of salvation is contained in the Bible. It's not a requirement to think that the Biblical authors were infallible or that they somehow didn't exist in the context of their eras. It also strikes me as silly to think (as you appear to) of the Bible as one really big book, when in fact it's dozens of very different ones.
Well forgive me. The Bible is referred to dogmatically to explain to us how we should behave and what we should think and why God exists (rather than does not). And now when I happen to mention that the Bible, often considered to be the "word of God", you tell me that it's not the word of God. Doesn't that put the whole thing into question?
At this point, I'm just confused. The Bible is a big deal and it's the word of God or at least contains the word of God, except when people point out objectionable content, in which case well, it's all up for debate, which is what allows you to pick and choose the parts you like and discard the ones you don't.
As for the fact that the Bible is a collection of books, I don't see how that's relevant to what I was saying, nor would it be silly for someone to think it's one big book. Before I learned, I assumed it was one big book, because that's what it physically looks like. Unless you're told, it's not immediately noticeable.
EDIT: I don't think (nor have I ever claimed) that the Bible is biography of God, nor that God changed his mind about gay people. You're assuming a premise in here, or something.
I didn't assume anything, I'm still confused about what you meant when you said "His moral proscriptions about homosexuality and women being subservient, and all that, are actually just not true in the context of the modern world."
Are God's words invalidated by our greatness? Why are his moral proscriptions now irrelevant? Edit: Were you talking about Paul? Perhaps I got confused there because there are passages in the Bible where God himself is credited for some serious heinous shit towards homosexuals.
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: because that's what it physically looks like.
well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like.
I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care.
If God is perfect and whatnot, why write this shit about slavery, women, "sodomites", in the Bible?
God didn't write the Bible. That's really the gist of my answer. That God "says" things is obviously a literary device (every exegete would agree). God didn't literally pen the words.
People have interpreted God differently throughout history. The Christian is only really committed to the claim that the fullness of the message of salvation is contained in the Bible. It's not a requirement to think that the Biblical authors were infallible or that they somehow didn't exist in the context of their eras. It also strikes me as silly to think (as you appear to) of the Bible as one really big book, when in fact it's dozens of very different ones.
Well forgive me. The Bible is referred to dogmatically to explain to us how we should behave and what we should think and why God exists (rather than does not). And now when I happen to mention that the Bible, often considered to be the "word of God", you tell me that it's not the word of God. Doesn't that put the whole thing into question?
Not really. It puts nothing into question. Billions of people read the Bible. Billions of people interpret it, some more honestly/consistently than others. To use an obviously loaded, symbolic phrase like "word of God" (which, coming from logos actually means something closer to "message" than a dictation) as an argument that the Bible is actually God speaking in a direct, explicit fashion, is well, just kinda reaching.
I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, honestly. Some people refer to the Bible dogmatically in dumb ways. The Bible is not a book of science, nor a book of systematic theology, nor a book of analytic philosophy. These are indisputable facts, and they have always been indisputable facts, and even the authors would, with rare exception, have held these things to be indisputable facts.
At this point, I'm just confused. The Bible is a big deal and it's the word of God or at least contains the word of God, except when people point out objectionable content, in which case well, it's all up for debate, which is what allows you to pick and choose the parts you like and discard the ones you don't.
All parts of the Bible are up for the debate, in the sense that you are perfectly free to make a contextual argument against, say, the resurrection being integral to Christianity (this is actually distantly possible) or that Jesus, say, discouraged charity.
If you'd prefer to use "logos" of God, then I would agree.
As for the fact that the Bible is a collection of books, I don't see how that's relevant to what I was saying, nor would it be silly for someone to think it's one big book.
It's incredibly relevant (since it undercuts your claim that people are applying contradictory interpretations) because the way one looks at Isaiah is different from the way one looks at Revelation; not because of theology, but because of the content, style, author(s), and historical contexts which characterize the works. The Psalms, for instance, are largely poems. It would be moronic to interpret them as prose. That's a very obvious example of what scriptural interpretation (historical critical, I mean) actually is at the academic level. It's not picking and choosing; it's trying to actually piece everything together in a way that gives insight as to the environment out of which the work came.
Before I learned, I assumed it was one big book, because that's what it physically looks like. Unless you're told, it's not immediately noticeable.
It's noticeable the moment you open it up and read from a couple of different books. The style, tone, subject matter, and, really, everything, are so different from book to book that it would be ludicrous to read the Bible and think it was one big long tome.
That aside, it's absolutely ignorant and silly to think of the Bible as one, big, continuous book, because that's not what it is. I'm not sure how one could defend the idea that being provably wrong isn't silly, but whatever. It's tangential.
I didn't assume anything, I'm still confused about what you meant when you said "His moral proscriptions about homosexuality and women being subservient, and all that, are actually just not true in the context of the modern world."
Are God's words invalidated by our greatness? Why are his moral proscriptions now irrelevant? Edit: Were you talking about Paul? Perhaps I got confused there because there are passages in the Bible where God himself is credited for some serious heinous shit towards homosexuals.
I was referring to Paul.
Also, the putting words in God's mouth thing was a very common device used in so-called "prophetic" books to give the prophet's words legitimacy. See, the prophets were essentially (in the context of pre-Christian Judaism) interpreters of the Torah (the OT didn't even exist in a closed form until like the 2nd century AD) and people who applied it to the contemporary era. Their "prophecies" are not (and were never) intended to be literal predictions of some specific future event; rather, they are warnings/cautions to a (perceived) wayward audience which has strayed from the teachings of the Torah.
The Levitical laws (from which the anti-gay stuff mostly comes) are another brand of literature entirely, probably composed by the priestly tradition (except Deuteronomy, if you count that, which was composed by another group entirely). These were not the same people as prophets, were not accorded the same status as prophets, and, in general, should not be viewed in the same sense as prophetic books. That's not to say that the writers of Leviticus didn't really believe that homosexuality is wrong. But that they put those words in the mouth of God is part of the genre; a Christian is not committed to the claim that, for instance, it is "more relevant" when the Bible precedes a line with "thus says the Lord," because, fundamentally, the same person is writing the thing. Distinctions between self-reflection on the part of the author and proclamation of divine mandates are important, but they're important to understand the meaning of the passage, not as delineating between infallible statements and opinions.
Again: all I hold is that the Bible, insofar as it is, contains the fullness of the message of salvation, and that that is inerrant. I also think that its portrayal of the character of Jesus is, while probably not exactly accurate, not in conflict with who Jesus actually was as a person.
I'm not disputing that there are (a lot) of people who use the Bible as justification for some horrible things, but, honestly, that's a problem with those people. Even if they took the NT absolutely literally, they wouldn't be able to do any of the stuff they want to, because Jesus is so obviously pacifist, tolerant, and non-condemning that it would be absurd to pass laws shaming homosexuals in his name. They are the ones picking and choosing, not me. If someone reads the NT and comes away with the impression that sexual morality (in general) is one of the "main themes," then they are wrong, and their impression is not supported by density of said issue within the text, nor by any reconstruction of early Christian society.
On October 17 2013 10:36 Shiori wrote: It's noticeable the moment you open it up and read from a couple of different books. The style, tone, subject matter, and, really, everything, are so different from book to book that it would be ludicrous to read the Bible and think it was one big long tome.
That aside, it's absolutely ignorant and silly to think of the Bible as one, big, continuous book, because that's not what it is. I'm not sure how one could defend the idea that being provably wrong isn't silly, but whatever. It's tangential.
Do I need to remind you of the part where I said I'm aware that the Bible is not one big book, I have no idea what made you think I was unaware of this, and more importantly, I fail to see how it is relevant.
It's incredibly relevant (since it undercuts your claim that people are applying contradictory interpretations) because the way one looks at Isaiah is different from the way one looks at Revelation; not because of theology, but because of the content, style, author(s), and historical contexts which characterize the works. The Psalms, for instance, are largely poems. It would be moronic to interpret them as prose. That's a very obvious example of what scriptural interpretation (historical critical, I mean) actually is at the academic level. It's not picking and choosing; it's trying to actually piece everything together in a way that gives insight as to the environment out of which the work came.
I still don't see why it's relevant to the point I made, frankly. It's just that from my point of view, when you start finding flaws in something like that and you interpret it inconsistently, perhaps you're just trying to fit yourself between the pages more so than you're trying to gain something from the pages.
I was referring to Paul.
What do you think of passages where God condemns homosexuality as an "abomination" of all things then?
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: because that's what it physically looks like.
well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like.
I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care.
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: because that's what it physically looks like.
well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like.
I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care.
please tell me you're kidding
Sam, forgive me for the tough words but kindly please make a fucking effort. Speak thy mind for one liners don't do shit for me. I am not kidding (and you know I'm not). Write something
On October 17 2013 10:36 Shiori wrote: It's noticeable the moment you open it up and read from a couple of different books. The style, tone, subject matter, and, really, everything, are so different from book to book that it would be ludicrous to read the Bible and think it was one big long tome.
That aside, it's absolutely ignorant and silly to think of the Bible as one, big, continuous book, because that's not what it is. I'm not sure how one could defend the idea that being provably wrong isn't silly, but whatever. It's tangential.
Do I need to remind you of the part where I said I'm aware that the Bible is not one big book, I have no idea what made you think I was unaware of this, and more importantly, I feel to see how it is relevant.
It's relevant because it renders
It's just that from my point of view, when you start finding flaws in something like that and you interpret it inconsistently, perhaps you're just trying to fit yourself between the pages more so than you're trying to gain something from the pages.
invalid. There's no inconsistency of interpretation. You would not interpret Exodus as you would 1st Peter. It would be ridiculous, from every angle.
I was referring to Paul.
What do you think of passages where God condemns homosexuality as an "abomination" of all things then?
I think that the authors of those texts, as was the nature of the literary form, appended or prepended "Thus says the LORD" to all teachings they perceived to be authoritative. This does not mean that God literally said these words. The Bible, to my mind, is less about God making statements and more about the character transmitted between the lines over the course of thematic evolution and adversity for the Hebrews.
Interestingly, Jesus actually does say something to the effect that the Law, as written, was the best the people were able to handle at the time, but that it's time to up the ante, as it were. Much like you would not hold a child responsible for things in the same way as you would an adult, so, too, does morality evolve. It wouldn't have made any sense for people to go from prehistoric agrarians to sophisticated 21st century analytic philosophers. It wouldn't actually have been conceivable for such a thing to happen.
Well we're just not going to agree at this point because we have different understandings of the issue here. Essentially all I'm saying is that there are so many interpretations that I don't know how you can be sure about anything, or even convinced. I would be doubtful of the whole thing frankly. I continue to say that people pick and choose what they like, and that allows them to be comfortable with those while dismissing the rest.
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: because that's what it physically looks like.
well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like.
I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care.
please tell me you're kidding
Sam, forgive me for the tough words but kindly please make a fucking effort. Speak thy mind for one liners don't do shit for me. I am not kidding (and you know I'm not). Write something
"the bible" is a collection of vastly different writings written by vastly different people in vastly different times and social contexts. of course it is not "a book." Nor does it have a single coherent viewpoint about much of anything at all, despite what ironman might tell you.
if "the bible" is "a book", then the norton anthology of poetry is "a book."
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: because that's what it physically looks like.
well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like.
I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care.
please tell me you're kidding
Sam, forgive me for the tough words but kindly please make a fucking effort. Speak thy mind for one liners don't do shit for me. I am not kidding (and you know I'm not). Write something
"the bible" is a collection of vastly different writings written by vastly different people in vastly different times and social contexts. of course it is not "a book." Nor does it have a single coherent viewpoint about much of anything at all, despite what ironman might tell you.
if "the bible" is "a book", then the norton anthology of poetry is "a book."
I'm aware that it's relevant in many ways but not for the purposes that we were discussing, at least IMO.
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: because that's what it physically looks like.
well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like.
I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care.
please tell me you're kidding
Sam, forgive me for the tough words but kindly please make a fucking effort. Speak thy mind for one liners don't do shit for me. I am not kidding (and you know I'm not). Write something
"the bible" is a collection of vastly different writings written by vastly different people in vastly different times and social contexts. of course it is not "a book." Nor does it have a single coherent viewpoint about much of anything at all, despite what ironman might tell you.
if "the bible" is "a book", then the norton anthology of poetry is "a book."
I'm aware that it's relevant in many ways but not for the purposes that we were discussing, at least IMO.
because your criticism is that scripture should be dismissed because it is not consistent, and that it is an illegitimate exegetical practice to discard or privilege sections of it as you see fit. but that doesn't really make sense, because that's what people have been doing with it from the Redactor to Jesus to Nicaea to Luther.
On October 17 2013 11:41 IgnE wrote: Guys. Guys. Guys. What about the Quran? Isn't it divinely inspired?
ugh. let's not go there. most unfortunate piece of doctrine, that...
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: because that's what it physically looks like.
well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like.
I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care.
please tell me you're kidding
Sam, forgive me for the tough words but kindly please make a fucking effort. Speak thy mind for one liners don't do shit for me. I am not kidding (and you know I'm not). Write something
"the bible" is a collection of vastly different writings written by vastly different people in vastly different times and social contexts. of course it is not "a book." Nor does it have a single coherent viewpoint about much of anything at all, despite what ironman might tell you.
if "the bible" is "a book", then the norton anthology of poetry is "a book."
I'm aware that it's relevant in many ways but not for the purposes that we were discussing, at least IMO.
because your criticism is that scripture should be dismissed because it is not consistent, and that it is an illegitimate exegetical practice to discard or privilege sections of it as you see fit. but that doesn't really make sense, because that's what people have been doing with it from the Redactor to Jesus to Nicaea to Luther.
I'm not saying that scripture should be dismissed (not necessarily anyway). But I think that given the large spectrum of interpretations, it's strange that so many people are convinced that their own is the right one.
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: because that's what it physically looks like.
well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like.
I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care.
please tell me you're kidding
Sam, forgive me for the tough words but kindly please make a fucking effort. Speak thy mind for one liners don't do shit for me. I am not kidding (and you know I'm not). Write something
"the bible" is a collection of vastly different writings written by vastly different people in vastly different times and social contexts. of course it is not "a book." Nor does it have a single coherent viewpoint about much of anything at all, despite what ironman might tell you.
if "the bible" is "a book", then the norton anthology of poetry is "a book."
I'm aware that it's relevant in many ways but not for the purposes that we were discussing, at least IMO.
because your criticism is that scripture should be dismissed because it is not consistent, and that it is an illegitimate exegetical practice to discard or privilege sections of it as you see fit. but that doesn't really make sense, because that's what people have been doing with it from the Redactor to Jesus to Nicaea to Luther.
I'm not saying that scripture should be dismissed (not necessarily anyway). But I think that given the large spectrum of interpretations, it's strange that so many people are convinced that their own is the right one.
well, everybody thinks their interpretation is the right one, including you. but yes
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: because that's what it physically looks like.
well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like.
I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care.
please tell me you're kidding
Sam, forgive me for the tough words but kindly please make a fucking effort. Speak thy mind for one liners don't do shit for me. I am not kidding (and you know I'm not). Write something
"the bible" is a collection of vastly different writings written by vastly different people in vastly different times and social contexts. of course it is not "a book." Nor does it have a single coherent viewpoint about much of anything at all, despite what ironman might tell you.
if "the bible" is "a book", then the norton anthology of poetry is "a book."
I'm aware that it's relevant in many ways but not for the purposes that we were discussing, at least IMO.
because your criticism is that scripture should be dismissed because it is not consistent, and that it is an illegitimate exegetical practice to discard or privilege sections of it as you see fit. but that doesn't really make sense, because that's what people have been doing with it from the Redactor to Jesus to Nicaea to Luther.
I'm not saying that scripture should be dismissed (not necessarily anyway). But I think that given the large spectrum of interpretations, it's strange that so many people are convinced that their own is the right one.
well, everybody thinks their interpretation is the right one, including you. but yes
Well I don't interpret the Bible very much at all so I don't pretend that my interpretation of it is right. I think it's strange to equate my disbelief in the scripture to the various interpretations of people who believe it to have to do with a deity that exists. I don't try to derive reality from the text because any interpretation would lead me to a fictitious, man-made story. And I have no way to know what's historically correct and what isn't. The fact that I don't believe in God is pretty much entirely external to the Bible. So we all believe our interpretations about the world to be correct, some of us with more modesty than others, but yeah, I don't interpret the Bible.
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
the rational thing to do is to attempt to sympathize with something that you find strange in order to understand it better
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
the rational thing to do is to attempt to sympathize with something that you find strange in order to understand it better
What happens if you understand a good bit of it and still find it silly?
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Usually you have some reasons for why you chose one hypothesis rather than another. Do we really have to go down the teapot road?
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Usually you have some reasons for why you chose one hypothesis rather than another. Do we really have to go down the teapot road?
I know the teapot example, but i come to a different conclusion about it than Russel does. My argument is first and foremost that you shouldn't reject the hypothesis that the teapot (or God) exists, which is something even Russel would arguably argee with. The teapot example is in the context of attempting to convert or argue that God does exist vs simply allowing for belief.
Second, the implications for believing in God are larger than the implications for believing in the teapot. Whether or not the teapot exists has no bearing on my life, but God seems to have a rather large effect. Perhaps I might err on the side of trying to have a connection with something beyond me (i.e pascal's wager).
Lastly, the teapot is a bad example because we have observed teapots and we have observed space and we have generally come to the conclusion that space is teapot free. However in the case of God, its not like we have checked outside the material universe and often found it to be lacking gods.
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
the rational thing to do is to attempt to sympathize with something that you find strange in order to understand it better
What happens if you understand a good bit of it and still find it silly?
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Usually you have some reasons for why you chose one hypothesis rather than another. Do we really have to go down the teapot road?
I know the teapot example, but i come to a different conclusion about it than Russel does. My argument is first and foremost that you shouldn't reject the hypothesis that the teapot (or God) exists, which is something even Russel would arguably argee with. The teapot example is in the context of attempting to convert or argue that God does exist vs simply allowing for belief.
You are muddling the wording and changing the arguments around randomly...
When someone says that they have an interaction with god when they pray, they are not saying that they have a hypothesis that the experience they had was MAYBE an interaction with God. They are saying that it WAS an interaction with God, which is apparently enough evidence for you to justify a belief in this god.
I am not saying that we should completely dismiss the hypothesis that it may be possible that it is a god that has caused the experience, I am saying that we should not believe their claim that it IS God that caused this interaction until there is justification.
Even in an extreme example, such that someone has had a measurable experience that we can't explain, the default answer is still we don't know, even if that person claims it was God.
Second, the implications for believing in God are larger than the implications for believing in the teapot. Whether or not the teapot exists has no bearing on my life, but God seems to have a rather large effect. Perhaps I might err on the side of trying to have a connection with something beyond me (i.e pascal's wager).
How large a role something plays in how you choose to live your life is completely up to you and does nothing to answer the question of whether or not that thing is actually true. God only has as larger effect on your life than a teapot because you give God more meaning than a teapot. If I believed that the supernatural Mayor McCheese was the only thing keeping me from killing my wife, it doesn't say anything as to whether or not supernatural Mayor McCheese actually exists.
And you are aware that Pascal's wager is widely considered the absolute worst argument for God? It is laughable to the point where even the most hardline Christian apologists think that it is crap.
Lastly, the teapot is a bad example because we have observed teapots and we have observed space and we have generally come to the conclusion that space is teapot free. However in the case of God, its not like we have checked outside the material universe and often found it to be lacking gods.
You can't just check a little bit of space and then declare that the teapot does not exist. That would be like if someone said, "hey there are bears in the mountains", and you went out for a day, didn't see one and said that the mountains are bear free.
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Usually you have some reasons for why you chose one hypothesis rather than another. Do we really have to go down the teapot road?
I know the teapot example, but i come to a different conclusion about it than Russel does. My argument is first and foremost that you shouldn't reject the hypothesis that the teapot (or God) exists, which is something even Russel would arguably argee with. The teapot example is in the context of attempting to convert or argue that God does exist vs simply allowing for belief.
Second, the implications for believing in God are larger than the implications for believing in the teapot. Whether or not the teapot exists has no bearing on my life, but God seems to have a rather large effect. Perhaps I might err on the side of trying to have a connection with something beyond me (i.e pascal's wager).
Lastly, the teapot is a bad example because we have observed teapots and we have observed space and we have generally come to the conclusion that space is teapot free. However in the case of God, its not like we have checked outside the material universe and often found it to be lacking gods.
Pascal's Wager has been thoroughly disproven - it presents the illusion of a simple binary choice (god vs. no god), in which case it might actually make a small amount of sense, but in fact there are an infinite number of possible religions/gods (and an infinite number of possible realities in which there is no god) so the chances of picking the correct one are almost 0.
On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote: [quote] arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Usually you have some reasons for why you chose one hypothesis rather than another. Do we really have to go down the teapot road?
I know the teapot example, but i come to a different conclusion about it than Russel does. My argument is first and foremost that you shouldn't reject the hypothesis that the teapot (or God) exists, which is something even Russel would arguably argee with. The teapot example is in the context of attempting to convert or argue that God does exist vs simply allowing for belief.
Second, the implications for believing in God are larger than the implications for believing in the teapot. Whether or not the teapot exists has no bearing on my life, but God seems to have a rather large effect. Perhaps I might err on the side of trying to have a connection with something beyond me (i.e pascal's wager).
Lastly, the teapot is a bad example because we have observed teapots and we have observed space and we have generally come to the conclusion that space is teapot free. However in the case of God, its not like we have checked outside the material universe and often found it to be lacking gods.
Pascal's Wager has been thoroughly disproven - it presents the illusion of a simple binary choice (god vs. no god), in which case it might actually make a small amount of sense, but in fact there are an infinite number of possible religions/gods (and an infinite number of possible realities in which there is no god) so the chances of picking the correct one are almost 0.
Can't help myself, just have to bring up the dicussion again: If there's an infinite number of possible choices, the chance of picking the right one is not almost zero, it's straight up zero.
On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote: [quote] arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Usually you have some reasons for why you chose one hypothesis rather than another. Do we really have to go down the teapot road?
I know the teapot example, but i come to a different conclusion about it than Russel does. My argument is first and foremost that you shouldn't reject the hypothesis that the teapot (or God) exists, which is something even Russel would arguably argee with. The teapot example is in the context of attempting to convert or argue that God does exist vs simply allowing for belief.
You are muddling the wording and changing the arguments around randomly...
When someone says that they have an interaction with god when they pray, they are not saying that they have a hypothesis that the experience they had was MAYBE an interaction with God. They are saying that it WAS interacted with God, which is apparently enough evidence for you to justify a belief in this god.
I am not saying that we should completely dismiss the hypothesis that it may be possible that it is a god that has caused the experience, I am saying that we should not believe their claim that it IS God that caused this interaction until there is justification.
Even in an extreme example, such that someone has had a measurable experience that we can't explain, the default answer is still we don't know, even if that person claims it was God.
Second, the implications for believing in God are larger than the implications for believing in the teapot. Whether or not the teapot exists has no bearing on my life, but God seems to have a rather large effect. Perhaps I might err on the side of trying to have a connection with something beyond me (i.e pascal's wager).
How large a role something plays in how you choose to live your life is completely up to you and does nothing to answer the question of whether or not that thing is actually true. God only has as larger effect on your life than a teapot because you give God more meaning than a teapot. If I believed that the supernatural Mayor McCheese was the only thing keeping me from killing my wife, it doesn't say anything as to whether or not supernatural Mayor McCheese actually exists.
And you are aware that Pascal's wager is widely considered the absolute worst argument for God? It is laughable to the point where even the most hardline Christian apologists think that it is crap.
Lastly, the teapot is a bad example because we have observed teapots and we have observed space and we have generally come to the conclusion that space is teapot free. However in the case of God, its not like we have checked outside the material universe and often found it to be lacking gods.
You can't just check a little bit of space and then declare that the teapot does not exist. That would be like if someone said, "hey there are bears in the mountains", and you went out for a day, didn't see one and said that the mountains are bear free.
1: In the context of prayer, the same deal still applies. I can't prove that they didn't have an experience with God, and its not something that is measurable by any instruments that I know of. Therefore it seems that I can't reject the hypothesis that there is a God && they interacted with this God. All of my arguments need to be read in the context of the original post(s) that I was responding to. The claim that it is "obvious" to any rational being that God cannot exist is the only thing that I care to prove. The relationship to prayer is an sidetrack in which we basically further define things that our "God" can do.
2: I personally still like Pascals wager even after hearing the criticism. Also, this version isn't arguing "believe in God to save yourself from hell". I was simply proposing that there might be an argument to favor believing in *something* because believing might make me have a nicer experience in life than not believing. I haven't investigated this argument, but I was just throwing out one possible reason why belief in God is different from belief in the teapot.
3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued nowhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
You argument seems to be more along the line that someone who claims god doesn't exist has the burden of proof in the same way. In a sense, this IS true. An atheist in a sense has the burden of proof against an agnostic, since an atheist have to prove how God can't possibly exist. However, in the case of a christian vs an atheist, it's still on the christian since it's just logical to assume that something you can't perceive doesn't exist since if it was the other way around, everything imaginable would exist which gives you a pretty ridiculous ground to stand on.
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
I guess I have to be honest, first thing that came to mind was gullable. Then I felt something was off and realized I misspelled it, so then I thought gullible, then I became a little unsure again, so I googled it and checked just to make sure.
Can't put them all in the same box, but if they believe in things that is in a fantasy book, then what else do they miss. Feels a little scary to me, feels like under the right condition, right people, you could make them believe just about anything.
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical. The teapot example simply proves that christians are of the exact same belief, they just make an exception for their own God. They don't believe in the teapots, but they believe in God, even though the situations are identical.
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical.
Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous.
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical.
Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous.
We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old.
So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote: 3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous.
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical.
Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous.
We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old.
Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword
Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
On October 17 2013 16:37 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical.
Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous.
We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old.
Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword
Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
No one has said they aren't equally likely. In fact, that's the whole point. The chance of teapots in space are equally likely to God existing. Problem is, Christians will usually not accept that, which is why the teapot argument is actually an argument.
Remember, we do not believe in the teapots because it's practical to not assume shit exists, like the supernatural McCheese. The likelyhood of them existing being equal is irrelevant.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
On October 17 2013 16:40 packrat386 wrote: [quote] I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical.
Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous.
We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old.
Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword
Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
No one has said they aren't equally likely. In fact, that's the whole point. The chance of teapots in space are equally likely to God existing. Problem is, Christians will usually not accept that, which is why the teapot argument is actually an argument.
wait wait, they have to be invisble undetectable teapots, not just the average teapot. If so then yes they seem equally likely to me. It is also equally likely that God exists or God doesn't exist.
Also, someone brought up Kierkegaard, which is a good segue into how to justify Christianity in the case that I'm right. Belief in God is necessarily a leap of faith, that's what makes it special.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote: Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything. He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there?
That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other.
What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god..
Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back.
Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
actually not all bad, i attend this church, very good one, nice people and great ambiance ( their church). I started dating this girl there, she was so fine yet so conservative. It was a good run but and we eventually split (nothing religious related) I also still keep in touch with the other people even with her until she was not single again. They are good people, some of them also dont take it seriously like hardcore do this do that. It was just like a place to go on sundays and no one is really pushy, most of the times it was about sharing life and real life examples but when they start disecting scriptures and relating it to life like how jesus lived it was bland and generalized and I was fine with it.
I just hated the churches that push stuff and made up shit to control people, like theres this church that you need to give 15% of your income to them. Also theres this church that if you dont convert, members cant accept you.
By the way, pro tip, churches have the fine girls, conservative and kind. If you get lucky you'll get some freaky ones too but then I laugh when they remorse after and pray to say sorry to jesus after pre-marital sex..
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Usually you have some reasons for why you chose one hypothesis rather than another. Do we really have to go down the teapot road?
I know the teapot example, but i come to a different conclusion about it than Russel does. My argument is first and foremost that you shouldn't reject the hypothesis that the teapot (or God) exists, which is something even Russel would arguably argee with. The teapot example is in the context of attempting to convert or argue that God does exist vs simply allowing for belief.
Second, the implications for believing in God are larger than the implications for believing in the teapot. Whether or not the teapot exists has no bearing on my life, but God seems to have a rather large effect. Perhaps I might err on the side of trying to have a connection with something beyond me (i.e pascal's wager).
Lastly, the teapot is a bad example because we have observed teapots and we have observed space and we have generally come to the conclusion that space is teapot free. However in the case of God, its not like we have checked outside the material universe and often found it to be lacking gods.
Please tell me more about the implications of believing in God. Pascal's wager is the dumbest thing Pascal ever said.
edit - oops I guess a page of discussion has happened since then
On October 17 2013 16:37 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof.
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong.
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical.
Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous.
We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old.
Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword
Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
The Romans got along just fine sacrificing to Jupiter, Isis, Mithras, and Baal. No contradiction there. It's only this Yahweh guy, AKA Elohim, AKA El, who tells his people not to sacrifice to those other gods.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
that is why "i dont know" is still better than "there should be a god" because I dont know does not say you need to prove it while there should be requires proof.
I would like to understand the thought process as to why "there should be a god" is what people would choose.
Why do think that? even without proof? are they to fill the void? ( we dont know stuff, it must be a god who did it)
so you havent looked in the right place? where would you say the right place is? in your heart?
if I were to prove santa, I can say I can go to north pole but then with god where? which god? would I go to mount olympus for zues?
also with the teapot arguement, you think it is silly to tie up your god with the teapot, saying: "hey this is god we are talking about" , " I have seen a teapot but not god" . "he is the reason for this all" but in my eyes a space teapot, santa, imaginary friend, zues, galactus and other godly beings are all the same, no evidence= probably does not exist.
I tell you something that I havent seen but I know it exist, gravity. Yes it does not exist but if you jump off a chair you will fall to the ground, you will feel it and it is true. These gods however only choose who he wants to feel? so they are like the ghost, spirits and stuff? If we sufffer natural calamities are these god actions? if then we just went backwards to when people praise nature and the elements.
On October 17 2013 16:44 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist.
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical.
Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous.
We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old.
Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword
Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
No one has said they aren't equally likely. In fact, that's the whole point. The chance of teapots in space are equally likely to God existing. Problem is, Christians will usually not accept that, which is why the teapot argument is actually an argument.
wait wait, they have to be invisble undetectable teapots, not just the average teapot. If so then yes they seem equally likely to me. It is also equally likely that God exists or God doesn't exist.
Also, someone brought up Kierkegaard, which is a good segue into how to justify Christianity in the case that I'm right. Belief in God is necessarily a leap of faith, that's what makes it special.
Idk why you get to tack odds of 50% on God's existence... Fifty percent that he does, fifty percent he doesnt, fifty percent another god exists... Fifty percent for everybody! Come on.
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote: What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary".
On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote: [quote] arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary".
I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
That's pretty cute but the evidence of the contrary is that you can't have evidence for a negative :p
On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote: [quote] arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary".
I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
lol his hypothesis of "god exist" would most likely be rejected, because guess what comes after hypothesis what do u do? test it. And if you failed to test it, it gets scrapped. Thats why it is the scientific method and yes science will tell you that you need to reject your "educated guess" as you cant test/experiment/ prove it.
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
My tangent about religious institutions and all the resources that are put in place to deal with the insecurities of christians was nothing more than an example. There is nothing pathetic in retreating to rationality or retreating to your faith.
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
I dont think that's what he meant by safeguard. Koreasilver is very much into defending religion and whatnot. He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's talking about the opposition between the religious and non-religious... Maybe I'm wrong.
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
I dont think that's what he meant by safeguard. Koreasilver is very much into defending religion and whatnot. He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's talking about the opposition between the religious and non-religious... Maybe I'm wrong.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
I wouldn't exactly say (or even generalize) that Christians retreat to safeguard their faith as if they were in danger of losing it. (I am only basing this off the recent answers, so I may be wrong if I interpreted that differently).
People rely too much on plain evidence of God's existence when we know that all of creation points to him. God is spiritual and invisible, and he's beyond our comprehension. He's not a physical material that we can "discover" in the natural world, but we can discover some of his qualities and characteristics that point to him or reflect a piece of who he is, like how majestic and vast the universe is, how complex the human body is (and many other things in this world), and purely the good things we do for other people. All of these have a resemblance to God and who he is.
As believers, we are called to trust in Jesus for who he is, what he did for us, his promises, and his claims. That is the premise of faith itself. How do you "prove" a promise that God made when you can do nothing but either believe it'll happen or not. How do you "prove" his existence when he is not a physical 'thing' hiding behind some star a few light years away? Again, it goes back to faith. The nice part about it is that he gives you a special kind of faith as a free gift when you come to him; a faith that is of himself. Someone pointed out earlier that you just may be searching in the wrong places, and it's true, because you're looking for physical evidence for something that is invisible, despite having visible qualities all around you. In other words, the argument just becomes "If I see him standing there as he is, then i'll believe."
The wind is a good example. It's invisible, but you can see its effect on things around you, and you can feel it. The moon reflects the sun even though the sun is not visible during the night. While we can believe these things, why is it difficult to grasp the idea that perhaps there's an invisible God out there who displays his love and qualities in life around us?
You add so little to the conversation IronManSC that I don't even think you read what people are talking about. If all you are going to do is preach please take it to your blog.
I think IronManSC is right in the sense that if you have a belief if God you either have to not care about justifying it, or you have to justify it in a way other than appealing to reason and evidence - I think natural apologetics are extremely weak. That's not to say this alternative justification is appealing or convincing (I don't find it to be) but I accept that it is to some people and I don't mind that.
I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
For example, take a look at IronMan's second and fourth paragraph in his post above. "People rely too much on plain evidence of God's existence when we know that all of creation points to him." I don't think one even has to go too far to show that this sentence is just broken. If we all "really knew" that all of the world "points to God" then one could procure evidence for this. Yes, the moon reflects the sun at night when we cannot see the sun, but we can validate this idea through direct material observation and experimentation. We can make data. If, as IronMan says, that God isn't material then there simply is nothing that we can "really know" about him. Faith doesn't prove God (third paragraph). That's just nonsense. Yes, faith, if there really is a true God, could only come from God because of how revelation works. But faith is a one-way street even if we were to presuppose the logic of revelation. By that very fact the entirety of IronMan's illustrative attempts is just absolute bunk. We can't get to a knowledge of God by looking at nature just like how any attempts to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity through candles or light or whatnot all falls short. Neither does the complexity of the universe do anything to illuminate God when all material processes work within its own immanent logic and can be observed, experimented, and elucidated purely by natural reason that is not contaminated with theological or pietist wishfulness.
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
I totally agree with you but you must realize that the eschewing of rationality insofar as faith and belief are concerned is an incredibly bitter and jagged pill for many, as there are relatively few out there who have read enough of the alternatives to know that they are more than "just making it up."
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
So how do you justify your faith? Or do you not?
I'm not koreasilver, but "seeing is believing" is a good first step, i'd imagine. The dude in the sky? Nvr see him before.
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: For example, take a look at IronMan's second and fourth paragraph in his post above. "People rely too much on plain evidence of God's existence when we know that all of creation points to him." I don't think one even has to go too far to show that this sentence is just broken. If we all "really knew" that all of the world "points to God" then one could procure evidence for this. Yes, the moon reflects the sun at night when we cannot see the sun, but we can validate this idea through direct material observation and experimentation. We can make data. If, as IronMan says, that God isn't material then there simply is nothing that we can "really know" about him. Faith doesn't prove God (third paragraph). That's just nonsense. Yes, faith, if there really is a true God, could only come from God because of how revelation works. But faith is a one-way street even if we were to presuppose the logic of revelation. By that very fact the entirety of IronMan's illustrative attempts is just absolute bunk. We can't get to a knowledge of God by looking at nature just like how any attempts to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity through candles or light or whatnot all falls short. Neither does the complexity of the universe do anything to illuminate God when all material processes work within its own immanent logic and can be observed, experimented, and elucidated purely by natural reason that is not contaminated with theological or pietist wishfulness.
ugh. You really like using a lot of big fancy words to sound logical and throw me off don't you? When I say that creation "points to God," I'm not saying that looking at the complexity of a leaf sends the message "You found God!" but rather millions of people can conclude that there is a higher power, someone who has a lot of intelligence behind all of this, which points to God, though that's just scratching the surface of the matter. At that point, they can know of God and his existence, but they don't know him yet on a personal level. The wind is invisible, but you see its effect. Why couldn't God be similar, but yet beyond that?, or should he be as simple as feeling the wind that you can discover him with a few pushes of a science machine?
The evidence is merely all around you by seeing how intelligent he really is to make everything so complex and so in-order. If you feel the wind, you can conclude "well, I feel it even though I can't see it, so it exists," whereas if you saw someone's cancer disappear right before your eyes in a matter of seconds without any medicine or surgery, you'll conclude "that is scientifically un-explainable" without even wondering if there was indeed the healing hand of a invisible God behind it. Your argument is that because you didn't see a hand or any physical matter of God in the removal of that cancer, that therefore he can't possible exist. There's more to God than just the things you can feel, learn, touch or see.
Faith is not blind, and it does prove God because it is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see. This faith comes from God himself. In essence, you can't truly know God unless he makes himself known to you and gives you the power to believe. Faith has eyes. It looks forward to things that are to come (trusting). It looks to Jesus (believing his claims), and it seeks the company of fellowship (Iron sharpens iron).
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
So how do you justify your faith? Or do you not?
Faith is much more than simply believing whether there is a God or not. I absolutely don't attempt at all to justify a belief in God because as I think it's pointless, not just because it's "beyond reason" but because I genuinely think atheism is "correct" in this. I'm not a liberal in the sense that I reject natural theology and all attempts to rationalize faith, and I'm orthodox insofar as I believe that any knowledge of God can only come from revelation. My approach to orthodoxy is that when we come to looking at the world and examining it scientifically it must be "atheistic". Aside from what is given by revelation we can't know anything about God, so trying to impress some theological or pietist hopes unto scientific methodologies isn't just wrong because it fucks up the scientific method, but also because it's just bad theology. It's an insult, through and through.
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
I totally agree with you but you must realize that the eschewing of rationality insofar as faith and belief are concerned is an incredibly bitter and jagged pill for many, as there are relatively few out there who have read enough of the alternatives to know that they are more than "just making it up."
Since when was faith ever supposed to be complacent though? Christians need a cold shower. An honest atheist does more good for the faith than apologist charlatans like Platinga and Craig. I honestly wonder if someone like Platinga even really knows/remembers what Christianity is anymore. After all of his tortured logical games, does he even think about what the point of it all is?
edit: IronMan, you can't say that faith comes from God and that one cannot know God except through his actions after spending two bloody paragraphs again reiterating a natural theology.
And that isn't even "clever" or "logic". That's simply just the mainline understanding many of the central figures of Christian thought have taken to be the relation between revelation and the Bible. There's a reason why the Christian tradition doesn't worship the Bible. Since the early church they have safeguarded against the heresy of worshiping text, even if that text be canonical scripture.
So have you had an experience with god through prayer?
No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary".
I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
lol his hypothesis of "god exist" would most likely be rejected, because guess what comes after hypothesis what do u do? test it. And if you failed to test it, it gets scrapped. Thats why it is the scientific method and yes science will tell you that you need to reject your "educated guess" as you cant test/experiment/ prove it.
PLease tell me what "tests" you have run to see if there is a god. Given that God exists outside of the material universe, did you go there and look?
On October 18 2013 03:50 koreasilver wrote: And that isn't even "clever" or "logic". That's simply just the mainline understanding many of the central figures of Christian thought have taken to be the relation between revelation and the Bible. There's a reason why the Christian tradition doesn't worship the Bible. Since the early church they have safeguarded against the heresy of worshiping text, even if that text be canonical scripture.
And this is where the difference between Christian tradition and fundamentalism is quite important, in that the fundies have effectively attempted to cover up the likes of Augustine and Luther as they seek to reinvent the the base of Christian doctrine.
On October 18 2013 03:50 koreasilver wrote: And that isn't even "clever" or "logic". That's simply just the mainline understanding many of the central figures of Christian thought have understood the relation between revelation and the Bible. There's a reason why the Christian tradition doesn't worship the Bible. Since the early church they have safeguarded against the heresy of worshiping text, even if that text be canonical scripture.
It would be a tradition in itself to worship the Bible and follow it in the same way that the muslim culture does. The same can be said for anything in life. You can be so involved in church ministry that you're doing so many great things for God, but you're not actually spending time with him or getting to know him. We do our best to live by the Bible because of what Christ did for us, and because we know what Christ would want us to do. We do it out of a heart of gratitude and because we desire to serve God, not because we have to earn his favor (or feel that we should). The whole point of the Bible is to reconcile us back to himself.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
On October 17 2013 16:51 packrat386 wrote: [quote]
So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind.
The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative.
The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems.
The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind.
You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something.
I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why.
The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation.
Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof.
Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim.
The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical.
Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous.
We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old.
Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword
Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
No one has said they aren't equally likely. In fact, that's the whole point. The chance of teapots in space are equally likely to God existing. Problem is, Christians will usually not accept that, which is why the teapot argument is actually an argument.
wait wait, they have to be invisble undetectable teapots, not just the average teapot. If so then yes they seem equally likely to me. It is also equally likely that God exists or God doesn't exist.
Also, someone brought up Kierkegaard, which is a good segue into how to justify Christianity in the case that I'm right. Belief in God is necessarily a leap of faith, that's what makes it special.
Idk why you get to tack odds of 50% on God's existence... Fifty percent that he does, fifty percent he doesnt, fifty percent another god exists... Fifty percent for everybody! Come on.
I never said 50%, I said equally likely. Given all possible non-contradictory God scenarios (God, Greek Gods, Hindu gods, FSM, No god, etc.), they are all equally likely to be true.
On October 18 2013 03:50 koreasilver wrote: And that isn't even "clever" or "logic". That's simply just the mainline understanding many of the central figures of Christian thought have understood the relation between revelation and the Bible. There's a reason why the Christian tradition doesn't worship the Bible. Since the early church they have safeguarded against the heresy of worshiping text, even if that text be canonical scripture.
It would be a tradition in itself to worship the Bible and follow it in the same way that the muslim culture does. The same can be said for anything in life. You can be so involved in church ministry that you're doing so many great things for God, but you're not actually spending time with him or getting to know him. We do our best to live by the Bible because of what Christ did for us, and because we know what Christ would want us to do. We do it out of a heart of gratitude and because we desire to serve God, not because we have to earn his favor (or feel that we should). The whole point of the Bible is to reconcile us back to himself.
Who told you what the whole point of the Bible is? And be honest, the text itself did not tell you these things. Once you admit that, the whole equation opens up rather dramatically.
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Yo, this isn't me attempting to defend my faith (mostly because that would require me to know what I believe). I just think that most atheists think that its simple to prove that God doesn't exist or that you shouldn't believe in him, when in fact it is a rather complicated problem.
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
I totally agree with you but you must realize that the eschewing of rationality insofar as faith and belief are concerned is an incredibly bitter and jagged pill for many, as there are relatively few out there who have read enough of the alternatives to know that they are more than "just making it up."
I would appreciate some recommendations for Books to read on these "alternatives". I like to debate the question as a rational exercise, but its pretty hard to get anywhere.
On October 18 2013 03:03 koreasilver wrote: I don't think there is any real way to justify a belief in God through any rational exercise. All arguments for the existence of God is bunk. Accepting this and then moving on to trying to make a space for a reasonable belief in God through some sort of agnosticism or a God-of-the-gaps is just an assuaging of an insecurity. Saying that a belief in God can be "justified" by putting it in a realm beyond rationality by negative theology is just a continuance of this. Personally, I find it to be desperate. For the believer it's really just an intellectual rationalizing exercise that attempts to safeguard the faith in artificial ways most of the time, but I'm sure there are many people that are genuinely affirmative about the whole thing and aren't just scrambling to defend the faith from the "cultured opponents". But I think it's a bit wrongheaded. That's just my personal take on this though.
I totally agree with you but you must realize that the eschewing of rationality insofar as faith and belief are concerned is an incredibly bitter and jagged pill for many, as there are relatively few out there who have read enough of the alternatives to know that they are more than "just making it up."
I would appreciate some recommendations for Books to read on these "alternatives". I like to debate the question as a rational exercise, but its pretty hard to get anywhere.
The problem is that there is no single book on the topic (though Aquina's Summa Theologica would be a good start). You must first understand how scholasticism started and how it was in the classrooms of Medieval Europe that faith and reason first met formally, and then move on from there. Just read up on scholasticism. You also must get away from "rational exercises"
(Generally, the split between analytical and continental philosophy also lines up here, but only loosely.)
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
To prove, one needs evidence, and there's no evidence at all, for or against, something that doesn't exist (like God). As such, we only ever attempt to prove things that exist. That people need to surrender to "he is so beyond your understanding you can't prove it" is pretty telling how much they themselves believe he exist.
Now, of course everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want. Dudes in asylums who believe they can fly are pretty legit too. I won't stop a man if he wishes to worship the rainbow-colored pony with lightsaber. But i probably will tell him that it sound frigging retared.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
Actually its pretty easy to do for many things. Consider the case of the square circle, its impossible to have so it doesn't exist. As for empirics, if I were to tell you that there are purple caterpillars in my sock drawer, it would be easy to collect good evidence that they don't exist.
However for God there seem to be no good logical objections (although I'm surprised nobody has brought up the problem of pain), and there seems to be no way for us to gather evidence. So yes, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that's my argument
edit: also its really easy to prove that people in asylums can't fly. If they jump of a roof and they fall and kill themselves then they were wrong. We may be hesitant to test their hypothesis, but that doesn't mean its not testable.
Any religion that is proclaimed on a stage like that is not one I want to be a part of.
edit: Oh wow, its even worse than I thought. Is this a troll?
Yeah just skim to a couple parts (or just watch the first 5 minutes like you probably did), see a stage with great lights on it and with singers and say it's stupid. Then, assume i'm trolling. Sigh. You miss the entire point of Christianity if you think it's "staged." It's about worshiping the one who loves us and died for us.
On October 18 2013 06:54 koreasilver wrote: That's the corniest thing I have seen all week.
Pretty much. Jesus prayed in private, if I pray I follow his example.
You can pray in private, which every Christian does, and you can also pray as a body of believers (at a worship concert, church, outreach, etc). Jesus also prayed in public situations, like in front of the family of Lazerus before raising him from the dead, and at the Last Supper in front of his disciples. Public prayer is not wrong unless it's for self-righteous reasons (to say 'hey look at me im praying!'), or to do it in a way like the Pharisee who said "thank you that I am not like these sinners."
We ought to pray as a congregation and as a people because believers are part of one body: the body of Christ. We are called to be a fellowship, a community, and to encourage, correct, and edify each other. That also means praying with each other, in private (a couple people) or in a larger setting (church service, concert, etc).
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
Actually its pretty easy to do for many things. Consider the case of the square circle, its impossible to have so it doesn't exist. As for empirics, if I were to tell you that there are purple caterpillars in my sock drawer, it would be easy to collect good evidence that they don't exist.
However for God there seem to be no good logical objections (although I'm surprised nobody has brought up the problem of pain), and there seems to be no way for us to gather evidence. So yes, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that's my argument
edit: also its really easy to prove that people in asylums can't fly. If they jump of a roof and they fall and kill themselves then they were wrong. We may be hesitant to test their hypothesis, but that doesn't mean its not testable.
So we are happy to agree that any theist or atheist that makes a knowledge claim bears a burden of proof?
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
Consider the case of the square circle, its impossible to have so it doesn't exist.
you need a reductio ad absurdum though. can you show that if god exists, god doesn't exist?
the problem has to do with the predicate "exists" and the subject "god" both of which are pretty difficult to rigorously define
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
Actually its pretty easy to do for many things. Consider the case of the square circle, its impossible to have so it doesn't exist. As for empirics, if I were to tell you that there are purple caterpillars in my sock drawer, it would be easy to collect good evidence that they don't exist.
However for God there seem to be no good logical objections (although I'm surprised nobody has brought up the problem of pain), and there seems to be no way for us to gather evidence. So yes, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that's my argument
edit: also its really easy to prove that people in asylums can't fly. If they jump of a roof and they fall and kill themselves then they were wrong. We may be hesitant to test their hypothesis, but that doesn't mean its not testable.
So we are happy to agree that any theist or atheist that makes a knowledge claim bears a burden of proof?
burden of proof is a red herring when discussing theology, because atheism can only attempt to negate particular theologies not theology tout court.
it's more interesting to think about what possible conceptions one might have of the divinity than to argue about whether "god exists" which is a bit of a meaningless statement
He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
burden of proof is a red herring when discussing theology, because atheism can only attempt to negate particular theologies not theology tout court.
I don't know what you mean by this.
because atheism can only reject a positive theology (i.e. "god is a man in the sky who judges us"). there's no possible way to argue for the claim "for all possible theologies x, x should be rejected." Saying "god doesn't exist" is sort of equivalent to saying "philosophy is wrong" or "art is ugly." it doesn't really make a lot of sense
this is leaving aside the problem of "existence." for example if you look at augustine I'm not sure that he thinks god "exists" either because god is a precondition for the notion of "existence" in the first place (kind of like how for derrida differance is "not a concept but the precondition of conceptuality" or whatever, which is why I think derrida is a theologian and deconstruction is a negative theology despite the fact that he says it isn't. but let's not talk about derrida)
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
burden of proof is a red herring when discussing theology, because atheism can only attempt to negate particular theologies not theology tout court.
I don't know what you mean by this.
because atheism can only reject a positive theology (i.e. "god is a man in the sky who judges us"). there's no possible way to argue for the claim "for all possible theologies x, x should be rejected." Saying "god doesn't exist" is sort of equivalent to saying "philosophy is wrong" or "art is ugly." it doesn't really make a lot of sense
this is leaving aside the problem of "existence." for example if you look at augustine I'm not sure that he thinks god "exists" either because god is a precondition for the notion of "existence" in the first place (kind of like how for derrida differance is "not a concept but the precondition of conceptuality" or whatever, which is why I think derrida is a theologian and deconstruction is a negative theology despite the fact that he says it isn't. but let's not talk about derrida)
Well first, "atheism" doesn't "do" anything, atheists do. And atheists, like myself, don't believe in any theologies because of a lack of evidence. We're not necessarily rejecting them all up front, nor do we need to reject them actively. You yourself reject all theologies besides one. The difference between you and I is ONE religion. You've rejected tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other theologies.
We don't need to go about disproving all of them to not believe in them just like scientists are not currently disproving the existence of unicorns. Without any positive evidence to work on, it's not necessarily unfair to assume that the claims are not true. Of course, should a piece of evidence turn up, it'll be looked at.
that doesn't address my point, if you're talking to me via talking to corum explaining what i mean
edit: yes many people do what you say. i've no interest in defending ignorant idiots who talk about god, that's not the point. i'm just defending the activity of theology
On October 18 2013 09:04 sam!zdat wrote: that doesn't address my point, if you're talking to me via talking to corum explaining what i mean
edit: yes many people do what you say. i've no interest in defending ignorant idiots who talk about god, that's not the point. i'm just defending the activity of theology
I'm going to live that to you sam, I think you'll handle it better than me, it is your point am i'm not always sure I follow you after all. Edit : and I'm an atheist anyway :p
On October 18 2013 00:09 koreasilver wrote: What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
Please... I wasn't even wrong about what you meant you lazy bastard. I admitted that I could be wrong on the off chance that I was misreading you and it turns out I wasn't.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
That's what I always thought, that's what Tobberoth didn't understand, and Koreasilver told me to learn to read even though you and I have the same understanding of what he wrote, and he didn't contest that. He then tried to justify his faith through a sloppy explanation of why God escapes rationality.
So I was told to "learn to read" even though he knows I understand everything. He even accused me of a strawman logical fallacy despite the fact that I understood everything he said. Koreasilver is intellectually dishonest to the max.
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
You have to understand that in this case the "convenient supernatural mumbjo jumbo" is a fundamental objection to your principle that the person offering the hypothesis must necessarily provide the proof. Unless they claim to KNOW that there are unicorns in your backyard (belief =/= knowledge, which is another important distinction that you keep glossing over) then my objection (and probably corum and sam) is that it is no more reasonable to assume that the hypothesis is true or false in the absence of evidence or logical objections.
Think about it this way. You believe that God does not exist, do you therefore have to go through a similar burden of proof to justify your belief? And if so, why not? I personally find the idea that there is not a God to be extraordinary (or at least I can pretend to for the sake of argument) so do you now have to prove it?
On October 18 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote: [quote] Stop being a hypocrite would you? I could say the same thing about the threads that are created for Christians to confirm each other's views, the anti-evolution conferences and the various other conferences where people go to confirm their faith and oppose scientific theories, and some functions of churches that just aim to convince the people that their religion is true. We're all curious, we're all 'insecure' sometimes because we're smart enough to ask questions. If 'retreating' is pathetic, then you guys are incredibly pathetic, with your large institutions which have the sole purpose of dealing with your insecurities. (I don't believe that, but it follows your argument).
You retreat to the limits of faith and human perception, we retreat to the presumed, potential limits of rationality. You calling this 'pathetic' shows your personal insecurities a lot more than our attempt to have a (sometimes) intellectual discussion about this.
True insecurity is not in the argument but in the refusal to have it. Man up.
He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
Please... I wasn't even wrong about what you meant you lazy bastard. I admitted that I could be wrong on the off chance that I was misreading you and it turns out I wasn't.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
That's what I always thought, that's what Tobberoth didn't understand, and Koreasilver told me to learn to read even though you and I have the same understanding of what he wrote, and he didn't contest that. He then tried to justify his faith through a sloppy explanation of why God escapes rationality.
So I was told to "learn to read" even though he knows I understand everything. He even accused me of a strawman logical fallacy despite the fact that I understood everything he said. Koreasilver is intellectually dishonest to the max.
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
You have to understand that in this case the "convenient supernatural mumbjo jumbo" is a fundamental objection to your principle that the person offering the hypothesis must necessarily provide the proof. Unless they claim to KNOW that there are unicorns in your backyard (belief =/= knowledge, which is another important distinction that you keep glossing over) then my objection (and probably corum and sam) is that it is no more reasonable to assume that the hypothesis is true or false in the absence of evidence or logical objections.
Think about it this way. You believe that God does not exist, do you therefore have to go through a similar burden of proof to justify your belief? And if so, why not? I personally find the idea that there is not a God to be extraordinary (or at least I can pretend to for the sake of argument) so do you now have to prove it?
I'm mostly interested in the second part of what you said. First you say that I "believe that God doesn't exist" and yes I would agree, but at the base of it, it was more correct to say that I "don't believe that God exists" because, in my youth, I had not heard of it.
The thing is, If I wanted to PROVE that God doesn't exist, I simply could not because proving a negative is impossible. As such, atheists deflect the burden of proof onto the people who say there's a God. Like I said, that's how it is everywhere. And I mean in every single other area of human knowledge or just interaction.
YOUR belief that there are no invisible unicorns in my backyard, and I trust that you believe that, doesn't require that you prove that there aren't. You know they aren't there, so you don't think I'm credible when I say there are.
That's the entire thing about burden of proof. You make an extraordinary POSITIVE claim, you need to provide evidence for it. That's how it works with everything. Except God. And just so we're clear about your counter-argument that you think my claim that there's no God is extraordinary, yes - I can't prove a negative though. All I've got is a complete and utter lack of evidence of the existence of a God.
We could go on an on about how you perhaps view life and the universe as evidence of a God, and I can't actually say with perfect certainty that you're wrong. See, perhaps we were created, and perhaps I'm wrong. I mean, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - and so it may be true that God perhaps is untestable or undetectable - but I see no compelling reason to believe that. In fact, severe flaws can be found in the various theologies.
So perhaps there's a God, but if there is, then why is the scripture of such and such religion so factually incorrect? Why does the Bible say everything was created some thousands of years ago according to some creationists, when we have mountains of evidence showing otherwise. Those things, in my mind, at least damage the credibility of some religions. And again that doesn't mean that there's no creator or there's no God, but man, you gotta admit that neither side have much to go off of. All you've got is stories and personal experiences and some grandiose interpretation of the complexity of stuff, and all I've got is an openly flawed but modest natural explanation to stand on, and the lack of good evidence on your side.
On October 18 2013 00:30 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
Please... I wasn't even wrong about what you meant you lazy bastard. I admitted that I could be wrong on the off chance that I was misreading you and it turns out I wasn't.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
That's what I always thought, that's what Tobberoth didn't understand, and Koreasilver told me to learn to read even though you and I have the same understanding of what he wrote, and he didn't contest that. He then tried to justify his faith through a sloppy explanation of why God escapes rationality.
So I was told to "learn to read" even though he knows I understand everything. He even accused me of a strawman logical fallacy despite the fact that I understood everything he said. Koreasilver is intellectually dishonest to the max.
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
You have to understand that in this case the "convenient supernatural mumbjo jumbo" is a fundamental objection to your principle that the person offering the hypothesis must necessarily provide the proof. Unless they claim to KNOW that there are unicorns in your backyard (belief =/= knowledge, which is another important distinction that you keep glossing over) then my objection (and probably corum and sam) is that it is no more reasonable to assume that the hypothesis is true or false in the absence of evidence or logical objections.
Think about it this way. You believe that God does not exist, do you therefore have to go through a similar burden of proof to justify your belief? And if so, why not? I personally find the idea that there is not a God to be extraordinary (or at least I can pretend to for the sake of argument) so do you now have to prove it?
I'm mostly interested in the second part of what you said. First you say that I "believe that God doesn't exist" and yes I would agree, but at the base of it, it was more correct to say that I "don't believe that God exists" because, in my youth, I had not heard of it.
The thing is, If I wanted to PROVE that God doesn't exist, I simply could not because proving a negative is impossible. As such, atheists deflect the burden of proof onto the people who say there's a God. Like I said, that's how it is everywhere. And I mean in every single other area of human knowledge or just interaction.
YOUR belief that there are no invisible unicorns in my backyard, and I trust that you believe that, doesn't require that you prove that there aren't. You know they aren't there, so you don't think I'm credible when I say there are.
That's the entire thing about burden of proof. You make an extraordinary POSITIVE claim, you need to provide evidence for it. That's how it works with everything. Except God. And just so we're clear about your counter-argument that you think my claim that there's no God is extraordinary, yes - I can't prove a negative though. All I've got is a complete and utter lack of evidence of the existence of a God.
We could go on an on about how you perhaps view life and the universe as evidence of a God, and I can't actually say with perfect certainty that you're wrong. See, perhaps we were created, and perhaps I'm wrong. I mean, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - and so it may be true that God perhaps is untestable or undetectable - but I see no compelling reason to believe that. In fact, severe flaws can be found in the various theologies.
So perhaps there's a God, but if there is, then why is the scripture of such and such religion so factually incorrect? Why does the Bible say everything was created some thousands of years ago according to some creationists, when we have mountains of evidence showing otherwise. Those things, in my mind, at least damage the credibility of some religions. And again that doesn't mean that there's no creator or there's no God, but man, you gotta admit that neither side have much to go off of. All you've got is stories and personal experiences and some grandiose interpretation of the complexity of stuff, and all I've got is an openly flawed but modest natural explanation to stand on, and the lack of good evidence on your side.
I really think you should just admit that you misread koreasilver's post and then erected a strawman to knock down with gusto. He was clearly talking about religious people retreating to reason, e.g. asserting a natural theology.
On October 18 2013 09:24 sam!zdat wrote: atheism does a great deal. it makes people behave in certain ways in which they would not behave were they not. all ideas "do" something.
That's thin. I guess you can
you believe that "god does not exist." that is a theology.
That's just fucking with the semantics on your part and I don't really care for it but I don't buy that whole argument that atheism is a theology. I agree that for some people it's rather dogmatic and shitty, but when I was a baby, or even when I was a 10 year old kid, I was an atheist because I never believed. I didn't disbelieve either, I just did not believe because it hadn't occurred to me, it hadn't been brought up to me that people believed in God. When I was around 12, I learned that there were people who believed in sky dudes who made magic stuff, and it seemed silly to me. Was that me inventing a religion or was it perhaps just a lack of belief in something I was never convinced of?
Perhaps I would agree that the active belief in the non-existence of God is dogmatic, and borders on theology. As it is, I'm just a guy looking for answers, and I admittedly haven't found a good one. The big bang, while it's an imperfect theory, clearly has roots in reality, as does evolution. The religions, however, haven't gotten to me - and with reason. They make arguments that are unacceptable in any area other than religion. Is it unreasonable of me to remain unconvinced?
how did you possibly come to this conclusion. i don't have any allegiance to any particular religion. nor do i know anything about god
Ok
i'm not defending any claims i'm defending the question
On October 18 2013 00:35 Djzapz wrote: [quote] My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
Please... I wasn't even wrong about what you meant you lazy bastard. I admitted that I could be wrong on the off chance that I was misreading you and it turns out I wasn't.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
That's what I always thought, that's what Tobberoth didn't understand, and Koreasilver told me to learn to read even though you and I have the same understanding of what he wrote, and he didn't contest that. He then tried to justify his faith through a sloppy explanation of why God escapes rationality.
So I was told to "learn to read" even though he knows I understand everything. He even accused me of a strawman logical fallacy despite the fact that I understood everything he said. Koreasilver is intellectually dishonest to the max.
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
You have to understand that in this case the "convenient supernatural mumbjo jumbo" is a fundamental objection to your principle that the person offering the hypothesis must necessarily provide the proof. Unless they claim to KNOW that there are unicorns in your backyard (belief =/= knowledge, which is another important distinction that you keep glossing over) then my objection (and probably corum and sam) is that it is no more reasonable to assume that the hypothesis is true or false in the absence of evidence or logical objections.
Think about it this way. You believe that God does not exist, do you therefore have to go through a similar burden of proof to justify your belief? And if so, why not? I personally find the idea that there is not a God to be extraordinary (or at least I can pretend to for the sake of argument) so do you now have to prove it?
I'm mostly interested in the second part of what you said. First you say that I "believe that God doesn't exist" and yes I would agree, but at the base of it, it was more correct to say that I "don't believe that God exists" because, in my youth, I had not heard of it.
The thing is, If I wanted to PROVE that God doesn't exist, I simply could not because proving a negative is impossible. As such, atheists deflect the burden of proof onto the people who say there's a God. Like I said, that's how it is everywhere. And I mean in every single other area of human knowledge or just interaction.
YOUR belief that there are no invisible unicorns in my backyard, and I trust that you believe that, doesn't require that you prove that there aren't. You know they aren't there, so you don't think I'm credible when I say there are.
That's the entire thing about burden of proof. You make an extraordinary POSITIVE claim, you need to provide evidence for it. That's how it works with everything. Except God. And just so we're clear about your counter-argument that you think my claim that there's no God is extraordinary, yes - I can't prove a negative though. All I've got is a complete and utter lack of evidence of the existence of a God.
We could go on an on about how you perhaps view life and the universe as evidence of a God, and I can't actually say with perfect certainty that you're wrong. See, perhaps we were created, and perhaps I'm wrong. I mean, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - and so it may be true that God perhaps is untestable or undetectable - but I see no compelling reason to believe that. In fact, severe flaws can be found in the various theologies.
So perhaps there's a God, but if there is, then why is the scripture of such and such religion so factually incorrect? Why does the Bible say everything was created some thousands of years ago according to some creationists, when we have mountains of evidence showing otherwise. Those things, in my mind, at least damage the credibility of some religions. And again that doesn't mean that there's no creator or there's no God, but man, you gotta admit that neither side have much to go off of. All you've got is stories and personal experiences and some grandiose interpretation of the complexity of stuff, and all I've got is an openly flawed but modest natural explanation to stand on, and the lack of good evidence on your side.
I really think you should just admit that you misread koreasilver's post and then erected a strawman to knock down with gusto. He was clearly talking about religious people retreating to reason, e.g. asserting a natural theology.
Fair enough then, I'll blame English being my second language on that one. I swear that I read a bunch of times.
It was a honest mistakes despite the fact that I had a thick skull on that one. It sucks to have to concede that I've misread a Koreasilver post because I'll never live that down. The guy posts complete insult posts toward a bunch of people all the time, and that's how he responds to arguments. I even admitted to being possibly wrong, and he just told me to learn to read... I tried to be modest and he continued his shit posting...
Sigh. Anyway, sorry, my mistake. The THESIS of what I was saying holds regardless. It is NOT PATHETIC for religious people to retreat to reason. If nothing else, it is a healthy exercise. It is not pathetic to have broader horizons.
I concede sometimes, I admit that I'm wrong - it's fine with people with Shiori who post good stuff and are generally good forumgoers, but it sucks with people like KS who's disrespectful as shit with frightening consistency.
On October 18 2013 00:30 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] He was pointing at religious apologetics... it makes little sense when you follow that up "with your large institutions".
My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
Please... I wasn't even wrong about what you meant you lazy bastard. I admitted that I could be wrong on the off chance that I was misreading you and it turns out I wasn't.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
That's what I always thought, that's what Tobberoth didn't understand, and Koreasilver told me to learn to read even though you and I have the same understanding of what he wrote, and he didn't contest that. He then tried to justify his faith through a sloppy explanation of why God escapes rationality.
So I was told to "learn to read" even though he knows I understand everything. He even accused me of a strawman logical fallacy despite the fact that I understood everything he said. Koreasilver is intellectually dishonest to the max.
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
You have to understand that in this case the "convenient supernatural mumbjo jumbo" is a fundamental objection to your principle that the person offering the hypothesis must necessarily provide the proof. Unless they claim to KNOW that there are unicorns in your backyard (belief =/= knowledge, which is another important distinction that you keep glossing over) then my objection (and probably corum and sam) is that it is no more reasonable to assume that the hypothesis is true or false in the absence of evidence or logical objections.
Think about it this way. You believe that God does not exist, do you therefore have to go through a similar burden of proof to justify your belief? And if so, why not? I personally find the idea that there is not a God to be extraordinary (or at least I can pretend to for the sake of argument) so do you now have to prove it?
I'm mostly interested in the second part of what you said. First you say that I "believe that God doesn't exist" and yes I would agree, but at the base of it, it was more correct to say that I "don't believe that God exists" because, in my youth, I had not heard of it.
The thing is, If I wanted to PROVE that God doesn't exist, I simply could not because proving a negative is impossible. As such, atheists deflect the burden of proof onto the people who say there's a God. Like I said, that's how it is everywhere. And I mean in every single other area of human knowledge or just interaction.
YOUR belief that there are no invisible unicorns in my backyard, and I trust that you believe that, doesn't require that you prove that there aren't. You know they aren't there, so you don't think I'm credible when I say there are.
That's the entire thing about burden of proof. You make an extraordinary POSITIVE claim, you need to provide evidence for it. That's how it works with everything. Except God. And just so we're clear about your counter-argument that you think my claim that there's no God is extraordinary, yes - I can't prove a negative though. All I've got is a complete and utter lack of evidence of the existence of a God.
We could go on an on about how you perhaps view life and the universe as evidence of a God, and I can't actually say with perfect certainty that you're wrong. See, perhaps we were created, and perhaps I'm wrong. I mean, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - and so it may be true that God perhaps is untestable or undetectable - but I see no compelling reason to believe that. In fact, severe flaws can be found in the various theologies.
So perhaps there's a God, but if there is, then why is the scripture of such and such religion so factually incorrect? Why does the Bible say everything was created some thousands of years ago according to some creationists, when we have mountains of evidence showing otherwise. Those things, in my mind, at least damage the credibility of some religions. And again that doesn't mean that there's no creator or there's no God, but man, you gotta admit that neither side have much to go off of. All you've got is stories and personal experiences and some grandiose interpretation of the complexity of stuff, and all I've got is an openly flawed but modest natural explanation to stand on, and the lack of good evidence on your side.
The idea that you can't prove a negative is horrendously overused. Please take the following proof that there is no God as an example of why you are wrong
A: God is all-loving, omnipotent, and all knowing B: God exists C: An all-loving, omnipotent being would prevent any pain that it knew about D: Pain exists in the world ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: Taken together the statements form a contradiction, therefore reject Premise B that God exists.
There are objections to this proof (I have some myself), but it goes to show that you actually CAN prove what you call a negative statement.
Also, you have once against glossed over the point that belief is not a knowledge claim. Faith is necessarily belief without knowledge (if you KNEW God existed then it wouldn't be faith). Therefore Christians aren't making a poisitive claim about the existence of god. The only discussion is whether they ought to reject their belief.
The reason God is different is because most of the things whose existence we discuss are things that we can see. If I tell you "zombies exist" the subtext of what I'm saying is that zombies exist in the material world. Therefore anytime we view the material world and don't see zombies we can count that as evidence against my theory. However God exists in a realm that is outside observation, so the fact that there is "no evidence" means something completely different.
I'm not trying to defend anyone who claims that they NOW with certainty that God exists, but given that we have no definitive proof for either side, I choose not to privilege either the positive or negative hypothesis. This is because I reject Russel's premise that we should privilege negative hypotheses because I find it problematic.
On October 18 2013 09:02 Djzapz wrote: Well first, "atheism" doesn't "do" anything, atheists do.
atheism does a great deal. it makes people behave in certain ways in which they would not behave were they not. all ideas "do" something.
And atheists, like myself, don't believe in any theologies because of a lack of evidence.
you believe that "god does not exist." that is a theology.
You yourself reject all theologies besides one.
how did you possibly come to this conclusion. i don't have any allegiance to any particular religion. nor do i know anything about god
it's not necessarily unfair to assume that the claims are not true
i'm not defending any claims i'm defending the question
You are contradicting yourself sam:
On September 27 2013 02:53 sam!zdat wrote: god is love
edit: and god really IS love, no matter what dr. Hoenikker says
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes"
There's a difference between small contradictions and saying something and then saying its opposite. The guy says he has no religious affiliation after having said God is love :O... which is it?
On October 18 2013 09:02 Djzapz wrote: Well first, "atheism" doesn't "do" anything, atheists do.
atheism does a great deal. it makes people behave in certain ways in which they would not behave were they not. all ideas "do" something.
And atheists, like myself, don't believe in any theologies because of a lack of evidence.
you believe that "god does not exist." that is a theology.
You yourself reject all theologies besides one.
how did you possibly come to this conclusion. i don't have any allegiance to any particular religion. nor do i know anything about god
it's not necessarily unfair to assume that the claims are not true
i'm not defending any claims i'm defending the question
You are contradicting yourself sam:
On September 27 2013 02:53 sam!zdat wrote: god is love
edit: and god really IS love, no matter what dr. Hoenikker says
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes"
There's a difference between small contradictions and saying something and then saying its opposite. The guy says he has no religious affiliation after having said God is love :O... which is it?
That was mostly a joke because I like the quote. I can't claim to speak for sam's religion.
On October 18 2013 00:35 Djzapz wrote: [quote] My point is I see nothing pathetic about 'speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God', and calling us pathetic is bullshit. I don't see what the part about religious apologetics changes about that.
I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
Please... I wasn't even wrong about what you meant you lazy bastard. I admitted that I could be wrong on the off chance that I was misreading you and it turns out I wasn't.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
That's what I always thought, that's what Tobberoth didn't understand, and Koreasilver told me to learn to read even though you and I have the same understanding of what he wrote, and he didn't contest that. He then tried to justify his faith through a sloppy explanation of why God escapes rationality.
So I was told to "learn to read" even though he knows I understand everything. He even accused me of a strawman logical fallacy despite the fact that I understood everything he said. Koreasilver is intellectually dishonest to the max.
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
You have to understand that in this case the "convenient supernatural mumbjo jumbo" is a fundamental objection to your principle that the person offering the hypothesis must necessarily provide the proof. Unless they claim to KNOW that there are unicorns in your backyard (belief =/= knowledge, which is another important distinction that you keep glossing over) then my objection (and probably corum and sam) is that it is no more reasonable to assume that the hypothesis is true or false in the absence of evidence or logical objections.
Think about it this way. You believe that God does not exist, do you therefore have to go through a similar burden of proof to justify your belief? And if so, why not? I personally find the idea that there is not a God to be extraordinary (or at least I can pretend to for the sake of argument) so do you now have to prove it?
I'm mostly interested in the second part of what you said. First you say that I "believe that God doesn't exist" and yes I would agree, but at the base of it, it was more correct to say that I "don't believe that God exists" because, in my youth, I had not heard of it.
The thing is, If I wanted to PROVE that God doesn't exist, I simply could not because proving a negative is impossible. As such, atheists deflect the burden of proof onto the people who say there's a God. Like I said, that's how it is everywhere. And I mean in every single other area of human knowledge or just interaction.
YOUR belief that there are no invisible unicorns in my backyard, and I trust that you believe that, doesn't require that you prove that there aren't. You know they aren't there, so you don't think I'm credible when I say there are.
That's the entire thing about burden of proof. You make an extraordinary POSITIVE claim, you need to provide evidence for it. That's how it works with everything. Except God. And just so we're clear about your counter-argument that you think my claim that there's no God is extraordinary, yes - I can't prove a negative though. All I've got is a complete and utter lack of evidence of the existence of a God.
We could go on an on about how you perhaps view life and the universe as evidence of a God, and I can't actually say with perfect certainty that you're wrong. See, perhaps we were created, and perhaps I'm wrong. I mean, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - and so it may be true that God perhaps is untestable or undetectable - but I see no compelling reason to believe that. In fact, severe flaws can be found in the various theologies.
So perhaps there's a God, but if there is, then why is the scripture of such and such religion so factually incorrect? Why does the Bible say everything was created some thousands of years ago according to some creationists, when we have mountains of evidence showing otherwise. Those things, in my mind, at least damage the credibility of some religions. And again that doesn't mean that there's no creator or there's no God, but man, you gotta admit that neither side have much to go off of. All you've got is stories and personal experiences and some grandiose interpretation of the complexity of stuff, and all I've got is an openly flawed but modest natural explanation to stand on, and the lack of good evidence on your side.
The idea that you can't prove a negative is horrendously overused. Please take the following proof that there is no God as an example of why you are wrong
You don't understand this... Go read about the burden of proof, you literally cannot prove a negative, it's a thing about science (not logic). Science cannot prove a negative.
Try to prove that something (choose something) doesn't exist. Try to argue the non-existence of ANYTHING that you know doesn't exist. You can't.
It's not me, nor is it a sloppy argument that was made to argue against God. It's essentially a principle of the scientific method.
On October 18 2013 00:37 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] I'm just saying, you debate his post by pointing a sword towards christians when he did the exact same thing. You're not actually saying he's dumb for arguing against discussion, you're saying he's a hypocrite because christians do the same thing, even though that was exactly his point.
I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
Please... I wasn't even wrong about what you meant you lazy bastard. I admitted that I could be wrong on the off chance that I was misreading you and it turns out I wasn't.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
That's what I always thought, that's what Tobberoth didn't understand, and Koreasilver told me to learn to read even though you and I have the same understanding of what he wrote, and he didn't contest that. He then tried to justify his faith through a sloppy explanation of why God escapes rationality.
So I was told to "learn to read" even though he knows I understand everything. He even accused me of a strawman logical fallacy despite the fact that I understood everything he said. Koreasilver is intellectually dishonest to the max.
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
You have to understand that in this case the "convenient supernatural mumbjo jumbo" is a fundamental objection to your principle that the person offering the hypothesis must necessarily provide the proof. Unless they claim to KNOW that there are unicorns in your backyard (belief =/= knowledge, which is another important distinction that you keep glossing over) then my objection (and probably corum and sam) is that it is no more reasonable to assume that the hypothesis is true or false in the absence of evidence or logical objections.
Think about it this way. You believe that God does not exist, do you therefore have to go through a similar burden of proof to justify your belief? And if so, why not? I personally find the idea that there is not a God to be extraordinary (or at least I can pretend to for the sake of argument) so do you now have to prove it?
I'm mostly interested in the second part of what you said. First you say that I "believe that God doesn't exist" and yes I would agree, but at the base of it, it was more correct to say that I "don't believe that God exists" because, in my youth, I had not heard of it.
The thing is, If I wanted to PROVE that God doesn't exist, I simply could not because proving a negative is impossible. As such, atheists deflect the burden of proof onto the people who say there's a God. Like I said, that's how it is everywhere. And I mean in every single other area of human knowledge or just interaction.
YOUR belief that there are no invisible unicorns in my backyard, and I trust that you believe that, doesn't require that you prove that there aren't. You know they aren't there, so you don't think I'm credible when I say there are.
That's the entire thing about burden of proof. You make an extraordinary POSITIVE claim, you need to provide evidence for it. That's how it works with everything. Except God. And just so we're clear about your counter-argument that you think my claim that there's no God is extraordinary, yes - I can't prove a negative though. All I've got is a complete and utter lack of evidence of the existence of a God.
We could go on an on about how you perhaps view life and the universe as evidence of a God, and I can't actually say with perfect certainty that you're wrong. See, perhaps we were created, and perhaps I'm wrong. I mean, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - and so it may be true that God perhaps is untestable or undetectable - but I see no compelling reason to believe that. In fact, severe flaws can be found in the various theologies.
So perhaps there's a God, but if there is, then why is the scripture of such and such religion so factually incorrect? Why does the Bible say everything was created some thousands of years ago according to some creationists, when we have mountains of evidence showing otherwise. Those things, in my mind, at least damage the credibility of some religions. And again that doesn't mean that there's no creator or there's no God, but man, you gotta admit that neither side have much to go off of. All you've got is stories and personal experiences and some grandiose interpretation of the complexity of stuff, and all I've got is an openly flawed but modest natural explanation to stand on, and the lack of good evidence on your side.
The idea that you can't prove a negative is horrendously overused. Please take the following proof that there is no God as an example of why you are wrong
You don't understand this... Go read about the burden of proof, you literally cannot prove a negative, it's a thing about science (not logic). Science cannot prove a negative.
Try to prove that something (choose something) doesn't exist. Try to argue the non-existence of ANYTHING that you know doesn't exist. You can't.
It's not me, nor is it a sloppy argument that was made to argue against God. It's essentially a principle of the scientific method.
Sorry I was making a jump that I figured everyone got. In the case that we are talking about empirical proof, you can still have good evidence that something does not exist. Sure, I can't prove that there are no caterpillars in my sock drawer, but if i check my sock drawer many times and find no caterpillars then I was accepting it as reasonable to reject the "caterpillar in my sock drawer" hypothesis.
God is different from the caterpillars because we can't check.
On October 18 2013 00:43 Djzapz wrote: [quote] I think you missed his point tbh, he specifically said the retreat to reason was pathetic. I didn't point a sword toward christians, he pointed a sword toward the people who rely on reason, and I said it's unfair, christians are guilty of the same thing, and that same thing is not 'pathetic' in the first place.
That said, I entirely reject the idea that his point was balanced. It wasn't. It was targeted.
Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
Please... I wasn't even wrong about what you meant you lazy bastard. I admitted that I could be wrong on the off chance that I was misreading you and it turns out I wasn't.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
That's what I always thought, that's what Tobberoth didn't understand, and Koreasilver told me to learn to read even though you and I have the same understanding of what he wrote, and he didn't contest that. He then tried to justify his faith through a sloppy explanation of why God escapes rationality.
So I was told to "learn to read" even though he knows I understand everything. He even accused me of a strawman logical fallacy despite the fact that I understood everything he said. Koreasilver is intellectually dishonest to the max.
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
You have to understand that in this case the "convenient supernatural mumbjo jumbo" is a fundamental objection to your principle that the person offering the hypothesis must necessarily provide the proof. Unless they claim to KNOW that there are unicorns in your backyard (belief =/= knowledge, which is another important distinction that you keep glossing over) then my objection (and probably corum and sam) is that it is no more reasonable to assume that the hypothesis is true or false in the absence of evidence or logical objections.
Think about it this way. You believe that God does not exist, do you therefore have to go through a similar burden of proof to justify your belief? And if so, why not? I personally find the idea that there is not a God to be extraordinary (or at least I can pretend to for the sake of argument) so do you now have to prove it?
I'm mostly interested in the second part of what you said. First you say that I "believe that God doesn't exist" and yes I would agree, but at the base of it, it was more correct to say that I "don't believe that God exists" because, in my youth, I had not heard of it.
The thing is, If I wanted to PROVE that God doesn't exist, I simply could not because proving a negative is impossible. As such, atheists deflect the burden of proof onto the people who say there's a God. Like I said, that's how it is everywhere. And I mean in every single other area of human knowledge or just interaction.
YOUR belief that there are no invisible unicorns in my backyard, and I trust that you believe that, doesn't require that you prove that there aren't. You know they aren't there, so you don't think I'm credible when I say there are.
That's the entire thing about burden of proof. You make an extraordinary POSITIVE claim, you need to provide evidence for it. That's how it works with everything. Except God. And just so we're clear about your counter-argument that you think my claim that there's no God is extraordinary, yes - I can't prove a negative though. All I've got is a complete and utter lack of evidence of the existence of a God.
We could go on an on about how you perhaps view life and the universe as evidence of a God, and I can't actually say with perfect certainty that you're wrong. See, perhaps we were created, and perhaps I'm wrong. I mean, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - and so it may be true that God perhaps is untestable or undetectable - but I see no compelling reason to believe that. In fact, severe flaws can be found in the various theologies.
So perhaps there's a God, but if there is, then why is the scripture of such and such religion so factually incorrect? Why does the Bible say everything was created some thousands of years ago according to some creationists, when we have mountains of evidence showing otherwise. Those things, in my mind, at least damage the credibility of some religions. And again that doesn't mean that there's no creator or there's no God, but man, you gotta admit that neither side have much to go off of. All you've got is stories and personal experiences and some grandiose interpretation of the complexity of stuff, and all I've got is an openly flawed but modest natural explanation to stand on, and the lack of good evidence on your side.
The idea that you can't prove a negative is horrendously overused. Please take the following proof that there is no God as an example of why you are wrong
You don't understand this... Go read about the burden of proof, you literally cannot prove a negative, it's a thing about science (not logic). Science cannot prove a negative.
Try to prove that something (choose something) doesn't exist. Try to argue the non-existence of ANYTHING that you know doesn't exist. You can't.
It's not me, nor is it a sloppy argument that was made to argue against God. It's essentially a principle of the scientific method.
Sorry I was making a jump that I figured everyone got. In the case that we are talking about empirical proof, you can still have good evidence that something does not exist. Sure, I can't prove that there are no caterpillars in my sock drawer, but if i check my sock drawer many times and find no caterpillars then I was accepting it as reasonable to reject the "caterpillar in my sock drawer" hypothesis.
God is different from the caterpillars because we can't check.
On October 18 2013 01:22 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] Wasn't that exactly what he said? That Christians do it? Safeguard faith by retreating?
Maybe I'm wrong.
learn2read
I don't even know how my post could have been more explicit. Your past couple of posts "replying" to me is like the definition of putting up a scarecrow and valiantly beating it up.
Please... I wasn't even wrong about what you meant you lazy bastard. I admitted that I could be wrong on the off chance that I was misreading you and it turns out I wasn't.
I am pretty sure that's he's saying arguing the existence or rationality of a God is pathetic - especially natural apologetics. That being said I would say his comment is indirectly a barb at those arguing against the existence of God using rational skepticism. Koreasilver is clearly religious, and if I have understood his posts correctly, he thinks natural apologetics are pathetic, so either he has some other justification for his belief in God that he thinks supercedes rationality or he doesn't think explanations are necessary.
Am I right?
That's what I always thought, that's what Tobberoth didn't understand, and Koreasilver told me to learn to read even though you and I have the same understanding of what he wrote, and he didn't contest that. He then tried to justify his faith through a sloppy explanation of why God escapes rationality.
So I was told to "learn to read" even though he knows I understand everything. He even accused me of a strawman logical fallacy despite the fact that I understood everything he said. Koreasilver is intellectually dishonest to the max.
On October 18 2013 08:26 corumjhaelen wrote: He's saying that comparing a flying teapot to the idea of God isn't very useful. Edit : or that you can't "God doesn't exists" is a false statement, because it can have as many meanings as you want.
I find it interesting. I'll take it from the bottom. Atheists often say that the burden of proof is on the theist who must prove that God, or a God exists, as we, as atheists, cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative.
In every area of life, this is fair and valid. The person who hypothesizes something that seems extraordinary must prove this this. If I say that there are unicorns in my invisible backyard, it is not up to you to come in my backyard and run a bunch of tests to see if there are unicorns. I could then tell you, "you're running the wrong tests to detect unicorns in my backyard!".
But somehow theists have maneuvered around that, and now they're saying, we don't need to prove anything (for touchy feely reasons). They set the standards of evidence extremely, extremely low for the things they believe, and they make up bullshit reasons for this like "God is untestable" and other very convenient supernatural mumbo jumbo. These low standards don't apply to anything else, especially not things they don't believe in.
They have themselves convinced that those super-low standards of evidence are good because they're good enough for them, but none of them are internally consistent, thus the notion of "faith", which essentially means "fuck it, I'll believe anyway".
You have to understand that in this case the "convenient supernatural mumbjo jumbo" is a fundamental objection to your principle that the person offering the hypothesis must necessarily provide the proof. Unless they claim to KNOW that there are unicorns in your backyard (belief =/= knowledge, which is another important distinction that you keep glossing over) then my objection (and probably corum and sam) is that it is no more reasonable to assume that the hypothesis is true or false in the absence of evidence or logical objections.
Think about it this way. You believe that God does not exist, do you therefore have to go through a similar burden of proof to justify your belief? And if so, why not? I personally find the idea that there is not a God to be extraordinary (or at least I can pretend to for the sake of argument) so do you now have to prove it?
I'm mostly interested in the second part of what you said. First you say that I "believe that God doesn't exist" and yes I would agree, but at the base of it, it was more correct to say that I "don't believe that God exists" because, in my youth, I had not heard of it.
The thing is, If I wanted to PROVE that God doesn't exist, I simply could not because proving a negative is impossible. As such, atheists deflect the burden of proof onto the people who say there's a God. Like I said, that's how it is everywhere. And I mean in every single other area of human knowledge or just interaction.
YOUR belief that there are no invisible unicorns in my backyard, and I trust that you believe that, doesn't require that you prove that there aren't. You know they aren't there, so you don't think I'm credible when I say there are.
That's the entire thing about burden of proof. You make an extraordinary POSITIVE claim, you need to provide evidence for it. That's how it works with everything. Except God. And just so we're clear about your counter-argument that you think my claim that there's no God is extraordinary, yes - I can't prove a negative though. All I've got is a complete and utter lack of evidence of the existence of a God.
We could go on an on about how you perhaps view life and the universe as evidence of a God, and I can't actually say with perfect certainty that you're wrong. See, perhaps we were created, and perhaps I'm wrong. I mean, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - and so it may be true that God perhaps is untestable or undetectable - but I see no compelling reason to believe that. In fact, severe flaws can be found in the various theologies.
So perhaps there's a God, but if there is, then why is the scripture of such and such religion so factually incorrect? Why does the Bible say everything was created some thousands of years ago according to some creationists, when we have mountains of evidence showing otherwise. Those things, in my mind, at least damage the credibility of some religions. And again that doesn't mean that there's no creator or there's no God, but man, you gotta admit that neither side have much to go off of. All you've got is stories and personal experiences and some grandiose interpretation of the complexity of stuff, and all I've got is an openly flawed but modest natural explanation to stand on, and the lack of good evidence on your side.
The idea that you can't prove a negative is horrendously overused. Please take the following proof that there is no God as an example of why you are wrong
You don't understand this... Go read about the burden of proof, you literally cannot prove a negative, it's a thing about science (not logic). Science cannot prove a negative.
Try to prove that something (choose something) doesn't exist. Try to argue the non-existence of ANYTHING that you know doesn't exist. You can't.
It's not me, nor is it a sloppy argument that was made to argue against God. It's essentially a principle of the scientific method.
Sorry I was making a jump that I figured everyone got. In the case that we are talking about empirical proof, you can still have good evidence that something does not exist. Sure, I can't prove that there are no caterpillars in my sock drawer, but if i check my sock drawer many times and find no caterpillars then I was accepting it as reasonable to reject the "caterpillar in my sock drawer" hypothesis.
God is different from the caterpillars because we can't check.
Well I gots nothing :p
Basically, you need to go back through all of my points and replace "proof" with "reasonable evidence" in the case that I'm talking about empiric proof.
My argument is that there is no reason to privilege the hypothesis that God doesn't exist over the hypothesis that God exists because there is no logical proof or "reasonable evidence" that would point me toward either of them.
On October 18 2013 09:02 Djzapz wrote: Well first, "atheism" doesn't "do" anything, atheists do.
atheism does a great deal. it makes people behave in certain ways in which they would not behave were they not. all ideas "do" something.
And atheists, like myself, don't believe in any theologies because of a lack of evidence.
you believe that "god does not exist." that is a theology.
You yourself reject all theologies besides one.
how did you possibly come to this conclusion. i don't have any allegiance to any particular religion. nor do i know anything about god
it's not necessarily unfair to assume that the claims are not true
i'm not defending any claims i'm defending the question
You are contradicting yourself sam:
On September 27 2013 02:53 sam!zdat wrote: god is love
edit: and god really IS love, no matter what dr. Hoenikker says
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes"
fuck you, beat me to it
dj the point is you are just a reactionary who has let a bunch of idiot fundies turn him off of some very interesting culture documents which are worth taking seriously
i was an atheist from the time i was old enough to understand what religion was. then i got an education and realized things aren't that simple
edit: also let's note that you proselytize with the vigor of anybody. you are in every religion thread repeating new atheist talking points. you obviously care very much about it. it's your religion. don't feel bad, we all have one
I know one thing for certain, every organized religion + their stories are false, because they claim to have the answer to which no one does. Could there be a god(no I don't mean some white muscular dude with a glorious beard)? possibly. To me religion and atheism are the same. Why have such a bold stance when we know nothing?
edit:
According to wiki : Agnosticism: claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown
atheism: rejection in the belief of deities.
so what is the position that, jesus is false, the flying spaghetti monster is false but the idea of god itself cannot be rejected so I will just leave that as a question mark.
On October 18 2013 11:06 biology]major wrote: I know one thing for certain, every organized religion + their stories are false, because they claim to have the answer to which no one does. Could there be a god(no I don't mean some white muscular dude with a glorious beard)? possibly. To me religion and atheism are the same. Why have such a bold stance when we know nothing?
you've got some serious circular logic going on there. "We know nothing because the people who say they know something are wrong because we know nothing".
Edit for your edit: Why is the FSM demonstrably false? You seem pretty sure of that one, but what reason can you present for rejecting him?
On October 18 2013 11:06 biology]major wrote: I know one thing for certain, every organized religion + their stories are false, because they claim to have the answer to which no one does. Could there be a god(no I don't mean some white muscular dude with a glorious beard)? possibly. To me religion and atheism are the same. Why have such a bold stance when we know nothing?
you've got some serious circular logic going on there. "We know nothing because the people who say they know something are wrong because we know nothing".
Edit for your edit: Why is the FSM demonstrably false? You seem pretty sure of that one, but what reason can you present for rejecting him?
we actually don't know how the world works, and thus making concrete claims about how the world works would have a high chance of being wrong by default. The only reason a specific explanation would be right is due pure luck out of the infinite number of gods/possibilities/explanations
this is my position, and its prolly flawed in many ways but its wat i bereev >_<
On October 18 2013 09:02 Djzapz wrote: Well first, "atheism" doesn't "do" anything, atheists do.
atheism does a great deal. it makes people behave in certain ways in which they would not behave were they not. all ideas "do" something.
And atheists, like myself, don't believe in any theologies because of a lack of evidence.
you believe that "god does not exist." that is a theology.
You yourself reject all theologies besides one.
how did you possibly come to this conclusion. i don't have any allegiance to any particular religion. nor do i know anything about god
it's not necessarily unfair to assume that the claims are not true
i'm not defending any claims i'm defending the question
You are contradicting yourself sam:
On September 27 2013 02:53 sam!zdat wrote: god is love
edit: and god really IS love, no matter what dr. Hoenikker says
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes"
fuck you, beat me to it
dj the point is you are just a reactionary who has let a bunch of idiot fundies turn him off of some very interesting culture documents which are worth taking seriously
i was an atheist from the time i was old enough to understand what religion was. then i got an education and realized things aren't that simple
edit: also let's note that you proselytize with the vigor of anybody. you are in every religion thread repeating new atheist talking points. you obviously care very much about it. it's your religion. don't feel bad, we all have one
"Just a reactionary" "new atheist talking points"... At this point you're just condescending and patronizing, tbh. I guess it's understandable, you feel like my position is unreasonable so you're just attacking me and treating me like I'm an idiot.
And FYI I'm not trying to convince anybody, nor am I particularly interested about this discussion. I'm up for arguments regarding any of my beliefs though, as I'm sure you're aware. This has just turned up in multiple threads on the forums lately and I hopped in. But no, I've given up on trying to convince people for 6-7 years ago.
I suspect the shift in your posting's tone comes from something that I said that insulted you, so whatever it was, sorry. I don't mean to be insulting.
I admit that I have made some mistakes, I have made hasty conclusions and unfair assumptions in this thread, but most of my points deal with real concerns that exist. I remain unconvinced by the arguments made by theists, and I don't believe that that makes me unreasonable. And perhaps some of my arguments deal with the bullshit brought up by fundies but my main point really is just that I don't understand why people are so convinced that it's all true... it seems unreasonable to me. I think it's weird that I'm being attacked for being skeptical of the attempts to explain why reason shouldn't be used here...
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
Actually its pretty easy to do for many things. Consider the case of the square circle, its impossible to have so it doesn't exist. As for empirics, if I were to tell you that there are purple caterpillars in my sock drawer, it would be easy to collect good evidence that they don't exist.
However for God there seem to be no good logical objections (although I'm surprised nobody has brought up the problem of pain), and there seems to be no way for us to gather evidence. So yes, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that's my argument
edit: also its really easy to prove that people in asylums can't fly. If they jump of a roof and they fall and kill themselves then they were wrong. We may be hesitant to test their hypothesis, but that doesn't mean its not testable.
You are so silly.
Where this evidence that a square circle doesn't exist? Yes, to your limited knowledge it doesn't exist, impossible to exist even. But what if square circle is simply beyond your understanding? It's there, but you just don't know where to look?
Same for the purple cartepillars. Are you looking at the right places? What if these caterpillars can't be easily perceived by human due to their limited perception (much like how our ear only detect certain frequencies of sound). What if they manifest only when you aren't observing?
That, and you are being very specific with this purple caterpillar, whereas with you are being generous with the heavenly dude, saying that he's only "out there".
I can go on all day, but your "God" argument is very similar to a square circle, to be honest.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
Actually its pretty easy to do for many things. Consider the case of the square circle, its impossible to have so it doesn't exist. As for empirics, if I were to tell you that there are purple caterpillars in my sock drawer, it would be easy to collect good evidence that they don't exist.
However for God there seem to be no good logical objections (although I'm surprised nobody has brought up the problem of pain), and there seems to be no way for us to gather evidence. So yes, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that's my argument
edit: also its really easy to prove that people in asylums can't fly. If they jump of a roof and they fall and kill themselves then they were wrong. We may be hesitant to test their hypothesis, but that doesn't mean its not testable.
You are so silly.
Where this evidence that a square circle doesn't exist? Yes, to your limited knowledge it doesn't exist, impossible to exist even. But what if square circle is simply beyond your understanding? It's there, but you just don't know where to look?
Same for the purple cartepillars. Are you looking at the right places? What if these caterpillars can't be easily perceived by human due to their limited perception (much like how our ear only detect certain frequencies of sound). What if they manifest only when you aren't observing?
That, and you are being very specific with this purple caterpillar, whereas with you are being generous with the heavenly dude, saying that he's only "out there".
I can go on all day, but your "God" argument is very similar to a square circle, to be honest.
If you have a logical proof that my conception of God cannot exist I would love to hear it. I really enjoy discussing philosophical proofs and so far nobody has offered any.
As for the square circle, of course this requires us to accept some basic tenets of math and logic as axiomatic. If you want to deny those then go ahead, but the world stops making sense fast.
As for purple caterpillars, if you specify that they are undetectable then yeah, they fall into the same category as god. They are equally likely and equally difficult to reject as a hypothesis.
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote: So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
So I'm going to assume for here on out that we have accepted the argument that, for any given object, if that object is not logically contradictory and that object cannot be detected by us, then we should not necessarily assume that that object doesn't exist.
In the case of God interacting with the material world, all that means is that the interaction has to be very hard to detect. I call this the Minimalist God, and I tried to outline it earlier. Mostly this god would interact with us through prayer because we are really unable to look inside somebodies brain and tell exactly what thing is causing a particular interaction.
Another way that this could work is if you accept determinism, and then accept that god created the world knowing what the initial conditions would lead to. This allows "God's Plan" without God ever having to reach in and tinker with our world.
Basically, there are plenty of conceptions of a God that still has an impact on the world, without having to have observable material interactions.
Take a step back and realise that "proving xxx doesn't exist" is simply an impossible ordeal.
Actually its pretty easy to do for many things. Consider the case of the square circle, its impossible to have so it doesn't exist. As for empirics, if I were to tell you that there are purple caterpillars in my sock drawer, it would be easy to collect good evidence that they don't exist.
However for God there seem to be no good logical objections (although I'm surprised nobody has brought up the problem of pain), and there seems to be no way for us to gather evidence. So yes, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that's my argument
edit: also its really easy to prove that people in asylums can't fly. If they jump of a roof and they fall and kill themselves then they were wrong. We may be hesitant to test their hypothesis, but that doesn't mean its not testable.
You are so silly.
Where this evidence that a square circle doesn't exist? Yes, to your limited knowledge it doesn't exist, impossible to exist even. But what if square circle is simply beyond your understanding? It's there, but you just don't know where to look?
Same for the purple cartepillars. Are you looking at the right places? What if these caterpillars can't be easily perceived by human due to their limited perception (much like how our ear only detect certain frequencies of sound). What if they manifest only when you aren't observing?
That, and you are being very specific with this purple caterpillar, whereas with you are being generous with the heavenly dude, saying that he's only "out there".
I can go on all day, but your "God" argument is very similar to a square circle, to be honest.
No. Not really. You seem to like mixing a lot of non-analogous things.
I'm going to have to strenuously disagree that Derrida was doing negative theology. Regardless of all my disagreements with Marion, at least Marion understood this and went at lengths to defend negative theology against Derrida. I think all the theologians that have tried to appropriate Derrida to set up their supposedly-nonmetaphysical-but-still-negative-anyway theologies just misread Derrida horribly. I'm gonna have to be a stickler about this because I really think this is where people go haywire over Derrida. Hagglund does a great deal in elucidating this in his Radical Atheism book.
On October 18 2013 12:19 packrat386 wrote: If you have a logical proof that my conception of God cannot exist I would love to hear it. I really enjoy discussing philosophical proofs and so far nobody has offered any.
As for the square circle, of course this requires us to accept some basic tenets of math and logic as axiomatic. If you want to deny those then go ahead, but the world stops making sense fast.
As for purple caterpillars, if you specify that they are undetectable then yeah, they fall into the same category as god. They are equally likely and equally difficult to reject as a hypothesis.
Well at least we can agree that your god is indistinguishable from an undetectable purple caterpillar.
It is NOT PATHETIC for religious people to retreat to reason. If nothing else, it is a healthy exercise. It is not pathetic to have broader horizons.
So... creationist evolution, a.k.a. intelligent design is a healthy exercise? So is all the slippery sloppy "oh well you can't prove God doesn't exist...?" What? Are you still misreading what I was saying in that small post? I was simply saying that people that try to safeguard their faith by abusing the limits of knowledge and reason is misguided. Nothing against reason itself, just its application in some particular frameworks. God have mercy.
So unless you were still misunderstanding me, I'm more radically atheist than you at the end of it. I'm going to bed before I suffer an aneurysm. At this rate when I wake up tomorrow samzdat will become an apologist for neoliberal capitalism and I'll start worshiping Platinga and Milbank.
edit: And never did I say my problem was a retreat into reason itself, I was having a problem with people retreating to the limits of reason by proposing things like a God-of-the-gaps kind of thing. Which I state explicitly in that post.
It is NOT PATHETIC for religious people to retreat to reason. If nothing else, it is a healthy exercise. It is not pathetic to have broader horizons.
So... creationist evolution, a.k.a. intelligent design is a healthy exercise? So is all the slippery sloppy "oh well you can't prove God doesn't exist...?" What? Are you still misreading what I was saying in that small post? I was simply saying that people that try to safeguard their faith by abusing the limits of knowledge and reason is misguided. Nothing against reason itself, just its application in some particular frameworks. God have mercy.
So unless you were still misunderstanding me, I'm more radically atheist than you at the end of it. I'm going to bed before I suffer an aneurysm. At this rate when I wake up tomorrow samzdat will become an apologist for neoliberal capitalism and I'll start worshiping Platinga and Milbank.
On October 18 2013 12:19 packrat386 wrote: If you have a logical proof that my conception of God cannot exist I would love to hear it. I really enjoy discussing philosophical proofs and so far nobody has offered any.
As for the square circle, of course this requires us to accept some basic tenets of math and logic as axiomatic. If you want to deny those then go ahead, but the world stops making sense fast.
As for purple caterpillars, if you specify that they are undetectable then yeah, they fall into the same category as god. They are equally likely and equally difficult to reject as a hypothesis.
Well at least we can agree that your god is indistinguishable from an undetectable purple caterpillar.
On October 18 2013 12:19 packrat386 wrote: If you have a logical proof that my conception of God cannot exist I would love to hear it. I really enjoy discussing philosophical proofs and so far nobody has offered any.
As for the square circle, of course this requires us to accept some basic tenets of math and logic as axiomatic. If you want to deny those then go ahead, but the world stops making sense fast.
As for purple caterpillars, if you specify that they are undetectable then yeah, they fall into the same category as god. They are equally likely and equally difficult to reject as a hypothesis.
No one is debating whether or not your conception of God CAN exist. People are trying to make you understand that it's more logical to assume that something DOESN'T exist than assume that something exists when you can't know either way. Everyone agrees with this, even you, which is why we talked about the teapot example for 30 pages.
Let's say a christian is of your belief. There is no evidence or reason to believe in God, yet they believe in him because they haven't seen PROOF that he doesn't exist. That means they also have to believe in invisible teapots in space, because they haven't seen proof that they don't exist. They also have to believe I've met aliens, because they haven't seen proof that I haven't. They also have to believe that the internet is actually made out of milk, because they haven't seen proof that this is not the case.
See? The world stops making sense VERY fast when you go from claimant needs proof to non-claimant needs proof. The purple caterpillars and god are not hard to reject as hypotheses, because they are AUTOMATICALLY rejected when there's no way to test them.
On October 18 2013 13:55 koreasilver wrote: I'm going to have to strenuously disagree that Derrida was doing negative theology. Regardless of all my disagreements with Marion, at least Marion understood this and went at lengths to defend negative theology against Derrida. I think all the theologians that have tried to appropriate Derrida to set up their supposedly-nonmetaphysical-but-still-negative-anyway theologies just misread Derrida horribly. I'm gonna have to be a stickler about this because I really think this is where people go haywire over Derrida. Hagglund does a great deal in elucidating this in his Radical Atheism book.
let me clarify. I think he is a BAD negative theologian
On October 18 2013 12:19 packrat386 wrote: If you have a logical proof that my conception of God cannot exist I would love to hear it. I really enjoy discussing philosophical proofs and so far nobody has offered any.
As for the square circle, of course this requires us to accept some basic tenets of math and logic as axiomatic. If you want to deny those then go ahead, but the world stops making sense fast.
As for purple caterpillars, if you specify that they are undetectable then yeah, they fall into the same category as god. They are equally likely and equally difficult to reject as a hypothesis.
No one is debating whether or not your conception of God CAN exist. People are trying to make you understand that it's more logical to assume that something DOESN'T exist than assume that something exists when you can't know either way. Everyone agrees with this, even you, which is why we talked about the teapot example for 30 pages.
You keep saying this as if everyone agrees to it. I have laid out my objection to this idea several times. There is no reason to believe that the negative hypothesis is true simply because it describes less things.
Let's say a christian is of your belief. There is no evidence or reason to believe in God, yet they believe in him because they haven't seen PROOF that he doesn't exist. That means they also have to believe in invisible teapots in space, because they haven't seen proof that they don't exist. They also have to believe I've met aliens, because they haven't seen proof that I haven't. They also have to believe that the internet is actually made out of milk, because they haven't seen proof that this is not the case.
See? The world stops making sense VERY fast when you go from claimant needs proof to non-claimant needs proof. The purple caterpillars and god are not hard to reject as hypotheses, because they are AUTOMATICALLY rejected when there's no way to test them.
Also your examples are mostly silly. Its relatively easy to test whether you have met aliens or whether the internet is made of milk. My argument only applies to those things that cannot be tested by definition and are not illogical. Lastly, I'm not arguing that you should believe the positive hypothesis either, but merely that they are equally valid as beliefs.
On October 18 2013 12:19 packrat386 wrote: If you have a logical proof that my conception of God cannot exist I would love to hear it. I really enjoy discussing philosophical proofs and so far nobody has offered any.
As for the square circle, of course this requires us to accept some basic tenets of math and logic as axiomatic. If you want to deny those then go ahead, but the world stops making sense fast.
As for purple caterpillars, if you specify that they are undetectable then yeah, they fall into the same category as god. They are equally likely and equally difficult to reject as a hypothesis.
No one is debating whether or not your conception of God CAN exist. People are trying to make you understand that it's more logical to assume that something DOESN'T exist than assume that something exists when you can't know either way. Everyone agrees with this, even you, which is why we talked about the teapot example for 30 pages.
You keep saying this as if everyone agrees to it. I have laid out my objection to this idea several times. There is no reason to believe that the negative hypothesis is true simply because it describes less things.
Let's say a christian is of your belief. There is no evidence or reason to believe in God, yet they believe in him because they haven't seen PROOF that he doesn't exist. That means they also have to believe in invisible teapots in space, because they haven't seen proof that they don't exist. They also have to believe I've met aliens, because they haven't seen proof that I haven't. They also have to believe that the internet is actually made out of milk, because they haven't seen proof that this is not the case.
See? The world stops making sense VERY fast when you go from claimant needs proof to non-claimant needs proof. The purple caterpillars and god are not hard to reject as hypotheses, because they are AUTOMATICALLY rejected when there's no way to test them.
Also your examples are mostly silly. Its relatively easy to test whether you have met aliens or whether the internet is made of milk. My argument only applies to those things that cannot be tested by definition and are not illogical. Lastly, I'm not arguing that you should believe the positive hypothesis either, but merely that they are equally valid as beliefs.
They are not equally valid as beliefs. One way leads to progress, the other leads to ignorance. Open-minded ignorance? Maybe, but also pure stupidity.
My examples aren't silly. Of course you can test these things, that's because they are REAL THINGS and not made up with the specific intention of it being untestable so you can fool the masses, like the concept of God. That makes it even worse as a hypothesis, not better. When an hypothesis is untestable, it's completely useless and therefor discarded.
On October 18 2013 12:19 packrat386 wrote: If you have a logical proof that my conception of God cannot exist I would love to hear it. I really enjoy discussing philosophical proofs and so far nobody has offered any.
As for the square circle, of course this requires us to accept some basic tenets of math and logic as axiomatic. If you want to deny those then go ahead, but the world stops making sense fast.
As for purple caterpillars, if you specify that they are undetectable then yeah, they fall into the same category as god. They are equally likely and equally difficult to reject as a hypothesis.
No one is debating whether or not your conception of God CAN exist. People are trying to make you understand that it's more logical to assume that something DOESN'T exist than assume that something exists when you can't know either way. Everyone agrees with this, even you, which is why we talked about the teapot example for 30 pages.
You keep saying this as if everyone agrees to it. I have laid out my objection to this idea several times. There is no reason to believe that the negative hypothesis is true simply because it describes less things.
Let's say a christian is of your belief. There is no evidence or reason to believe in God, yet they believe in him because they haven't seen PROOF that he doesn't exist. That means they also have to believe in invisible teapots in space, because they haven't seen proof that they don't exist. They also have to believe I've met aliens, because they haven't seen proof that I haven't. They also have to believe that the internet is actually made out of milk, because they haven't seen proof that this is not the case.
See? The world stops making sense VERY fast when you go from claimant needs proof to non-claimant needs proof. The purple caterpillars and god are not hard to reject as hypotheses, because they are AUTOMATICALLY rejected when there's no way to test them.
Also your examples are mostly silly. Its relatively easy to test whether you have met aliens or whether the internet is made of milk. My argument only applies to those things that cannot be tested by definition and are not illogical. Lastly, I'm not arguing that you should believe the positive hypothesis either, but merely that they are equally valid as beliefs.
They are not equally valid as beliefs. One way leads to progress, the other leads to ignorance. Open-minded ignorance? Maybe, but also pure stupidity.
My examples aren't silly. Of course you can test these things, that's because they are REAL THINGS and not made up with the specific intention of it being untestable so you can fool the masses, like the concept of God. That makes it even worse as a hypothesis, not better. When an hypothesis is untestable, it's completely useless and therefor discarded.
Arguments about why religion is bad don't have much of a bearing here. We're discussing just the existence of god, not the goodness of the church.
Also, the fact that your examples are testable means that they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand. Russels teapot relies on presenting something that the audience will think is ridiculous ("If you believe in God you might as well believe that the Internet is made of milk!"), however one of these things can be rejected after a pretty cursory test, the other is much harder.
Basically, I'm calling into question the principle that we should always err on the side of negative hypotheses in the absence of proof or evidence. In the case that there is proof or evidence, you should clearly favor the hypothesis that it supports.
On October 18 2013 16:56 packrat386 wrote: Arguments about why religion is bad don't have much of a bearing here. We're discussing just the existence of god, not the goodness of the church.
Also, the fact that your examples are testable means that they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand. Russels teapot relies on presenting something that the audience will think is ridiculous ("If you believe in God you might as well believe that the Internet is made of milk!"), however one of these things can be rejected after a pretty cursory test, the other is much harder.
Basically, I'm calling into question the principle that we should always err on the side of negative hypotheses in the absence of proof or evidence. In the case that there is proof or evidence, you should clearly favor the hypothesis that it supports.
The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes. It's really that simple. If there's no way to test something, there's also no reason to believe in it or worry about it. It's simply useless unproductive thoughts about something which doesn't matter. Something that can't be tested can't affect you, so why even bother?
The teapot example is so awesome because the very fact that in your example of the teapot example we can actually detect the teapots and thus more easily disprove it, makes the teapot a far more accepted hypothesis than God existing. Since god existing can't be tested, we can immediately discard the hypothesis as useless, while we can actually study whether or not the teapots are there and learn something from it. Progress ftw.
On October 18 2013 16:56 packrat386 wrote: Arguments about why religion is bad don't have much of a bearing here. We're discussing just the existence of god, not the goodness of the church.
Also, the fact that your examples are testable means that they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand. Russels teapot relies on presenting something that the audience will think is ridiculous ("If you believe in God you might as well believe that the Internet is made of milk!"), however one of these things can be rejected after a pretty cursory test, the other is much harder.
Basically, I'm calling into question the principle that we should always err on the side of negative hypotheses in the absence of proof or evidence. In the case that there is proof or evidence, you should clearly favor the hypothesis that it supports.
The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes. It's really that simple. If there's no way to test something, there's also no reason to believe in it or worry about it. It's simply useless unproductive thoughts about something which doesn't matter. Something that can't be tested can't affect you, so why even bother?
Lol, you take the part that I object to and just proclaim it as axiomatic truth. Thats a convenient way of arguing. Lets say I apply your theory to itself hmm?
I'm going to re-write your statement a bit. Take premise A to be "The absence of evidence for any given hypothesis is evidence to reject that hypothesis". Now let me consider A as my hypothesis. There is an absence of evidence for hypothesis A, therefore I ought to reject it. Contradiction? We must reject our original premise A.
If you want to give me some reason why I should believe that "The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes" then you're going to need to work for it.
On October 18 2013 16:56 packrat386 wrote: Arguments about why religion is bad don't have much of a bearing here. We're discussing just the existence of god, not the goodness of the church.
Also, the fact that your examples are testable means that they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand. Russels teapot relies on presenting something that the audience will think is ridiculous ("If you believe in God you might as well believe that the Internet is made of milk!"), however one of these things can be rejected after a pretty cursory test, the other is much harder.
Basically, I'm calling into question the principle that we should always err on the side of negative hypotheses in the absence of proof or evidence. In the case that there is proof or evidence, you should clearly favor the hypothesis that it supports.
The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes. It's really that simple. If there's no way to test something, there's also no reason to believe in it or worry about it. It's simply useless unproductive thoughts about something which doesn't matter. Something that can't be tested can't affect you, so why even bother?
Lol, you take the part that I object to and just proclaim it as axiomatic truth. Thats a convenient way of arguing. Lets say I apply your theory to itself hmm?
I'm going to re-write your statement a bit. Take premise A to be "The absence of evidence for any given hypothesis is evidence to reject that hypothesis". Now let me consider A as my hypothesis. There is an absence of evidence for hypothesis A, therefore I ought to reject it. Contradiction? We must reject our original premise A.
If you want to give me some reason why I should believe that "The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes" then you're going to need to work for it.
Um. Did you read my post? It clearly stated after that phrase why this is so: If something is not testable, it can't affect us. THIS is the premise. It follows that if you have no evidence for something, and can't procure said evidence, the hypothesis is useless, because even if it were to be true, we can't even know that, it brings us nowhere.
I'm going to simplify this for you: Please let me know why it makes more sense to believe in the existance of something which is untestable and has no evidence or basis supporting it, than to not believe in it. Don't worry, way ahead of you, I know you're going to answer "I'm not saying it makes more sense, I'm saying it makes equal sense". However, I can give several arguments (I already have in this topic, over and over) why it makes more sense to not believe it. It leads to progress, it's more practical, it leads to knowledge which has actual impact. If I can say why it's better to go with non-belief will you can't argue for belief, I believe that makes your argument quite weak indeed.
On October 18 2013 16:56 packrat386 wrote: Arguments about why religion is bad don't have much of a bearing here. We're discussing just the existence of god, not the goodness of the church.
Also, the fact that your examples are testable means that they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand. Russels teapot relies on presenting something that the audience will think is ridiculous ("If you believe in God you might as well believe that the Internet is made of milk!"), however one of these things can be rejected after a pretty cursory test, the other is much harder.
Basically, I'm calling into question the principle that we should always err on the side of negative hypotheses in the absence of proof or evidence. In the case that there is proof or evidence, you should clearly favor the hypothesis that it supports.
The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes. It's really that simple. If there's no way to test something, there's also no reason to believe in it or worry about it. It's simply useless unproductive thoughts about something which doesn't matter. Something that can't be tested can't affect you, so why even bother?
Lol, you take the part that I object to and just proclaim it as axiomatic truth. Thats a convenient way of arguing. Lets say I apply your theory to itself hmm?
I'm going to re-write your statement a bit. Take premise A to be "The absence of evidence for any given hypothesis is evidence to reject that hypothesis". Now let me consider A as my hypothesis. There is an absence of evidence for hypothesis A, therefore I ought to reject it. Contradiction? We must reject our original premise A.
If you want to give me some reason why I should believe that "The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes" then you're going to need to work for it.
Um. Did you read my post? It clearly stated after that phrase why this is so: If something is not testable, it can't affect us. THIS is the premise. It follows that if you have no evidence for something, and can't procure said evidence, the hypothesis is useless, because even if it were to be true, we can't even know that, it brings us nowhere.
I'm going to simplify this for you: Please let me know why it makes more sense to believe in the existance of something which is untestable and has no evidence or basis supporting it, than to not believe in it. Don't worry, way ahead of you, I know you're going to answer "I'm not saying it makes more sense, I'm saying it makes equal sense". However, I can give several arguments (I already have in this topic, over and over) why it makes more sense to not believe it. It leads to progress, it's more practical, it leads to knowledge which has actual impact. If I can say why it's better to go with non-belief will you can't argue for belief, I believe that makes your argument quite weak indeed.
Things that are not testable can still effect you. Convenient example is the existence of God (what a motherfucking surprise). If God exists, whether or not he directly fiddles with the universe, most people would act differently than if he didn't exist because of things like final judgement.
Arguing that a particular truth is impractical doesn't really get you anywhere. Perhaps it is less practical to believe in God (although I see no reason why it should be, and neither do the large contingent of religious scientists and engineers in the modern world), but that's like saying I should ignore the Heisenberg uncertainty principle because its frustrating.
Also, I can argue equally, that belief in God tends to make people happy, and that the leap of faith that you take in being religious is valuable in and of itself.
On October 18 2013 16:56 packrat386 wrote: Arguments about why religion is bad don't have much of a bearing here. We're discussing just the existence of god, not the goodness of the church.
Also, the fact that your examples are testable means that they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand. Russels teapot relies on presenting something that the audience will think is ridiculous ("If you believe in God you might as well believe that the Internet is made of milk!"), however one of these things can be rejected after a pretty cursory test, the other is much harder.
Basically, I'm calling into question the principle that we should always err on the side of negative hypotheses in the absence of proof or evidence. In the case that there is proof or evidence, you should clearly favor the hypothesis that it supports.
The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes. It's really that simple. If there's no way to test something, there's also no reason to believe in it or worry about it. It's simply useless unproductive thoughts about something which doesn't matter. Something that can't be tested can't affect you, so why even bother?
Lol, you take the part that I object to and just proclaim it as axiomatic truth. Thats a convenient way of arguing. Lets say I apply your theory to itself hmm?
I'm going to re-write your statement a bit. Take premise A to be "The absence of evidence for any given hypothesis is evidence to reject that hypothesis". Now let me consider A as my hypothesis. There is an absence of evidence for hypothesis A, therefore I ought to reject it. Contradiction? We must reject our original premise A.
If you want to give me some reason why I should believe that "The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes" then you're going to need to work for it.
Um. Did you read my post? It clearly stated after that phrase why this is so: If something is not testable, it can't affect us. THIS is the premise. It follows that if you have no evidence for something, and can't procure said evidence, the hypothesis is useless, because even if it were to be true, we can't even know that, it brings us nowhere.
I'm going to simplify this for you: Please let me know why it makes more sense to believe in the existance of something which is untestable and has no evidence or basis supporting it, than to not believe in it. Don't worry, way ahead of you, I know you're going to answer "I'm not saying it makes more sense, I'm saying it makes equal sense". However, I can give several arguments (I already have in this topic, over and over) why it makes more sense to not believe it. It leads to progress, it's more practical, it leads to knowledge which has actual impact. If I can say why it's better to go with non-belief will you can't argue for belief, I believe that makes your argument quite weak indeed.
Things that are not testable can still effect you. Convenient example is the existence of God (what a motherfucking surprise). If God exists, whether or not he directly fiddles with the universe, most people would act differently than if he didn't exist because of things like final judgement.
Arguing that a particular truth is impractical doesn't really get you anywhere. Perhaps it is less practical to believe in God (although I see no reason why it should be, and neither do the large contingent of religious scientists and engineers in the modern world), but that's like saying I should ignore the Heisenberg uncertainty principle because its frustrating.
Also, I can argue equally, that belief in God tends to make people happy, and that the leap of faith that you take in being religious is valuable in and of itself.
Now you're talking specifics. You're not saying anymore that we should believe in things which are untestable and has no basis, you're saying we should believe in God. You're saying religion can make people happy. The idea that the claimaint needs proof is a general idea, the teapot argument is general. You're taking an idea which is just as useless, but since it has been fashioned to have an effect, you're forced to view it differently.
"There's invisible teapots in space." "Who cares." "If you don't believe they exist, you'll go to teapot hell when you die where they torture you with teapot lasers." "Oh shit, suddenly I have a reason to believe in it."
The general idea that you need proof to make claims is just as true for the concept of God, even if there's added bullshit behind the baseless initial concept. If you don't believe in the initial concept, the extra stuff is meaningless, and the teapot argument and all this stuff about needing evidence or falsifiability for an hypothesis to be considered is already throwing that concept out the airlock. There's no reason to believe god exists, so obviously there's no reason to believe in final judgement. You already have to believe in God to factor in Final Judgement.
On October 18 2013 16:56 packrat386 wrote: Arguments about why religion is bad don't have much of a bearing here. We're discussing just the existence of god, not the goodness of the church.
Also, the fact that your examples are testable means that they aren't relevant to the discussion at hand. Russels teapot relies on presenting something that the audience will think is ridiculous ("If you believe in God you might as well believe that the Internet is made of milk!"), however one of these things can be rejected after a pretty cursory test, the other is much harder.
Basically, I'm calling into question the principle that we should always err on the side of negative hypotheses in the absence of proof or evidence. In the case that there is proof or evidence, you should clearly favor the hypothesis that it supports.
The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes. It's really that simple. If there's no way to test something, there's also no reason to believe in it or worry about it. It's simply useless unproductive thoughts about something which doesn't matter. Something that can't be tested can't affect you, so why even bother?
Lol, you take the part that I object to and just proclaim it as axiomatic truth. Thats a convenient way of arguing. Lets say I apply your theory to itself hmm?
I'm going to re-write your statement a bit. Take premise A to be "The absence of evidence for any given hypothesis is evidence to reject that hypothesis". Now let me consider A as my hypothesis. There is an absence of evidence for hypothesis A, therefore I ought to reject it. Contradiction? We must reject our original premise A.
If you want to give me some reason why I should believe that "The absence of proof or evidence is in itself proof of non-existance for all intents and purposes" then you're going to need to work for it.
Um. Did you read my post? It clearly stated after that phrase why this is so: If something is not testable, it can't affect us. THIS is the premise. It follows that if you have no evidence for something, and can't procure said evidence, the hypothesis is useless, because even if it were to be true, we can't even know that, it brings us nowhere.
I'm going to simplify this for you: Please let me know why it makes more sense to believe in the existance of something which is untestable and has no evidence or basis supporting it, than to not believe in it. Don't worry, way ahead of you, I know you're going to answer "I'm not saying it makes more sense, I'm saying it makes equal sense". However, I can give several arguments (I already have in this topic, over and over) why it makes more sense to not believe it. It leads to progress, it's more practical, it leads to knowledge which has actual impact. If I can say why it's better to go with non-belief will you can't argue for belief, I believe that makes your argument quite weak indeed.
Things that are not testable can still effect you. Convenient example is the existence of God (what a motherfucking surprise). If God exists, whether or not he directly fiddles with the universe, most people would act differently than if he didn't exist because of things like final judgement.
Arguing that a particular truth is impractical doesn't really get you anywhere. Perhaps it is less practical to believe in God (although I see no reason why it should be, and neither do the large contingent of religious scientists and engineers in the modern world), but that's like saying I should ignore the Heisenberg uncertainty principle because its frustrating.
Also, I can argue equally, that belief in God tends to make people happy, and that the leap of faith that you take in being religious is valuable in and of itself.
Now you're talking specifics. You're not saying anymore that we should believe in things which are untestable and has no basis, you're saying we should believe in God. You're saying religion can make people happy. The idea that the claimaint needs proof is a general idea, the teapot argument is general. You're taking an idea which is just as useless, but since it has been fashioned to have an effect, you're forced to view it differently.
"There's invisible teapots in space." "Who cares." "If you don't believe they exist, you'll go to teapot hell when you die where they torture you with teapot lasers." "Oh shit, suddenly I have a reason to believe in it."
The general idea that you need proof to make claims is just as true for the concept of God, even if there's added bullshit behind the baseless initial concept. If you don't believe in the initial concept, the extra stuff is meaningless, and the teapot argument and all this stuff about needing evidence or falsifiability for an hypothesis to be considered is already throwing that concept out the airlock. There's no reason to believe god exists, so obviously there's no reason to believe in final judgement. You already have to believe in God to factor in Final Judgement.
My argument was that we shouldn't privilege a negative hypothesis simply because it is the negative hypothesis. You then proceeded to offer other reasons not to believe in God, so I answered those, and provided some reasons to believe in it in order to even out the scales.
Your original argument was that we shouldn't believe in God simply because we should always prefer the negative hypothesis. When I answered this argument you wanted to move on to another one (we shouldn't believe in God because the harms outweigh the benefits).
These are 2 fundamentally different arguments, so before we go forward I'd like to know which one we're talking about.
Should I not believe in God because
A: Belief in God causes material harms that are worse than the benefits (lack of progress etc.) B: Belief in things that are not able to be tested is unjustified.
On October 18 2013 17:34 packrat386 wrote: My argument was that we shouldn't privilege a negative hypothesis simply because it is the negative hypothesis. You then proceeded to offer other reasons not to believe in God, so I answered those, and provided some reasons to believe in it in order to even out the scales.
Your original argument was that we shouldn't believe in God simply because we should always prefer the negative hypothesis. When I answered this argument you wanted to move on to another one (we shouldn't believe in God because the harms outweigh the benefits).
These are 2 fundamentally different arguments, so before we go forward I'd like to know which one we're talking about.
Should I not believe in God because
A: Belief in God causes material harms that are worse than the benefits (lack of progress etc.) B: Belief in things that are not able to be tested is unjustified.
B is definitely the discussion at hand. You've sort of misunderstood me, belief in god was just an example for me. Lack of progress is true in all situations where you prefer positive hypothesis. The scientific method is founded on the idea that hypotheses are useless until you can test them to make sure they have any value and actually represent the world in a meaningful way. Whether you believe in god or invisible teapots is not relevant, the fact that you believe in them without basis is the problem. When you can test something, you can learn more about it, which is the progress I'm talking about. When an hypothesis is untestable, you can just change the hypothesis randomly and nothing will change, so it's not really progress. God is just the most pressing example because of the topic at hand.
On October 18 2013 17:34 packrat386 wrote: My argument was that we shouldn't privilege a negative hypothesis simply because it is the negative hypothesis. You then proceeded to offer other reasons not to believe in God, so I answered those, and provided some reasons to believe in it in order to even out the scales.
Your original argument was that we shouldn't believe in God simply because we should always prefer the negative hypothesis. When I answered this argument you wanted to move on to another one (we shouldn't believe in God because the harms outweigh the benefits).
These are 2 fundamentally different arguments, so before we go forward I'd like to know which one we're talking about.
Should I not believe in God because
A: Belief in God causes material harms that are worse than the benefits (lack of progress etc.) B: Belief in things that are not able to be tested is unjustified.
B is definitely the discussion at hand. You've sort of misunderstood me, belief in god was just an example for me. Lack of progress is true in all situations where you prefer positive hypothesis. The scientific method is founded on the idea that hypotheses are useless until you can test them to make sure they have any value and actually represent the world in a meaningful way. Whether you believe in god or invisible teapots is not relevant, the fact that you believe in them without basis is the problem. When you can test something, you can learn more about it, which is the progress I'm talking about. When an hypothesis is untestable, you can just change the hypothesis randomly and nothing will change, so it's not really progress. God is just the most pressing example because of the topic at hand.
Since the things that we are allowed to believe in will probably remain untestable, I fail to see how it prevents progress. Whether or not I believe in undetectable teapots on pluto is going to have no effect on my ability to test other hypotheses. Your argument is basically that science is good, but how I choose to interact with those things that we can't use do experiments on has no bearing on how I interact with the testable material world.
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
On October 18 2013 17:34 packrat386 wrote: My argument was that we shouldn't privilege a negative hypothesis simply because it is the negative hypothesis. You then proceeded to offer other reasons not to believe in God, so I answered those, and provided some reasons to believe in it in order to even out the scales.
Your original argument was that we shouldn't believe in God simply because we should always prefer the negative hypothesis. When I answered this argument you wanted to move on to another one (we shouldn't believe in God because the harms outweigh the benefits).
These are 2 fundamentally different arguments, so before we go forward I'd like to know which one we're talking about.
Should I not believe in God because
A: Belief in God causes material harms that are worse than the benefits (lack of progress etc.) B: Belief in things that are not able to be tested is unjustified.
B is definitely the discussion at hand. You've sort of misunderstood me, belief in god was just an example for me. Lack of progress is true in all situations where you prefer positive hypothesis. The scientific method is founded on the idea that hypotheses are useless until you can test them to make sure they have any value and actually represent the world in a meaningful way. Whether you believe in god or invisible teapots is not relevant, the fact that you believe in them without basis is the problem. When you can test something, you can learn more about it, which is the progress I'm talking about. When an hypothesis is untestable, you can just change the hypothesis randomly and nothing will change, so it's not really progress. God is just the most pressing example because of the topic at hand.
Since the things that we are allowed to believe in will probably remain untestable, I fail to see how it prevents progress. Whether or not I believe in undetectable teapots on pluto is going to have no effect on my ability to test other hypotheses. Your argument is basically that science is good, but how I choose to interact with those things that we can't use do experiments on has no bearing on how I interact with the testable material world.
I agree. However, you're making a completely unnessecary exception. If you agree with the scientific method, you agree that you shouldn't believe in things which lack basis. However, you're saying that while this is true for the material world, we can throw that away as soon as an hypothesis is completely untestable, in which case it makes just as much sense to accept it as true. This is inconsistant at best, illogical at worst.
On October 18 2013 17:34 packrat386 wrote: My argument was that we shouldn't privilege a negative hypothesis simply because it is the negative hypothesis. You then proceeded to offer other reasons not to believe in God, so I answered those, and provided some reasons to believe in it in order to even out the scales.
Your original argument was that we shouldn't believe in God simply because we should always prefer the negative hypothesis. When I answered this argument you wanted to move on to another one (we shouldn't believe in God because the harms outweigh the benefits).
These are 2 fundamentally different arguments, so before we go forward I'd like to know which one we're talking about.
Should I not believe in God because
A: Belief in God causes material harms that are worse than the benefits (lack of progress etc.) B: Belief in things that are not able to be tested is unjustified.
B is definitely the discussion at hand. You've sort of misunderstood me, belief in god was just an example for me. Lack of progress is true in all situations where you prefer positive hypothesis. The scientific method is founded on the idea that hypotheses are useless until you can test them to make sure they have any value and actually represent the world in a meaningful way. Whether you believe in god or invisible teapots is not relevant, the fact that you believe in them without basis is the problem. When you can test something, you can learn more about it, which is the progress I'm talking about. When an hypothesis is untestable, you can just change the hypothesis randomly and nothing will change, so it's not really progress. God is just the most pressing example because of the topic at hand.
Since the things that we are allowed to believe in will probably remain untestable, I fail to see how it prevents progress. Whether or not I believe in undetectable teapots on pluto is going to have no effect on my ability to test other hypotheses. Your argument is basically that science is good, but how I choose to interact with those things that we can't use do experiments on has no bearing on how I interact with the testable material world.
First of all, the invisible teapot isn't on Pluto, it's in the Asteroid Belt. Second, if you believe it exists on Pluto, you're just dead wrong about the facts because there is an abundance of evidence that it is in the Asteroid Belt somewhere, but you don't seem like someone who is a big fan of "facts".
On October 18 2013 17:34 packrat386 wrote: My argument was that we shouldn't privilege a negative hypothesis simply because it is the negative hypothesis. You then proceeded to offer other reasons not to believe in God, so I answered those, and provided some reasons to believe in it in order to even out the scales.
Your original argument was that we shouldn't believe in God simply because we should always prefer the negative hypothesis. When I answered this argument you wanted to move on to another one (we shouldn't believe in God because the harms outweigh the benefits).
These are 2 fundamentally different arguments, so before we go forward I'd like to know which one we're talking about.
Should I not believe in God because
A: Belief in God causes material harms that are worse than the benefits (lack of progress etc.) B: Belief in things that are not able to be tested is unjustified.
B is definitely the discussion at hand. You've sort of misunderstood me, belief in god was just an example for me. Lack of progress is true in all situations where you prefer positive hypothesis. The scientific method is founded on the idea that hypotheses are useless until you can test them to make sure they have any value and actually represent the world in a meaningful way. Whether you believe in god or invisible teapots is not relevant, the fact that you believe in them without basis is the problem. When you can test something, you can learn more about it, which is the progress I'm talking about. When an hypothesis is untestable, you can just change the hypothesis randomly and nothing will change, so it's not really progress. God is just the most pressing example because of the topic at hand.
Since the things that we are allowed to believe in will probably remain untestable, I fail to see how it prevents progress. Whether or not I believe in undetectable teapots on pluto is going to have no effect on my ability to test other hypotheses. Your argument is basically that science is good, but how I choose to interact with those things that we can't use do experiments on has no bearing on how I interact with the testable material world.
I agree. However, you're making a completely unnessecary exception. If you agree with the scientific method, you agree that you shouldn't believe in things which lack basis. However, you're saying that while this is true for the material world, we can throw that away as soon as an hypothesis is completely untestable, in which case it makes just as much sense to accept it as true. This is inconsistant at best, illogical at worst.
You need to read my post above. There are things that science doesn't describe.
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I haven't brought up the occams razor. You said your arguments against my method (I'm only discussing the scientific method) are just as good against occams razor (not directly relevant to what I'm talking about).
You're right, science doesn't tell you what to believe when science won't let you test an hypothesis. Which is why, in the scientific method, hypotheses which can't be tested are considered useless, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method that hypotheses need to be testable. You are allowed to believe in them, but your ability to argue for them is obviously nil.
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist."
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist."
This will blow your mind.
You can't make the argument that "God doesn't exist" unless someone has argued that God does exist.
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I haven't brought up the occams razor. You said your arguments against my method (I'm only discussing the scientific method) are just as good against occams razor (not directly relevant to what I'm talking about).
You're right, science doesn't tell you what to believe when science won't let you test an hypothesis. Which is why, in the scientific method, hypotheses which can't be tested are considered useless, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method that hypotheses need to be testable. You are allowed to believe in them, but your ability to argue for them is obviously nil.
YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist."
Science is not the only reason to believe a hypothesis.
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I haven't brought up the occams razor. You said your arguments against my method (I'm only discussing the scientific method) are just as good against occams razor (not directly relevant to what I'm talking about).
You're right, science doesn't tell you what to believe when science won't let you test an hypothesis. Which is why, in the scientific method, hypotheses which can't be tested are considered useless, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method that hypotheses need to be testable. You are allowed to believe in them, but your ability to argue for them is obviously nil.
YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
Dude, you realize that icefrog is just a silly myth, right?
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I haven't brought up the occams razor. You said your arguments against my method (I'm only discussing the scientific method) are just as good against occams razor (not directly relevant to what I'm talking about).
You're right, science doesn't tell you what to believe when science won't let you test an hypothesis. Which is why, in the scientific method, hypotheses which can't be tested are considered useless, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method that hypotheses need to be testable. You are allowed to believe in them, but your ability to argue for them is obviously nil.
YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
Dude, you realize that icefrog is just a silly myth, right?
Thank you for the comic relief. It is much needed in here.
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist."
This will blow your mind.
You can't make the argument that "God doesn't exist" unless someone has argued that God does exist.
Wait. Wait. Wait. What if that person is your own self?
On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote: YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to change stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth.
Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not.
On October 18 2013 17:42 IgnE wrote: How about Occam's Razor?
All of my arguments for why we should reject tobberoths method are equally arguments to reject occams razor.
My method? You mean the scientific method?
Science =/= occams razor.
Note the steps of the scientific method. You create a hypothesis and then you test it. For science to give you any knowledge about the situation it has to be a situation in which you can do tests. If not then science doesn't tell you whether or not to believe it.
Let's consider this example. I have a hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There is no empiric test that I can do to confirm this (go count all the numbers?), however I can determine its truth value by applying other methods. If its not a situation where you can do an experiment then science doesn't tell you which hypothesis to believe.
I think this conversation would be over if you just admitted that claims that can be asserted without evidence and without the possibility of evidence are meaningless. That would include the statement "god does not exist."
This will blow your mind.
You can't make the argument that "God doesn't exist" unless someone has argued that God does exist.
Wait. Wait. Wait. What if that person is your own self?
Okay, let's do that.
Rainbow Unicorns are definitely real oh wait no they're not.
On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote: YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to chance stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth.
Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not.
You should read up on your philosophy of science. There is no cornerstone of science to reject all things which can't be empirically tested. Science doesn't comment on those things which cannot be subjected to experimentation. Does that mean those things should be necessarily rejected? No, it just means that we need to use a different system to talk about them.
Take the example of uncountable reals. There is no experiment for me to run, thus science can't give me an answer to the question.
edit: Spelling. Also the idea that scientists "frown on" the supernatural is laughable given the amount of religious scientists there are.
Is the 2000 winner good enough for you? If not, its not like there aren't plenty of other scientists who are religious (also, notable - the guys who invented science).
Is the 2000 winner good enough for you? If not, its not like there aren't plenty of other scientists who are religious (also, notable - the guys who invented science).
Ah, so that's why when I do algebra, I feel a little bit closer to Allah.
On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote: YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to chance stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth.
Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not.
You should read up on your philosophy of science. There is no cornerstone of science to reject all things which can't be empirically tested. Science doesn't comment on those things which cannot be subjected to experimentation. Does that mean those things should be necessarily rejected? No, it just means that we need to use a different system to talk about them.
Take the example of uncountable reals. There is no experiment for me to run, thus science can't give me an answer to the question.
edit: Spelling. Also the idea that scientists "frown on" the supernatural is laughable given the amount of religious scientists there are.
Science necessarily rejects untestable hypoteses, yes. There's no doubt there. Does all scientists reject untestable hypoteses? No, like you say, there are a lot of religious scientists. However, they don't apply science to those beliefs (those who do are definitely frowned upon, just look at all the smack books which try to prove that god exists scientifically get).
There's a big difference between frowning upon people who claim ghosts exists without any form of empirical evidence, and believing in something supernatural, though I think it's a pretty small minority who do because like I said earlier, it's inconsistant. I see no reason, objectively, to accept the scientific method and then disregard it because of an old book and your parents raising you a certain way.
Also, your examples in math are irrelevant. You don't have to test uncountable reals, because it's a matter of definition, which is true for most math. Is 1 + 1 always 2? Yes. How do we prove that? Because we have accepted a very specific definition of what 1, 2, + and = means. The only way this can't be true is if that definition changes, and that's how we can do mathematical proofs.
On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote: YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to chance stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth.
Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not.
You should read up on your philosophy of science. There is no cornerstone of science to reject all things which can't be empirically tested. Science doesn't comment on those things which cannot be subjected to experimentation. Does that mean those things should be necessarily rejected? No, it just means that we need to use a different system to talk about them.
Take the example of uncountable reals. There is no experiment for me to run, thus science can't give me an answer to the question.
edit: Spelling. Also the idea that scientists "frown on" the supernatural is laughable given the amount of religious scientists there are.
Awesome, therefore I can reject the hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers because there is no way for me to scientifically test it. Glad we had this conversation.
edit: In case you might have missed the punchline, there are uncountably many real numbers
On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote: YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done.
Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to chance stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth.
Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not.
You should read up on your philosophy of science. There is no cornerstone of science to reject all things which can't be empirically tested. Science doesn't comment on those things which cannot be subjected to experimentation. Does that mean those things should be necessarily rejected? No, it just means that we need to use a different system to talk about them.
Take the example of uncountable reals. There is no experiment for me to run, thus science can't give me an answer to the question.
edit: Spelling. Also the idea that scientists "frown on" the supernatural is laughable given the amount of religious scientists there are.
Awesome, therefore I can reject the hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers because there is no way for me to scientifically test it. Glad we had this conversation.
edit: In case you might have missed the punchline, there are uncountably many real numbers
Read my edit. There's no hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There simply are, by our very definition of real numbers.
If you make a real hypothesis in math (not questioning the very definitions math builds on), it still has to be proven mathematically. For example, there's the hypothesis that the length of the hypothenuse is always the square root of the sum of the squared length of the adjecent and the opposite sites of a right side triangle. This can easily be proven in math, in many ways.
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production.
Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge.
I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production.
Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge.
I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions).
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production.
Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge.
I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions).
Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics.
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production.
Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge.
I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions).
Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics.
No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science.
Here's a definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences."
Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries.
You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them.
Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands.
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote: If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production.
Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge.
I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions).
Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics.
No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science.
Here's a definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences."
Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries.
You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them.
Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands.
My point isn't to try to somehow get knowledge from God. God isn't a system of knowledge production. The fundamental question is what to do in the case that our system doesn't prescribe an answer. You want to automatically assume no, but you have given 0 reason for this to be the case. The only hope at a justification for this principle is an appeal to progress which borders on absurd. Somehow if I fail to comment certain things that are outside the role of science I will necessarily hurt science as an enterpreise? This simply isn't the case. Instead you can simply accept that your system doesn't give an answer to every case and move on.
On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production.
Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge.
I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions).
Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics.
No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science.
Here's a definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences."
Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries.
You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them.
Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands.
My point isn't to try to somehow get knowledge from God. God isn't a system of knowledge production. The fundamental question is what to do in the case that our system doesn't prescribe an answer. You want to automatically assume no, but you have given 0 reason for this to be the case. The only hope at a justification for this principle is an appeal to progress which borders on absurd. Somehow if I fail to comment certain things that are outside the role of science I will necessarily hurt science as an enterpreise? This simply isn't the case. Instead you can simply accept that your system doesn't give an answer to every case and move on.
No one claimed it gives all answers. I specifically said earlier that there's lots of stuff that science can't explain, and might never explain. However, nothing else can either. If you try to answer real questions using religion, it's the same as doing science without basis, which simply doesn't work. Christianity claims the world was created in 7 days. It's impossible to get any truth value from this, because it's impossible to get any truth value whether God exists or not.
Fine, science can't answer why you exist right this moment, and maybe this God figure someone made up and you decided to believe in without any basis can. Fine by me. But don't claim it isn't inconsistant, and don't claim that the burden of proof suddenly switches. The reasons burden on proof is on the claimer in science is identical when discussing religion or anything else. If you're searching for truth and you come up with a possible truth, that's an hypothesis. If you have no basis and nothing at all to work with, you're stuck. And just like in real science, if there's nothing to work with in your hypothesis, it will be ignored because knowledge can't be gained from it.
On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote: [quote] There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested. [quote] You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production.
Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge.
I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions).
Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics.
No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science.
Here's a definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences."
Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries.
You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them.
Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands.
My point isn't to try to somehow get knowledge from God. God isn't a system of knowledge production. The fundamental question is what to do in the case that our system doesn't prescribe an answer. You want to automatically assume no, but you have given 0 reason for this to be the case. The only hope at a justification for this principle is an appeal to progress which borders on absurd. Somehow if I fail to comment certain things that are outside the role of science I will necessarily hurt science as an enterpreise? This simply isn't the case. Instead you can simply accept that your system doesn't give an answer to every case and move on.
No one claimed it gives all answers. I specifically said earlier that there's lots of stuff that science can't explain, and might never explain. However, nothing else can either. If you try to answer real questions using religion, it's the same as doing science without basis, which simply doesn't work. Christianity claims the world was created in 7 days. It's impossible to get any truth value from this, because it's impossible to get any truth value whether God exists or not.
Fine, science can't answer why you exist right this moment, and maybe this God figure someone made up and you decided to believe in without any basis can. Fine by me. But don't claim it isn't inconsistant, and don't claim that the burden of proof suddenly switches. The reasons burden on proof is on the claimer in science is identical when discussing religion or anything else. If you're searching for truth and you come up with a possible truth, that's an hypothesis. If you have no basis and nothing at all to work with, you're stuck. And just like in real science, if there's nothing to work with in your hypothesis, it will be ignored because knowledge can't be gained from it.
Fuck your burden of proof. it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, like I said earlier I'm not trying to posit religion as a system of knowledge production so the question of whether it tells me much about the world is also irrelevant.
You have yet to provide a reason why in the absence of evidence (be it proof or empirics) either for or against a hypothesis, I should necessarily reject the hypothesis. At this point you likely never will seem you seem unable to even grasp that I could call into the question your security blanket of occams razor. Russels teapot sounds good, but is fundamentally unsound.
edit: By the way, this thread is dead, and I'm personally done discussing this since its basically just me restating my point over and over and having it fly over everyone's head because you were too busy circlejerking to how rational you think you are.
On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote: [quote] Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production.
Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge.
I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions).
Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics.
No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science.
Here's a definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences."
Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries.
You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them.
Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands.
My point isn't to try to somehow get knowledge from God. God isn't a system of knowledge production. The fundamental question is what to do in the case that our system doesn't prescribe an answer. You want to automatically assume no, but you have given 0 reason for this to be the case. The only hope at a justification for this principle is an appeal to progress which borders on absurd. Somehow if I fail to comment certain things that are outside the role of science I will necessarily hurt science as an enterpreise? This simply isn't the case. Instead you can simply accept that your system doesn't give an answer to every case and move on.
No one claimed it gives all answers. I specifically said earlier that there's lots of stuff that science can't explain, and might never explain. However, nothing else can either. If you try to answer real questions using religion, it's the same as doing science without basis, which simply doesn't work. Christianity claims the world was created in 7 days. It's impossible to get any truth value from this, because it's impossible to get any truth value whether God exists or not.
Fine, science can't answer why you exist right this moment, and maybe this God figure someone made up and you decided to believe in without any basis can. Fine by me. But don't claim it isn't inconsistant, and don't claim that the burden of proof suddenly switches. The reasons burden on proof is on the claimer in science is identical when discussing religion or anything else. If you're searching for truth and you come up with a possible truth, that's an hypothesis. If you have no basis and nothing at all to work with, you're stuck. And just like in real science, if there's nothing to work with in your hypothesis, it will be ignored because knowledge can't be gained from it.
Fuck your burden of proof. it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, like I said earlier I'm not trying to posit religion as a system of knowledge production so the question of whether it tells me much about the world is also irrelevant.
You have yet to provide a reason why in the absence of evidence (be it proof or empirics) either for or against a hypothesis, I should necessarily reject the hypothesis. At this point you likely never will seem you seem unable to even grasp that I could call into the question your security blanket of occams razor. Russels teapot sounds good, but is fundamentally unsound.
This argument is getting ridiculous, it's taken so far off-topic it possibly can. I will try to make my point across as clearly as I can, then I'm done because I honestly don't have much more to say on the topic. Either you got my point and simply disagree with it and I accept I can't do anything more to persuade you, or I haven't gotten my point across clearly enough, which I have to accept if that's the case, because I don't think I can do any better than this.
Your argument is that if you hear an hypothesis where truth value can not be optained, for example "God exists and created the universe", there's no more reason to reject it than to accept it. This is, obviously, where the argument started. Now, I can sit here and come up with a hundred different hypotheses where no truth value can be obtained. Your stance on the issue is that you have no reason to reject them (and no reason to accept them). For example, space is filled with undetectable teapots. Another example, the sun was actually created by a cosmic fart which only happens once in a universes life time. Let's say I list 100 hypotheses like this. How many of them will you believe in? All? None? Well, since you have no reason to either reject or accept them, you should probably believe in 50 of them. But you won't, right? Be honest. You won't believe in any of them. So why do christians believe in God? Why do hindus believe in Shiva? Not only that, they live by these ideas, they let them constrain them, they take comfort in them.
Why? What's so special about the hypothesis that God exists, compared to the invisible teapots? Both are hypotheses where no truth value can be obtained. Since I wouldn't believe it if someone told me a Pink Elephant pooped out the earth, why should I believe in God? That would be inconsistant. This is, in essence, what the teapot argument is about. Sure, if the pots are detectable, as in the original argument, it is in a sense unsound because it is, like you said, not directly applicable. But I honestly don't think Russel meant it like that, he just wanted other relatable hypotheses.
Thanks for a good discussion, I hope this clarified my point enough. Feel free to answer this post but I probably won't reply in the topic, if you want me to answer something directly, feel free to PM me.
You're really just abusing the word "science." Yes, technically science can refer to things like mathematics (although there is a lot of controversy among mathematicians as to whether this label is fitting) and logic (less common, because science is actually a form of logical argument, not the other way around) but when people say "you should look at this scientifically," they usually mean the scientific method. That means empiricism. Mathematicians and logicians absolutely do not care to use empiricism in their fields.
If you're going to lump everything into this all-encompassing field of "science" and then just piddle away the difference by using the word "formal," then your argument says nothing, because you're literally defining science to be the sum-total of truth values, which is false, because not all truth values are obtained in an empirical fashion. It doesn't matter if they could be falsifiable; what matters is that the method employed to obtain them is not based on falsification, but on abstract reasoning, which means it falls outside of the realm of what we'd ordinarily call science, which is the organization of knowledge by way of testable hypotheses and experiments. Formal logic rejects these things as valid proof, as does mathematics. Hell, the biggest unsolved problem in mathematics (arguably, anyway, that is, the Riemann conjecture) has been computed to many digits and confirmed for those digits by explicit construction. But this doesn't prove the conjecture in a mathematical sense.
Wow, a wall of mumbo jumbo peppered with some random sentences aimed to put down Tobberoth.
In any case, i'm pretty sure we have established an agreement on the fact that God's existence is about as likely as the purple caterpillar. So why are we still arguing?
Fuck your burden of proof. it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, like I said earlier I'm not trying to posit religion as a system of knowledge production so the question of whether it tells me much about the world is also irrelevant.
You have yet to provide a reason why in the absence of evidence (be it proof or empirics) either for or against a hypothesis, I should necessarily reject the hypothesis. At this point you likely never will seem you seem unable to even grasp that I could call into the question your security blanket of occams razor. Russels teapot sounds good, but is fundamentally unsound.
edit: By the way, this thread is dead, and I'm personally done discussing this since its basically just me restating my point over and over and having it fly over everyone's head because you were too busy circlejerking to how rational you think you are.
All you have done is create an untestable god that is logically internally consistent. That's no more exciting that an invisible purple caterpillar or supernatural Mayor McCheese. The default position is still disbelief. The fact that your god is internally consistent does absolutely nothing to answer the question whether it is true. Nothing.
All you are doing is giving an opinion. I don't care whether it is your opinion that god exists anymore than I care about your opinion on whether supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. What matters to me is whether something is true.
On October 18 2013 21:21 packrat386 wrote: By the way, this thread is dead, and I'm personally done discussing this since its basically just me restating my point over and over and having it fly over everyone's head because you were too busy circlejerking to how rational you think you are.
No, it died because it was 4 in the morning.
On October 19 2013 03:29 ffreakk wrote: Wow, a wall of mumbo jumbo peppered with some random sentences aimed to put down Tobberoth.
In any case, i'm pretty sure we have established an agreement on the fact that God's existence is about as likely as the purple caterpillar. So why are we still arguing?
On October 17 2013 05:57 packrat386 wrote: [quote] No, but I might believe some people do.
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary".
I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
lol his hypothesis of "god exist" would most likely be rejected, because guess what comes after hypothesis what do u do? test it. And if you failed to test it, it gets scrapped. Thats why it is the scientific method and yes science will tell you that you need to reject your "educated guess" as you cant test/experiment/ prove it.
PLease tell me what "tests" you have run to see if there is a god. Given that God exists outside of the material universe, did you go there and look?
last summer, i went to greece, in litochoro for a trip, and nope, no zues found...
I also tried it with santa, waited every single night for him to drop off the chimney when I was 6, dad told me to stop as it aint true
I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god.
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary".
I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
lol his hypothesis of "god exist" would most likely be rejected, because guess what comes after hypothesis what do u do? test it. And if you failed to test it, it gets scrapped. Thats why it is the scientific method and yes science will tell you that you need to reject your "educated guess" as you cant test/experiment/ prove it.
PLease tell me what "tests" you have run to see if there is a god. Given that God exists outside of the material universe, did you go there and look?
last summer, i went to greece, in litochoro for a trip, and nope, no zues found...
I also tried it with santa, waited every single night for him to drop off the chimney when I was 6, dad told me to stop as it aint true
he fact that your god is internally consistent does absolutely nothing to answer the question whether it is true. Nothing.
Actually, it does say some rather important things. It doesn't give you truth value, to be sure, but it does give you something, namely consistency. See, while there are notions like Russell's Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, some of these are less consistent than others, which, while not (always) ruling them out as true, definitely affects their credibility. To take one example, an Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't internally consistent, for a number of reasons. First, it's both invisible and pink, which is a contradiction in terms, and, further, it is generally asserted to be an immaterial entity. But unicorns are essentially (at least insofar as we think of them) physical things; they look something like horses and exist in the material world. A thing cannot simultaneously be material and immaterial in the same respect at the same time. It would be a contradiction in terms.
Of course, I'm sure there are some loopholes you could use to tweak the example to make it less obviously contradictory, but the general point is that the sort of God philosophy concerns itself with is generally a very minimalist, abstract one. Notions like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore, make poor parodies, because their ridiculousness comes from added, physical properties, rather than from an exaggeration of the defined traits of some hypothetical deity.
On October 17 2013 10:08 packrat386 wrote: [quote]
Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation.
The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence.
As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary".
I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
lol his hypothesis of "god exist" would most likely be rejected, because guess what comes after hypothesis what do u do? test it. And if you failed to test it, it gets scrapped. Thats why it is the scientific method and yes science will tell you that you need to reject your "educated guess" as you cant test/experiment/ prove it.
PLease tell me what "tests" you have run to see if there is a god. Given that God exists outside of the material universe, did you go there and look?
last summer, i went to greece, in litochoro for a trip, and nope, no zues found...
I also tried it with santa, waited every single night for him to drop off the chimney when I was 6, dad told me to stop as it aint true
You didn't go to the North Pole though, did you?
Exactly.
no need watched NGC, was told there is nothing there. Better go south pole though, lots happening, penguins and the seed library are there.
if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
The problem is that by 'banishing' people who don't follow Christianity some believe that they are spreading love by 'saving' them from hell. You can see where they are coming from but it's a pretty fucked up view when you're making life hell for those people
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
Not every church is like this. I know mine isn't. Please don't generalize and say that all Christian churches are bad now. You just haven't been to a good church yet.
he fact that your god is internally consistent does absolutely nothing to answer the question whether it is true. Nothing.
Actually, it does say some rather important things. It doesn't give you truth value, to be sure, but it does give you something, namely consistency. See, while there are notions like Russell's Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, some of these are less consistent than others, which, while not (always) ruling them out as true, definitely affects their credibility. To take one example, an Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't internally consistent, for a number of reasons. First, it's both invisible and pink, which is a contradiction in terms, and, further, it is generally asserted to be an immaterial entity. But unicorns are essentially (at least insofar as we think of them) physical things; they look something like horses and exist in the material world. A thing cannot simultaneously be material and immaterial in the same respect at the same time. It would be a contradiction in terms.
Of course, I'm sure there are some loopholes you could use to tweak the example to make it less obviously contradictory, but the general point is that the sort of God philosophy concerns itself with is generally a very minimalist, abstract one. Notions like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore, make poor parodies, because their ridiculousness comes from added, physical properties, rather than from an exaggeration of the defined traits of some hypothetical deity.
I think you missed the point of the FSM. Ofc the added properties are physical and thus obviously ridiculous. But you can add any abstract trait to the deity without changing the credibility of it. Just the appeal changes.
So why is god "good, loving and merciful" if he could be "bad, cruel and unforgiving". What if he created the universe to watch us suffer? How do you choose one version over the other but just by appeal?
I think you missed the point of the FSM. Ofc the added properties are physical and thus obviously ridiculous. But you can add any abstract trait to the deity without changing the credibility of it. Just the appeal changes.
Not to my mind. The problem I'm getting is that isn't me missing the point of the FSM; it's that those added properties are ridiculous specifically because they're self-contradictory. Again, you can't be an immaterial entity if you are the FSM, because your form is physical. Of course, you could easily tweak the FSM into something with less contingent properties, but I think you'd always end up with contradictions-in-terms any time you try to add physical properties.
The FSM defines itself into non-existence in virtue of its ascription of physical properties. "Spaghetti" refers to a particular thing. To be a "spaghetti monster" isn't really a property at all, because monster doesn't really mean anything, in particular, but that it induces (presumably) fear. That it can fly is fine. Don't get me wrong: I'm not taking the FSM seriously, because I know it's basically a joke/argument ad absurdum, but it fails because it has really nothing to do with any sort of God that a philosopher would be interested in (since they're much more abstract). If there is a deity, even the use of Occam's Razor (ironic, I know) would eliminate any twisted, physical-but-not-physical, spaghetti-laden creatures.
So why is god "good, loving and merciful" if he could be "bad, cruel and unforgiving". What if he created the universe to watch us suffer? How do you choose one version over the other but just by appeal?
I think (and I really hope it's true, or else the human race is fucked) that moral decision making is fundamentally a matter of reason. A maximally powerful, hyper-intelligent (i.e. way more intelligent than, say, a human being) would, to my mind, probably be at least as moral as we are, on average. I don't think you need to be a genius to figure out that killing persons (whether they be humans or aliens) is a pretty terrible thing to do. I'd like to think that an entity with the ability to do literally anything possible would be able to wrap its head around that.
Basically, I don't think you could be in the position of an evil deity (with the evil deity's level of knowledge/intelligence) and engineer needless suffering, because personhood is discrete. It's not like humans to ants. Once you're a person, you're a person. Any moral agent is a moral agent. This, to me, makes the notion of an evil-but-supremely-intelligent/powerful deity completely ridiculous. If such a thing could exist, then it would stand to reason that, given its knowledge/intelligence, it would probably know more about morality than we do. So you have a dichotomy (or nearly, anyway) between our morality being wrong but us not being smart enough to understand that, or that this evil moral agent is improbable relative to a less-evil moral agent.
Anyways, as someone who has grown up in the church/went to private school from prek-graduation...
my word to describe Christians now.... hhhmm .... corrupted.
Christianity has been ruined by the institution of religion.
Churches have turned into business, and lets face it, its a GREAT business model. You sell an intangible product, that costs nothing to make, and you charge every person 10% of their income.... sign me up for another business with such good margins. Not to mention... you sell hope... which EVERYONE loves the idea of and cant get enough Hope.
Also, christianity has been corrupted by man in the way that the Bible was transcribed and changed throughout history, to give people a stricter view on certain aspects that were the personal beliefs of said transcriber, they have found numerous changes throughout versions of the bible, where Complete sections were manipulated to mean something else entirely.
Another thing... for a religion based around a guy whose greatest message was "love everyone" Christians do more hating than pretty much every other group on the planet, save other religious groups. Not only do they limit themselves to hating them within their own brain... they are open about it and spread the messag eof their hatred and try to force the ideology onto others....
Christians vote to keep gay marriage illegal...this is like muslims voting that we should no longer be legally allowed to eat Bacon.... one is completely ridiculous because people admit you shouldnt base laws off of the personal beliefs of some.. but thats what Christian Americans do everytime they vote against it...
Just like when they thought that people of non-white groups were lesser and were totally acceptable to be slaves... hundreds of years later MOST of the population agrees our ancestors were ignorant... and i hope one day its the same of my generation and generations before it regarding gay people.
Also, people have already touched on the fake, hypocritical, etc stuff that most people associate with them.
Jesus tore down the temples when he found out they had turned religion into a business... and in return we built megachurches and pay pastors millions of dollars a year... while they beg for money and preach about giving and going on "missions trips"
this just in... save the 2-3 thousand dollars it costs you to send your child on a mission trip to another country... you really wanna help? Take the money it costs to send your church group...and send them a check, with a box of bibles with a note that says "God loves you. I hope this helps." You would help infinitely MORE than paying the 2-5thousand to send your 13 yr old on vacation to another country in the name of "evangelising"... people use mission trips as excuses for other people to pay for them to go on vacations to other countries...
blah ive traveled too far down the rabbit hole already...my apologies...
I think you missed the point of the FSM. Ofc the added properties are physical and thus obviously ridiculous. But you can add any abstract trait to the deity without changing the credibility of it. Just the appeal changes.
Not to my mind. The problem I'm getting is that isn't me missing the point of the FSM; it's that those added properties are ridiculous specifically because they're self-contradictory. Again, you can't be an immaterial entity if you are the FSM, because your form is physical. Of course, you could easily tweak the FSM into something with less contingent properties, but I think you'd always end up with contradictions-in-terms any time you try to add physical properties.
The FSM defines itself into non-existence in virtue of its ascription of physical properties. "Spaghetti" refers to a particular thing. To be a "spaghetti monster" isn't really a property at all, because monster doesn't really mean anything, in particular, but that it induces (presumably) fear. That it can fly is fine. Don't get me wrong: I'm not taking the FSM seriously, because I know it's basically a joke/argument ad absurdum, but it fails because it has really nothing to do with any sort of God that a philosopher would be interested in (since they're much more abstract). If there is a deity, even the use of Occam's Razor (ironic, I know) would eliminate any twisted, physical-but-not-physical, spaghetti-laden creatures.
great. you are still shooting at something that isn't there.
So why is god "good, loving and merciful" if he could be "bad, cruel and unforgiving". What if he created the universe to watch us suffer? How do you choose one version over the other but just by appeal?
I think (and I really hope it's true, or else the human race is fucked) that moral decision making is fundamentally a matter of reason. A maximally powerful, hyper-intelligent (i.e. way more intelligent than, say, a human being) would, to my mind, probably be at least as moral as we are, on average. I don't think you need to be a genius to figure out that killing persons (whether they be humans or aliens) is a pretty terrible thing to do. I'd like to think that an entity with the ability to do literally anything possible would be able to wrap its head around that.
Basically, I don't think you could be in the position of an evil deity (with the evil deity's level of knowledge/intelligence) and engineer needless suffering, because personhood is discrete. It's not like humans to ants. Once you're a person, you're a person. Any moral agent is a moral agent. This, to me, makes the notion of an evil-but-supremely-intelligent/powerful deity completely ridiculous. If such a thing could exist, then it would stand to reason that, given its knowledge/intelligence, it would probably know more about morality than we do. So you have a dichotomy (or nearly, anyway) between our morality being wrong but us not being smart enough to understand that, or that this evil moral agent is improbable relative to a less-evil moral agent.
But you start your thinking with humans to deduct the properties of a deity. We are as successful as we are because we are teamplayers/gregarious animals. Launching a space shuttle or passing knowledge becomes impossible for "the lone ranger" type of animals.
From this we also deduct our morality: It's wrong to hurt anyone of my species because it weakens the group. It could also happen to me etc.
This is a rough sketch but I hope you get the idea.
Now an all powerful deity isn't anything like that. It doesn't rely on others to help it. It doesn't need a group of scientists to develop anything. It builds the entire universe on its own. Why should it have a morality caring for others instead of an "everyone is on its own"-type? It created the universe. Why should it care for tiny molecules in it if it could collapse it in the glimpse of an eye and rebuild another one?
But I think another strong point comes from the ST:voyager episode "Death Wish": Imagine you have every puzzle solved, every mathematical theorem proven, thought of every possibility. Wouldn't the existence as an all-powerful being not be boring? How couldn't it be. So you either create a universe with a lot of Drama in it simply to be entertained or you commit suicide.
I think you missed the point of the FSM. Ofc the added properties are physical and thus obviously ridiculous. But you can add any abstract trait to the deity without changing the credibility of it. Just the appeal changes.
Not to my mind. The problem I'm getting is that isn't me missing the point of the FSM; it's that those added properties are ridiculous specifically because they're self-contradictory. Again, you can't be an immaterial entity if you are the FSM, because your form is physical. Of course, you could easily tweak the FSM into something with less contingent properties, but I think you'd always end up with contradictions-in-terms any time you try to add physical properties.
The FSM defines itself into non-existence in virtue of its ascription of physical properties. "Spaghetti" refers to a particular thing. To be a "spaghetti monster" isn't really a property at all, because monster doesn't really mean anything, in particular, but that it induces (presumably) fear. That it can fly is fine. Don't get me wrong: I'm not taking the FSM seriously, because I know it's basically a joke/argument ad absurdum, but it fails because it has really nothing to do with any sort of God that a philosopher would be interested in (since they're much more abstract). If there is a deity, even the use of Occam's Razor (ironic, I know) would eliminate any twisted, physical-but-not-physical, spaghetti-laden creatures.
great. you are still shooting at something that isn't there.
So why is god "good, loving and merciful" if he could be "bad, cruel and unforgiving". What if he created the universe to watch us suffer? How do you choose one version over the other but just by appeal?
I think (and I really hope it's true, or else the human race is fucked) that moral decision making is fundamentally a matter of reason. A maximally powerful, hyper-intelligent (i.e. way more intelligent than, say, a human being) would, to my mind, probably be at least as moral as we are, on average. I don't think you need to be a genius to figure out that killing persons (whether they be humans or aliens) is a pretty terrible thing to do. I'd like to think that an entity with the ability to do literally anything possible would be able to wrap its head around that.
Basically, I don't think you could be in the position of an evil deity (with the evil deity's level of knowledge/intelligence) and engineer needless suffering, because personhood is discrete. It's not like humans to ants. Once you're a person, you're a person. Any moral agent is a moral agent. This, to me, makes the notion of an evil-but-supremely-intelligent/powerful deity completely ridiculous. If such a thing could exist, then it would stand to reason that, given its knowledge/intelligence, it would probably know more about morality than we do. So you have a dichotomy (or nearly, anyway) between our morality being wrong but us not being smart enough to understand that, or that this evil moral agent is improbable relative to a less-evil moral agent.
But you start your thinking with humans to deduct the properties of a deity. We are as successful as we are because we are teamplayers/gregarious animals. Launching a space shuttle or passing knowledge becomes impossible for "the lone ranger" type of animals.
From this we also deduct our morality: It's wrong to hurt anyone of my species because it weakens the group. It could also happen to me etc.
This is a rough sketch but I hope you get the idea.
Now an all powerful deity isn't anything like that. It doesn't rely on others to help it. It doesn't need a group of scientists to develop anything. It builds the entire universe on its own. Why should it have a morality caring for others instead of an "everyone is on its own"-type? It created the universe. Why should it care for tiny molecules in it if it could collapse it in the glimpse of an eye and rebuild another one?
But I think another strong point comes from the ST:voyager episode "Death Wish": Imagine you have every puzzle solved, every mathematical theorem proven, thought of every possibility. Wouldn't the existence as an all-powerful being not be boring? How couldn't it be. So you either create a universe with a lot of Drama in it simply to be entertained or you commit suicide.
This is an evolutionary account of why humans tended toward certain modes of behaviour. It is not an ontological grounding for morality (whether or not something "weakens the group" is irrelevant without a presupposed value judgment). I like to think that, even if we went back 5000 years, murdering people would still be wrong, and if people disagreed it would be because they were ignorant, not because murder was magically a good thing before someone formalized it.
I think you missed the point of the FSM. Ofc the added properties are physical and thus obviously ridiculous. But you can add any abstract trait to the deity without changing the credibility of it. Just the appeal changes.
Not to my mind. The problem I'm getting is that isn't me missing the point of the FSM; it's that those added properties are ridiculous specifically because they're self-contradictory. Again, you can't be an immaterial entity if you are the FSM, because your form is physical. Of course, you could easily tweak the FSM into something with less contingent properties, but I think you'd always end up with contradictions-in-terms any time you try to add physical properties.
The FSM defines itself into non-existence in virtue of its ascription of physical properties. "Spaghetti" refers to a particular thing. To be a "spaghetti monster" isn't really a property at all, because monster doesn't really mean anything, in particular, but that it induces (presumably) fear. That it can fly is fine. Don't get me wrong: I'm not taking the FSM seriously, because I know it's basically a joke/argument ad absurdum, but it fails because it has really nothing to do with any sort of God that a philosopher would be interested in (since they're much more abstract). If there is a deity, even the use of Occam's Razor (ironic, I know) would eliminate any twisted, physical-but-not-physical, spaghetti-laden creatures.
great. you are still shooting at something that isn't there.
So why is god "good, loving and merciful" if he could be "bad, cruel and unforgiving". What if he created the universe to watch us suffer? How do you choose one version over the other but just by appeal?
I think (and I really hope it's true, or else the human race is fucked) that moral decision making is fundamentally a matter of reason. A maximally powerful, hyper-intelligent (i.e. way more intelligent than, say, a human being) would, to my mind, probably be at least as moral as we are, on average. I don't think you need to be a genius to figure out that killing persons (whether they be humans or aliens) is a pretty terrible thing to do. I'd like to think that an entity with the ability to do literally anything possible would be able to wrap its head around that.
Basically, I don't think you could be in the position of an evil deity (with the evil deity's level of knowledge/intelligence) and engineer needless suffering, because personhood is discrete. It's not like humans to ants. Once you're a person, you're a person. Any moral agent is a moral agent. This, to me, makes the notion of an evil-but-supremely-intelligent/powerful deity completely ridiculous. If such a thing could exist, then it would stand to reason that, given its knowledge/intelligence, it would probably know more about morality than we do. So you have a dichotomy (or nearly, anyway) between our morality being wrong but us not being smart enough to understand that, or that this evil moral agent is improbable relative to a less-evil moral agent.
But you start your thinking with humans to deduct the properties of a deity. We are as successful as we are because we are teamplayers/gregarious animals. Launching a space shuttle or passing knowledge becomes impossible for "the lone ranger" type of animals.
From this we also deduct our morality: It's wrong to hurt anyone of my species because it weakens the group. It could also happen to me etc.
This is a rough sketch but I hope you get the idea.
Now an all powerful deity isn't anything like that. It doesn't rely on others to help it. It doesn't need a group of scientists to develop anything. It builds the entire universe on its own. Why should it have a morality caring for others instead of an "everyone is on its own"-type? It created the universe. Why should it care for tiny molecules in it if it could collapse it in the glimpse of an eye and rebuild another one?
But I think another strong point comes from the ST:voyager episode "Death Wish": Imagine you have every puzzle solved, every mathematical theorem proven, thought of every possibility. Wouldn't the existence as an all-powerful being not be boring? How couldn't it be. So you either create a universe with a lot of Drama in it simply to be entertained or you commit suicide.
This is an evolutionary account of why humans tended toward certain modes of behaviour. It is not an ontological grounding for morality (whether or not something "weakens the group" is irrelevant without a presupposed value judgment). I like to think that, even if we went back 5000 years, murdering people would still be wrong, and if people disagreed it would be because they were ignorant, not because murder was magically a good thing before someone formalized it.
Well while writing I wanted to maybe rationalize it through my limited knowledge of evolution. But you can also take it as a descriptive property of humanity: We are working and living together in a society. One person alone can't do too much, even Einstein needed a baker and a farmer and a policeman. Thus our natural approach to morality in a democracy is one were you don't center everything around the individual without accounting for the group.
But god as a deity is by our very definition not "socialized" in these ways. It is all alone and doesn't have to take compromises with anyone. Intelligence doesn't necessarily lead to good morale if you don't have to live in the society you create with it.
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
Not every church is like this. I know mine isn't. Please don't generalize and say that all Christian churches are bad now. You just haven't been to a good church yet.
Of cause, I am sorry if I offended anyone. But it's my belief that if the church remains in a structural order, such as the core church saying gay marriage is not acceptable, no matter what teachings there are,the church has failed to set an example of understanding and loving because it sets command of the fellow Christians to follow their decision.
To be fair, there are quite a lot of churches nowadays that have female priests, are totally inclusive to homosexuals and gay marriage, are highly socialist (not necessarily Marxist), etc. The mainstream denominations just happen to have longer histories and are thus more visible and much larger. There is always going to be a structural order, and order in-itself isn't bad (I'm just going to dismiss anarchistic and libertarian notions off-hand as idiotic). I don't even know what on earth a "core church" is supposed to be. The only people that would ever use such a term would be sectarians that attempt to prop up their denomination as the "true Church" like the Catholics or the fundamentalists do, or people that honestly have no real awareness of the breadth of Christianity. I don't have any intention of defending the churches because there's so many things wrong with them, but linking this to structural order is pretty off-base. It carries the familiar off-colour smell of the naive libertarianism that attempts to place the blame for all human problems at the feet of the state (not all that different from how the New Atheists attempt to place the blame for all human problems at the feet of religion).
edit: and in perhaps an ironic way, placing the blame for the wrongs of Christianity at its structure really is a ground upon which a lot of Christians set off their apologia ("it's not Christianity that's wrong, it's the Church!")
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
Not every church is like this. I know mine isn't. Please don't generalize and say that all Christian churches are bad now. You just haven't been to a good church yet.
Of cause, I am sorry if I offended anyone. But it's my belief that if the church remains in a structural order, such as the core church saying gay marriage is not acceptable, no matter what teachings there are,the church has failed to set an example of understanding and loving because it sets command of the fellow Christians to follow their decision.
The church is not about tolerance, or as people say, "live and let live." It's not about accepting the sinful lifestyle of another being. We can understand the sin, relate to the person in that area, and cope with it, but we can't just accept it and leave it that way. The church - the Christian life - is about changing lives. God changes your life if you allow him, and it's a good change. James 2:14-16 says, "What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, 'Goodbye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well'--but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?" Although this is more in line with expressing your faith in love to others, I do like to correlate this verse to changing lives as well within the church. If you're not helping someone become a better Christian, what was the point of inviting them to church? Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately, many Christians and churches are not very smooth and gentle about loving another person. Many are forceful, condemning and judgmental, and... "banishing" like you said. 2 Timothy 3:5 says, "they will act religious, but will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!" It may have to do with the area I'm in or perhaps I'm just lucky with the churches I've attended, but I haven't seen or witnessed a church be like that. The ones i've been to were very loving and hospitable. I've seen those attitudes in certain individuals from time to time, but not in churches. But like I said, that may have to do with the area i'm in or if I'm just lucky with finding the right church that my girlfriend and I currently attend.
On account of God changing lives, most people think it's a bad change, or simply just an outward change, like giving up certain hobbies or other "fun" things (parties, etc), prohibiting certain things in sex, and a few others. One person told me before, "the Christian life is boring, you guys have no fun." It's really not about that. Of course we have fun. It's about getting to know your Creator and letting him work through you to display his love to other people. Change comes inwardly by the working of the Holy Spirit, and he does all the work. Your outward change is a gradual process and happens for the rest of your lifetime. Your perspective on life becomes more in line with God's (you think and see certain things the way that he does with the Holy Spirit's help). What you do on the outside stems from the inward change. This is called 'Sanctification', which is becoming more and more Christ-like as life goes on. It's not vice versa like many people presume: that when you become a Christian you have to "behave." I think a lot of people forget about that part.
But I think another strong point comes from the ST:voyager episode "Death Wish": Imagine you have every puzzle solved, every mathematical theorem proven, thought of every possibility. Wouldn't the existence as an all-powerful being not be boring? How couldn't it be.
Boredom is the necessary corollary of being in possession of an active nature, disposed to mutation and movement. These dispositions in their turn are the necessary corollaries of deficient perfection. You do not have to look to God to find an absence of boredom. Merely take any object immutable and immortal by its nature: rocks, dirt, mother-in-laws, etc.
But I think another strong point comes from the ST:voyager episode "Death Wish": Imagine you have every puzzle solved, every mathematical theorem proven, thought of every possibility. Wouldn't the existence as an all-powerful being not be boring? How couldn't it be.
Boredom is the necessary corollary of being in possession of an active nature, disposed to mutation and movement. These dispositions in their turn are the necessary corollaries of deficient perfection. You do not have to look to God to find an absence of boredom. Merely take any object immutable and immortal by its nature: rocks, dirt, mother-in-laws, etc.
fair enough. But non-active entities rarely create universes
But I think another strong point comes from the ST:voyager episode "Death Wish": Imagine you have every puzzle solved, every mathematical theorem proven, thought of every possibility. Wouldn't the existence as an all-powerful being not be boring? How couldn't it be.
Boredom is the necessary corollary of being in possession of an active nature, disposed to mutation and movement. These dispositions in their turn are the necessary corollaries of deficient perfection. You do not have to look to God to find an absence of boredom. Merely take any object immutable and immortal by its nature: rocks, dirt, mother-in-laws, etc.
fair enough. But non-active entities rarely create universes
Oh, fine. Let me try again, although I hate being long-winded:
The state of boredom is produced by the attribute of impatience, which is founded upon the temporal divorce between the reality of the present, and the possibilities of the future. If the sensation of time is felt by a sequence of changes, that which is immutable and immovable has no need of time, since neither advance nor retreat produces any alteration of state or essence. Furthermore, God, being eternal and omnipresent, is present simultaneously at all times. There is no black curtain which conceals from him the outcome of actions, or the destinies of quests. He is simultaneously present at every realised potential, and therefore cannot be bored.
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
Not every church is like this. I know mine isn't. Please don't generalize and say that all Christian churches are bad now. You just haven't been to a good church yet.
Of cause, I am sorry if I offended anyone. But it's my belief that if the church remains in a structural order, such as the core church saying gay marriage is not acceptable, no matter what teachings there are,the church has failed to set an example of understanding and loving because it sets command of the fellow Christians to follow their decision.
The church is not about tolerance, or as people say, "live and let live." It's not about accepting the sinful lifestyle of another being. We can understand the sin, relate to the person in that area, and cope with it, but we can't just accept it and leave it that way. The church - the Christian life - is about changing lives. God changes your life if you allow him, and it's a good change. James 2:14-16 says, "What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, 'Goodbye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well'--but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?" Although this is more in line with expressing your faith in love to others, I do like to correlate this verse to changing lives as well within the church. If you're not helping someone become a better Christian, what was the point of inviting them to church? Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately, many Christians and churches are not very smooth and gentle about loving another person. Many are forceful, condemning and judgmental, and... "banishing" like you said. 2 Timothy 3:5 says, "they will act religious, but will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!" It may have to do with the area I'm in or perhaps I'm just lucky with the churches I've attended, but I haven't seen or witnessed a church be like that. The ones i've been to were very loving and hospitable. I've seen those attitudes in certain individuals from time to time, but not in churches. But like I said, that may have to do with the area i'm in or if I'm just lucky with finding the right church that my girlfriend and I currently attend.
On account of God changing lives, most people think it's a bad change, or simply just an outward change, like giving up certain hobbies or other "fun" things (parties, etc), prohibiting certain things in sex, and a few others. One person told me before, "the Christian life is boring, you guys have no fun." It's really not about that. Of course we have fun. It's about getting to know your Creator and letting him work through you to display his love to other people. Change comes inwardly by the working of the Holy Spirit, and he does all the work. Your outward change is a gradual process and happens for the rest of your lifetime. Your perspective on life becomes more in line with God's (you think and see certain things the way that he does with the Holy Spirit's help). What you do on the outside stems from the inward change. This is called 'Sanctification', which is becoming more and more Christ-like as life goes on. It's not vice versa like many people presume: that when you become a Christian you have to "behave." I think a lot of people forget about that part.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with? We're not talking like some tiny, dysfunctional minority group with associated pathologies, like pedophiles, or something. We're talking about people who are exactly the same as everyone else except they happen to be sexually attracted to a different gender. Why is it okay for a woman to feel attracted to a man but suddenly wrong when a man experiences the exact same thing?
Before you can reject "sinful lifestyles," you have to actually prove that they're sinful, which means that you have to prove that they are somehow immoral lifestyles or resort to a "God said so in the Bible" approach, which fails on account of the fact that the Bible is not a philosophy textbook, not concerned with making specific ethical commands (i.e. stuff other than universal like love your neighbour) to the 21st century, and, perhaps most importantly, not actually written by God.
placing the blame for the wrongs of Christianity at its structure really is a ground upon which a lot of Christians set off their apologia ("it's not Christianity that's wrong, it's the Church!")
Well, what do you want them to say? When someone tells me about the Westboro Baptist Church, I'm not guilty by being in the same category of religious affiliation (i.e. Christian). I don't think many people really object to the key tenets of Christianity, honestly, because many are purely theological (and have no ethical relevance to a non-believer) whereas others are basically just pretty obvious, broad ethical dictates like "do unto others" and so on. Given the nature of the early Church, it's not picking and choosing to say that the letters of Paul, of all the books in the NT, need to be taken in context, because they were written specifically for a context (i.e. to a particular Church undergoing a particular crisis or asking a particular question). Paul did not sit down and compose a huge body of letters to be read for all time. We should not act as if he did.
But I think another strong point comes from the ST:voyager episode "Death Wish": Imagine you have every puzzle solved, every mathematical theorem proven, thought of every possibility. Wouldn't the existence as an all-powerful being not be boring? How couldn't it be.
Boredom is the necessary corollary of being in possession of an active nature, disposed to mutation and movement. These dispositions in their turn are the necessary corollaries of deficient perfection. You do not have to look to God to find an absence of boredom. Merely take any object immutable and immortal by its nature: rocks, dirt, mother-in-laws, etc.
fair enough. But non-active entities rarely create universes
Oh, fine. Let me try again, although I hate being long-winded:
The state of boredom is produced by the attribute of impatience, which is founded upon the temporal divorce between the reality of the present, and the possibilities of the future. If the sensation of time is felt by a sequence of changes, that which is immutable and immovable has no need of time, since neither advance nor retreat produces any alteration of state or essence. Furthermore, God, being eternal and omnipresent, is present simultaneously at all times. There is no black curtain which conceals from him the outcome of actions, or the destinies of quests. He is simultaneously present at every realised potential, and therefore cannot be bored.
P.S. Why do you watch Star Trek Voyager at all?
Well then I would disagree with you on that. I would see boredom as the lack of interesting or meaningful activity to pursue. But you may be right that for an eternal being who knows all possible outcomes, maybe boredom is a void concept. So maybe I ran into my own trap.
But I still hope that my original point isn't void: I have yet to see a convincing argument that links such a deity to (human) morale.
And I don't watch VOY. I watched it as a kid because I liked TNG and DS9 and some episodes stuck to my mind. I tried to rewatch it a few months ago but found it unbearable. Esp. with the advent of the new Generation of series like BSG (that ending though ), Sherlock or The Wire.
It is NOT PATHETIC for religious people to retreat to reason. If nothing else, it is a healthy exercise. It is not pathetic to have broader horizons.
So... creationist evolution, a.k.a. intelligent design is a healthy exercise? So is all the slippery sloppy "oh well you can't prove God doesn't exist...?" What? Are you still misreading what I was saying in that small post? I was simply saying that people that try to safeguard their faith by abusing the limits of knowledge and reason is misguided. Nothing against reason itself, just its application in some particular frameworks. God have mercy.
So unless you were still misunderstanding me, I'm more radically atheist than you at the end of it. I'm going to bed before I suffer an aneurysm. At this rate when I wake up tomorrow samzdat will become an apologist for neoliberal capitalism and I'll start worshiping Platinga and Milbank.
edit: And never did I say my problem was a retreat into reason itself, I was having a problem with people retreating to the limits of reason by proposing things like a God-of-the-gaps kind of thing. Which I state explicitly in that post.
I think I sort of agree. I don't despise philosophical arguments for the existence of God, or whatever, even though I think all of them (or almost all of them, anyway) are fundamentally unconvincing, but I do think that it's wasteful to define one's faith by way of said philosophical constructs rather than have faith as its own thing. The way I look at it, those arguments are useful in a sort of indirect way: they, perhaps to the mind of someone already convinced, or not, at least make it look like it's at least plausible that a God could exist. Yes, it's all very immature and about assuaging insecurities, and whatnot, but I've never met anyone without insecurities, and I don't think that wanting to have at least something propping you up a little on the side is so heinously awful.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with?
The most common fallacy people make is that if God is the cause of Good, and Good is the cause of evil, then God is a secondary cause of evil, and therefore cannot be purely benevolent. However, there is a difference between the necessary and sufficient cause here. If you take the position that evil is the deficiency of good, then God is only a secondary cause of evil, in the same sense that perfection is necessarily the cause of corruption. It is easy for poor logicians to make the equation therefrom that God = Evil, an equation which makes no more sense than Good = Evil.
Evil is merely a corruption of a thing from its proper purpose, or, to put it in metaphysical terms, the purely accidental cause without a final cause. If you accept those precepts, it is easy to work out a tenable position on homosexuality being sinful from there.
Those precepts put a fairly burdensome restriction on the "power" of God though, so while It might not make sense to say that God created Evil, it certainly follows that he either allows it to exist or is unable to stop it.
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
Not every church is like this. I know mine isn't. Please don't generalize and say that all Christian churches are bad now. You just haven't been to a good church yet.
Of cause, I am sorry if I offended anyone. But it's my belief that if the church remains in a structural order, such as the core church saying gay marriage is not acceptable, no matter what teachings there are,the church has failed to set an example of understanding and loving because it sets command of the fellow Christians to follow their decision.
The church is not about tolerance, or as people say, "live and let live." It's not about accepting the sinful lifestyle of another being. We can understand the sin, relate to the person in that area, and cope with it, but we can't just accept it and leave it that way. The church - the Christian life - is about changing lives. God changes your life if you allow him, and it's a good change. James 2:14-16 says, "What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, 'Goodbye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well'--but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?" Although this is more in line with expressing your faith in love to others, I do like to correlate this verse to changing lives as well within the church. If you're not helping someone become a better Christian, what was the point of inviting them to church? Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately, many Christians and churches are not very smooth and gentle about loving another person. Many are forceful, condemning and judgmental, and... "banishing" like you said. 2 Timothy 3:5 says, "they will act religious, but will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!" It may have to do with the area I'm in or perhaps I'm just lucky with the churches I've attended, but I haven't seen or witnessed a church be like that. The ones i've been to were very loving and hospitable. I've seen those attitudes in certain individuals from time to time, but not in churches. But like I said, that may have to do with the area i'm in or if I'm just lucky with finding the right church that my girlfriend and I currently attend.
On account of God changing lives, most people think it's a bad change, or simply just an outward change, like giving up certain hobbies or other "fun" things (parties, etc), prohibiting certain things in sex, and a few others. One person told me before, "the Christian life is boring, you guys have no fun." It's really not about that. Of course we have fun. It's about getting to know your Creator and letting him work through you to display his love to other people. Change comes inwardly by the working of the Holy Spirit, and he does all the work. Your outward change is a gradual process and happens for the rest of your lifetime. Your perspective on life becomes more in line with God's (you think and see certain things the way that he does with the Holy Spirit's help). What you do on the outside stems from the inward change. This is called 'Sanctification', which is becoming more and more Christ-like as life goes on. It's not vice versa like many people presume: that when you become a Christian you have to "behave." I think a lot of people forget about that part.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with? We're not talking like some tiny, dysfunctional minority group with associated pathologies, like pedophiles, or something. We're talking about people who are exactly the same as everyone else except they happen to be sexually attracted to a different gender. Why is it okay for a woman to feel attracted to a man but suddenly wrong when a man experiences the exact same thing?
Before you can reject "sinful lifestyles," you have to actually prove that they're sinful, which means that you have to prove that they are somehow immoral lifestyles or resort to a "God said so in the Bible" approach, which fails on account of the fact that the Bible is not a philosophy textbook, not concerned with making specific ethical commands (i.e. stuff other than universal like love your neighbour) to the 21st century, and, perhaps most importantly, not actually written by God.
So you're asking me to prove what is sinful without saying that God said so? By definition, sin is an immoral act that's considered to be a transgression against divine law. In other words, doing anything contrary to the nature of God and what he wants for you is therefore sin in his eyes. To ask me to prove what is "immoral" is to resolve to only human reasoning. Every human being is sinful, so I don't depend on humanity alone to answer my questions. You would rather trust a sinful person to prove what is sinful over a divine God who has no wrong in him?
Assuming all you know are what people and the news likes to tell you, you can conclude that people are simply "born gay," but that's simply not true because otherwise their sexual orientation (or preference) would never change, ever, and yet they do change their preference all the time. There is no "gay gene." God does not create homosexuality. He doesn't create any sin, nor does he tempt us to sin, period. His plan for sex is clear: one man, one woman, sex within marriage. This is holiness to God and how he intended it to be because, perhaps, he knows it is the best way. It has always been that way in God's eyes. Everything outside of those bounds is sinful.
He creates the individual, but he did not create the homosexual behavior. That is something humans brought upon themselves due to many different reasons, whether they be personal, behavioral, or environmental. The Bible tells us that everything is permissable (allowable and lawful for me), but not everything is beneficial (good for me) -1 Corinthians 6:12. Until you live under the control of the Holy Spirit, everything will seem good to you but in the end it'll lead to death (Proverbs 14:12, by Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived). When you become a believer, you spiritually understand why it is wrong and not good for you. I cannot emphasize it enough that non-believers will never understand that kind of perspective unless they humbly accept Jesus.
From the very start of my blog I've been well aware that people will not fully comprehend the true Christian faith until they experience it themselves. Describing the presence of the Holy Spirit, faith experiences, and how he guides you is like trying to describe the color 'blue' to someone who's been blind from birth. I can tell you that it's blue, it's the color of the sky and the ocean, and many other things in life, but until you actually see it yourself, you won't know what blue really is.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with?
The most common fallacy people make is that if God is the cause of Good, and Good is the cause of evil, then God is a secondary cause of evil, and therefore cannot be purely benevolent. However, there is a difference between the necessary and sufficient cause here. If you take the position that evil is the deficiency of good, then God is only a secondary cause of evil, in the same sense that perfection is necessarily the cause of corruption. It is easy for poor logicians to make the equation therefrom that God = Evil, an equation which makes no more sense than Good = Evil.
Evil is merely a corruption of a thing from its proper purpose, or, to put it in metaphysical terms, the purely accidental cause without a final cause. If you accept those precepts, it is easy to work out a tenable position on homosexuality being sinful from there.
While I don't have a problem with the Augustinian approach to the question of evil per se, I think we at least have to problematize what "evil" is/means. I think the honest reader of the Bible will at least have to concede that God does what would very readily be described as "evil" or at the very least apathetic in a purely human way. Theologically we could easily sidestep and escape these problems by saying that the Good of God is of a utterly different sort than the human Good. I think the Augustinian formulation only works through a very particular set of presuppositions that wouldn't readily be accepted as axiomatic by an atheist, for example, and such theodical answers just don't have much value when talking outside of the broad orthodoxy. This is why apologetic theodicy has been such a cultural failure. What is understood as "good" and "evil" isn't nearly as simple as it may seem because it's so theologically loaded.
I personally think that we need to take the Left Hand of God a lot more seriously. And while I do like Augustine, I think the popular reception of the evil-as-the-privation-of-good formula obscures the problem of radical evil and the "demonic" (Patocka).
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
Not every church is like this. I know mine isn't. Please don't generalize and say that all Christian churches are bad now. You just haven't been to a good church yet.
Of cause, I am sorry if I offended anyone. But it's my belief that if the church remains in a structural order, such as the core church saying gay marriage is not acceptable, no matter what teachings there are,the church has failed to set an example of understanding and loving because it sets command of the fellow Christians to follow their decision.
The church is not about tolerance, or as people say, "live and let live." It's not about accepting the sinful lifestyle of another being. We can understand the sin, relate to the person in that area, and cope with it, but we can't just accept it and leave it that way. The church - the Christian life - is about changing lives. God changes your life if you allow him, and it's a good change. James 2:14-16 says, "What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, 'Goodbye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well'--but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?" Although this is more in line with expressing your faith in love to others, I do like to correlate this verse to changing lives as well within the church. If you're not helping someone become a better Christian, what was the point of inviting them to church? Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately, many Christians and churches are not very smooth and gentle about loving another person. Many are forceful, condemning and judgmental, and... "banishing" like you said. 2 Timothy 3:5 says, "they will act religious, but will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!" It may have to do with the area I'm in or perhaps I'm just lucky with the churches I've attended, but I haven't seen or witnessed a church be like that. The ones i've been to were very loving and hospitable. I've seen those attitudes in certain individuals from time to time, but not in churches. But like I said, that may have to do with the area i'm in or if I'm just lucky with finding the right church that my girlfriend and I currently attend.
On account of God changing lives, most people think it's a bad change, or simply just an outward change, like giving up certain hobbies or other "fun" things (parties, etc), prohibiting certain things in sex, and a few others. One person told me before, "the Christian life is boring, you guys have no fun." It's really not about that. Of course we have fun. It's about getting to know your Creator and letting him work through you to display his love to other people. Change comes inwardly by the working of the Holy Spirit, and he does all the work. Your outward change is a gradual process and happens for the rest of your lifetime. Your perspective on life becomes more in line with God's (you think and see certain things the way that he does with the Holy Spirit's help). What you do on the outside stems from the inward change. This is called 'Sanctification', which is becoming more and more Christ-like as life goes on. It's not vice versa like many people presume: that when you become a Christian you have to "behave." I think a lot of people forget about that part.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with? We're not talking like some tiny, dysfunctional minority group with associated pathologies, like pedophiles, or something. We're talking about people who are exactly the same as everyone else except they happen to be sexually attracted to a different gender. Why is it okay for a woman to feel attracted to a man but suddenly wrong when a man experiences the exact same thing?
Before you can reject "sinful lifestyles," you have to actually prove that they're sinful, which means that you have to prove that they are somehow immoral lifestyles or resort to a "God said so in the Bible" approach, which fails on account of the fact that the Bible is not a philosophy textbook, not concerned with making specific ethical commands (i.e. stuff other than universal like love your neighbour) to the 21st century, and, perhaps most importantly, not actually written by God.
So you're asking me to prove what is sinful without saying that God said so?
Yes.
By definition, sin is an immoral act that's considered to be a transgression against divine law. In other words, doing anything contrary to the nature of God and what he wants for you is therefore sin in his eyes.
Well, I like to think God isn't a totally arbitrary imbecile who just randomly makes up rules for no real reason.
To ask me to prove what is "immoral" is to resolve to only human reasoning. Every human being is sinful, so I don't depend on humanity alone to answer my questions. You would rather trust a sinful person to prove what is sinful over a divine God who has no wrong in him?
Considering that if we could literally speak in an explicit fashion to an entity who had "solved" morality, as it were, the world would immediately become perfect, human reasoning is the best we've got. But beyond that, no shit you've gotta use human reasoning; whose else's have you got? Who do you think actually wrote the Bible? Do you think they didn't understand the words that they were writing? If they did understand, then understanding is within the realm of human reason. Even further beyond that, even if divine reasoning is more perfect than human laws, one would expect that it wouldn't totally contradict human law at a fundamental level.
I mean, even the Bible says "test everything; hold onto the good." You're basically saying the opposite. God gave you the ability to reason for a reason: because it's what makes you like God (in a fashion). If you want to live in a way that a deity would approve of, start by forming beliefs in a measured fashion. There's nothing wrong with believing in revelatory experiences, but only if they're confined to the mystical level. I absolutely reject the notion that God "tells" people how to make ethical decisions. In fact, there's no reason to suggest that such a notion has anything to do with the Bible, in large part.
Assuming all you know are what people and the news likes to tell you, you can conclude that people are simply "born gay," but that's simply not true because otherwise their sexual orientation (or preference) would never change, ever, and yet they do change their preference all the time.
What does this even mean? Even if (and I'm skeptical that this occurs--if it did, it's called being bisexual) people's "preferences" change, that in no way implies that sexual attraction to the same sex is any less real than sexual attraction to the opposite sex. It's not about there being a "gay gene," but there almost certainly are neurochemical variations which are associated with homosexuality vs. heterosexuality. It sounds like you have a naive understanding of the way genetics works if you think that there needs to be an explicit "gene" for every iota of a person's identity. Much in the same fashion that there is no "gay gene," there is no "straight gene."
There is no "gay gene." God does not create homosexuality. He doesn't create any sin, nor does he tempt us to sin, period. His plan for sex is clear: one man, one woman, sex within marriage. This is holiness to God and how he intended it to be because, perhaps, he knows it is the best way. It has always been that way in God's eyes. Everything outside of those bounds is sinful.
Best on the basis of what, though? Sure, maybe God does know it's the best way. But if he does, it shouldn't be a mystery; since it's a moral principle, it should be founded on logical reasoning (else it would be totally arbitrary, even on God's end) and therefore it should be at least somewhat accessible to human reasoning, even if some pieces are missing. But if you look at actual ethical philosophy, and science, and really the human understanding of goodness in general, homosexuality is just so obviously not an evil thing.
He creates the individual, but he did not create the homosexual behavior.
I consider my heterosexuality (and sexuality in general) to be pretty integral to my whole identity. I don't think I would be me if you removed my sexuality. In the same vein, creating an individual includes creating the sexual component of an individual.
That is something humans brought upon themselves due to many different reasons, whether they be personal, behavioral, or environmental.
So...as opposed to what, exactly? Literally everything any human being has ever done has been done for "personal, behavioral, or environmental" reasons. In fact, your faith is founded on one (or more) of these.
The Bible tells us that everything is permissable (allowable and lawful for me), but not everything is beneficial (good for me) -1 Corinthians 6:12.
This basically says you shouldn't treat your body as an object, because it's valuable. I fail to see what that has to do with homosexuality in particular; it seems like an argument against lackadaisical sex, more than anything. In what way are homosexuals disrespecting their bodies or treating their bodies poorly?
Until you live under the control of the Holy Spirit, everything will seem good to you but in the end it'll lead to death (Proverbs 14:12, by Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived).
On what do you base the bolded sentence? Also, the "control" of the Holy Spirit? Uh, I don't think God is really in the business of moving human beings around like chess pieces. Nor do I think it's impossible to distinguish good from evil without God telling me so; if that were the case, God did a pretty awful job with the invention of the mind.
When you become a believer, you spiritually understand why it is wrong and not good for you.
I am a believer. I, nevertheless, disagree with you entirely on the matter of homosexuality.
I cannot emphasize it enough that non-believers will never understand that kind of perspective unless they humbly accept Jesus.
That, first of all, is moronic, because it means that there's no actual reason to make some ethical decision over another. What do you think ethical decisions should be based on? Secondly, I'm a believer who has "humbly accepted Jesus" and, as I said, I don't "understand that kind of perspective" because I think it's wrong. Stop being so patronizing and condescending.
From the very start of my blog I've been well aware that people will not fully comprehend the true Christian faith until they experience it themselves.
I could say this exact sentence to you. Would it be meaningful if I did?
Describing the presence of the Holy Spirit, faith experiences, and how he guides you is like trying to describe the color 'blue' to someone who's been blind from birth.
Amusingly, this is a lot like a gay person trying to explain why they find the same sex attractive. They just do. Just like you "just do" find the opposite sex attractive. There's no choice involved in the attraction in that grand sense.
Your reasoning renders all moral philosophy totally irrelevant. Apparently you can only know that, say, murder is evil, if you believe in God, or read the Bible. But I mean, if that's your premise, it's not really worth actually discussing anything with you, since you've almost explicitly stated that God's decisions have nothing to do with anything even resembling logical reasoning.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with?
The most common fallacy people make is that if God is the cause of Good, and Good is the cause of evil, then God is a secondary cause of evil, and therefore cannot be purely benevolent. However, there is a difference between the necessary and sufficient cause here. If you take the position that evil is the deficiency of good, then God is only a secondary cause of evil, in the same sense that perfection is necessarily the cause of corruption. It is easy for poor logicians to make the equation therefrom that God = Evil, an equation which makes no more sense than Good = Evil.
Evil is merely a corruption of a thing from its proper purpose, or, to put it in metaphysical terms, the purely accidental cause without a final cause. If you accept those precepts, it is easy to work out a tenable position on homosexuality being sinful from there.
In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then? And give actual reasons that can be discussed, not just assertions or Biblical quotes. I don't think the Bible constitutes the sum-total of human knowledge, nor was it intended to; ergo, I think that the Bible should, at least, be broadly compatible with reason in its universals, and, with respect to things that proscribe interpersonal relations, should be absolutely connected to reason.
I thought I killed this thread, but apparently, you guys just won't let up.
On October 23 2013 06:14 IronManSC wrote:
He creates the individual, but he did not create the homosexual behavior.
Somehow, I knew this was coming. I could see this coming for weeks or however long this thread has existed. I should've started a betting thread and see who could predict when the Christianity discussion would run into Homosexuality.
On October 23 2013 10:43 ninazerg wrote: Somehow, I knew this was coming. I could see this coming for weeks or however long this thread has existed. I should've started a betting thread and see who could predict when the Christianity discussion would run into Homosexuality.
The whole "God created everything ever except the things I don't like" always shows up.
I think that the Bible should, at least, be broadly compatible with reason in its universals, and, with respect to things that proscribe interpersonal relations, should be absolutely connected to reason.
I apologise for not answering your question, I only have time right now to ask one of you:
Do you regard proper use of reason in a prescriptive or proscriptive role? Should a person act reasonably at all times, or is reason merely the instrument of preventing a limited set of actions/consequences?
In other words, is ethics for you a question of duties and obligations, or is it a question of understanding the limitations on natural freedom?
I think that the Bible should, at least, be broadly compatible with reason in its universals, and, with respect to things that proscribe interpersonal relations, should be absolutely connected to reason.
I apologise for not answering your question, I only have time right now to ask one of you:
Do you regard proper use of reason in a prescriptive or proscriptive role? Should a person act reasonably at all times, or is reason merely the instrument of preventing a limited set of actions/consequences?
I'm not exactly sure what this means. Persons should act reasonably at all times; that doesn't mean every person should we making syllogisms in their head as they sing their infant a lullaby, though.
In other words, is ethics for you a question of duties and obligations, or is it a question of understanding the limitations on natural freedom?
Um, I think it's probably more the former, but it's also the latter. I'm not sure what "natural freedom" is. I think, in some senses, the two are the same thing. I am more or less a Kantian, if that helps.
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
Not every church is like this. I know mine isn't. Please don't generalize and say that all Christian churches are bad now. You just haven't been to a good church yet.
Of cause, I am sorry if I offended anyone. But it's my belief that if the church remains in a structural order, such as the core church saying gay marriage is not acceptable, no matter what teachings there are,the church has failed to set an example of understanding and loving because it sets command of the fellow Christians to follow their decision.
The church is not about tolerance, or as people say, "live and let live." It's not about accepting the sinful lifestyle of another being. We can understand the sin, relate to the person in that area, and cope with it, but we can't just accept it and leave it that way. The church - the Christian life - is about changing lives. God changes your life if you allow him, and it's a good change. James 2:14-16 says, "What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, 'Goodbye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well'--but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?" Although this is more in line with expressing your faith in love to others, I do like to correlate this verse to changing lives as well within the church. If you're not helping someone become a better Christian, what was the point of inviting them to church? Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately, many Christians and churches are not very smooth and gentle about loving another person. Many are forceful, condemning and judgmental, and... "banishing" like you said. 2 Timothy 3:5 says, "they will act religious, but will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!" It may have to do with the area I'm in or perhaps I'm just lucky with the churches I've attended, but I haven't seen or witnessed a church be like that. The ones i've been to were very loving and hospitable. I've seen those attitudes in certain individuals from time to time, but not in churches. But like I said, that may have to do with the area i'm in or if I'm just lucky with finding the right church that my girlfriend and I currently attend.
On account of God changing lives, most people think it's a bad change, or simply just an outward change, like giving up certain hobbies or other "fun" things (parties, etc), prohibiting certain things in sex, and a few others. One person told me before, "the Christian life is boring, you guys have no fun." It's really not about that. Of course we have fun. It's about getting to know your Creator and letting him work through you to display his love to other people. Change comes inwardly by the working of the Holy Spirit, and he does all the work. Your outward change is a gradual process and happens for the rest of your lifetime. Your perspective on life becomes more in line with God's (you think and see certain things the way that he does with the Holy Spirit's help). What you do on the outside stems from the inward change. This is called 'Sanctification', which is becoming more and more Christ-like as life goes on. It's not vice versa like many people presume: that when you become a Christian you have to "behave." I think a lot of people forget about that part.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with? We're not talking like some tiny, dysfunctional minority group with associated pathologies, like pedophiles, or something. We're talking about people who are exactly the same as everyone else except they happen to be sexually attracted to a different gender. Why is it okay for a woman to feel attracted to a man but suddenly wrong when a man experiences the exact same thing?
Before you can reject "sinful lifestyles," you have to actually prove that they're sinful, which means that you have to prove that they are somehow immoral lifestyles or resort to a "God said so in the Bible" approach, which fails on account of the fact that the Bible is not a philosophy textbook, not concerned with making specific ethical commands (i.e. stuff other than universal like love your neighbour) to the 21st century, and, perhaps most importantly, not actually written by God.
placing the blame for the wrongs of Christianity at its structure really is a ground upon which a lot of Christians set off their apologia ("it's not Christianity that's wrong, it's the Church!")
Well, what do you want them to say? When someone tells me about the Westboro Baptist Church, I'm not guilty by being in the same category of religious affiliation (i.e. Christian). I don't think many people really object to the key tenets of Christianity, honestly, because many are purely theological (and have no ethical relevance to a non-believer) whereas others are basically just pretty obvious, broad ethical dictates like "do unto others" and so on. Given the nature of the early Church, it's not picking and choosing to say that the letters of Paul, of all the books in the NT, need to be taken in context, because they were written specifically for a context (i.e. to a particular Church undergoing a particular crisis or asking a particular question). Paul did not sit down and compose a huge body of letters to be read for all time. We should not act as if he did.
In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then? And give actual reasons that can be discussed, not just assertions or Biblical quotes. I don't think the Bible constitutes the sum-total of human knowledge, nor was it intended to; ergo, I think that the Bible should, at least, be broadly compatible with reason in its universals, and, with respect to things that proscribe interpersonal relations, should be absolutely connected to reason.
Um, I think it's probably more the former, but it's also the latter. I'm not sure what "natural freedom" is. I think, in some senses, the two are the same thing. I am more or less a Kantian, if that helps.
It should be fairly easy for a Kantian to see how homosexuality is a deficiency of good. One cannot perform homosexual behavior in a way that accords with the categorical imperative; there is no rationally universalizable maxim that allows one to perform homosexual activity ("everyone should have sex with people they're attracted to" "one should have sex without wanting to procreate" etc.).
In any case, your view of the issue is misguided because you view homosexuality as an integral part of identity whereas pedophilia etc is a disease. First of all, the idea that homosexuality really defines your identity is a totally modern creation; Greeks or Romans wouldn't define themselves in these terms, because homosexual behavior was not seen as central to your identity. God doesn't decide what traits people decide to see an integral to their identity, which means that there's no reason for God to make "parts of identity" morally uncondemnable as compared to "accidental behaviors" which he can condemn. There are no essential eternal lines that divide up identity and accidental behaviors, which means there is no way to construct an argument to say that identity, rather than accidental behaviors, cannot rightly be condemned by God (since there's no way to appropriately divide up these categories in the first place).
Moreover, you think that the fact that homosexual behavior is determined by physical factors means that it cannot be condemned (well, maybe you wouldn't go this far). It simply doesn't matter whether or not we have a physical explanation of some piece of behavior unless we've already got a moral philosophy in hand that explains what kinds of physical causes absolve us of guilt and what kinds don't. We can give a theoretically physical explanation for why a person murdered someone else, but that doesn't mean the murder has no moral significance. Given your espoused proclivity for moral philosophy, you ought to see that the question of whether determinism invalidates moral responsibility is very controversial, and in no way settles in such a way that "homosexuals can't be at fault because they are biologically different" simply has to be accepted by any reasonable moral philosopher.
You are very un-Kantian in your thinking. Kant makes a distinction between the rational moral agent and the contingent empirical agent who is subject to inclinations and desires. A rational moral agent simply must act in accordance with the categorical imperative, and it is not immediately clear that homosexuals really do that. Given Kant's broader views on sex and relationships, a lot of doubt is cast on the notion that a Kantian can really hold that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable.
On October 24 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote: "Everyone should have the ability to individually determine who they are attracted to and act on it accordingly."
That wasn't so hard.
everyone should give his best that (his) society endures.
On October 24 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote: "Everyone should have the ability to individually determine who they are attracted to and act on it accordingly."
That wasn't so hard.
everyone should give his best that (his) society endures.
Everyone should make statements which aspires to put the maximal distance between itself and the tautological.
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
Not every church is like this. I know mine isn't. Please don't generalize and say that all Christian churches are bad now. You just haven't been to a good church yet.
Of cause, I am sorry if I offended anyone. But it's my belief that if the church remains in a structural order, such as the core church saying gay marriage is not acceptable, no matter what teachings there are,the church has failed to set an example of understanding and loving because it sets command of the fellow Christians to follow their decision.
The church is not about tolerance, or as people say, "live and let live." It's not about accepting the sinful lifestyle of another being. We can understand the sin, relate to the person in that area, and cope with it, but we can't just accept it and leave it that way. The church - the Christian life - is about changing lives. God changes your life if you allow him, and it's a good change. James 2:14-16 says, "What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, 'Goodbye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well'--but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?" Although this is more in line with expressing your faith in love to others, I do like to correlate this verse to changing lives as well within the church. If you're not helping someone become a better Christian, what was the point of inviting them to church? Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately, many Christians and churches are not very smooth and gentle about loving another person. Many are forceful, condemning and judgmental, and... "banishing" like you said. 2 Timothy 3:5 says, "they will act religious, but will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!" It may have to do with the area I'm in or perhaps I'm just lucky with the churches I've attended, but I haven't seen or witnessed a church be like that. The ones i've been to were very loving and hospitable. I've seen those attitudes in certain individuals from time to time, but not in churches. But like I said, that may have to do with the area i'm in or if I'm just lucky with finding the right church that my girlfriend and I currently attend.
On account of God changing lives, most people think it's a bad change, or simply just an outward change, like giving up certain hobbies or other "fun" things (parties, etc), prohibiting certain things in sex, and a few others. One person told me before, "the Christian life is boring, you guys have no fun." It's really not about that. Of course we have fun. It's about getting to know your Creator and letting him work through you to display his love to other people. Change comes inwardly by the working of the Holy Spirit, and he does all the work. Your outward change is a gradual process and happens for the rest of your lifetime. Your perspective on life becomes more in line with God's (you think and see certain things the way that he does with the Holy Spirit's help). What you do on the outside stems from the inward change. This is called 'Sanctification', which is becoming more and more Christ-like as life goes on. It's not vice versa like many people presume: that when you become a Christian you have to "behave." I think a lot of people forget about that part.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with? We're not talking like some tiny, dysfunctional minority group with associated pathologies, like pedophiles, or something. We're talking about people who are exactly the same as everyone else except they happen to be sexually attracted to a different gender. Why is it okay for a woman to feel attracted to a man but suddenly wrong when a man experiences the exact same thing?
Before you can reject "sinful lifestyles," you have to actually prove that they're sinful, which means that you have to prove that they are somehow immoral lifestyles or resort to a "God said so in the Bible" approach, which fails on account of the fact that the Bible is not a philosophy textbook, not concerned with making specific ethical commands (i.e. stuff other than universal like love your neighbour) to the 21st century, and, perhaps most importantly, not actually written by God.
placing the blame for the wrongs of Christianity at its structure really is a ground upon which a lot of Christians set off their apologia ("it's not Christianity that's wrong, it's the Church!")
Well, what do you want them to say? When someone tells me about the Westboro Baptist Church, I'm not guilty by being in the same category of religious affiliation (i.e. Christian). I don't think many people really object to the key tenets of Christianity, honestly, because many are purely theological (and have no ethical relevance to a non-believer) whereas others are basically just pretty obvious, broad ethical dictates like "do unto others" and so on. Given the nature of the early Church, it's not picking and choosing to say that the letters of Paul, of all the books in the NT, need to be taken in context, because they were written specifically for a context (i.e. to a particular Church undergoing a particular crisis or asking a particular question). Paul did not sit down and compose a huge body of letters to be read for all time. We should not act as if he did.
In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then? And give actual reasons that can be discussed, not just assertions or Biblical quotes. I don't think the Bible constitutes the sum-total of human knowledge, nor was it intended to; ergo, I think that the Bible should, at least, be broadly compatible with reason in its universals, and, with respect to things that proscribe interpersonal relations, should be absolutely connected to reason.
Um, I think it's probably more the former, but it's also the latter. I'm not sure what "natural freedom" is. I think, in some senses, the two are the same thing. I am more or less a Kantian, if that helps.
It should be fairly easy for a Kantian to see how homosexuality is a deficiency of good. One cannot perform homosexual behavior in a way that accords with the categorical imperative; there is no rationally universalizable maxim that allows one to perform homosexual activity ("everyone should have sex with people they're attracted to" "one should have sex without wanting to procreate" etc.).
By Kantian, I don't mean that I'm literally Immanuel Kant. I mean that I agree with the spirit of his moral philosophy (that is, his deontological system) and the categorical imperative strikes me as pretty good. I also think Kantianism (in some form) is the strongest alternative to utilitarianism, and I really fucking hate utilitarianism.
That said, I don't see what's so problematic about "everyone should have sex with people they're attracted to," unless you mean to say that the other person is obligated to have sex with them. We could just say "people should have sex only with those who consent to having sex with them, and whom they consent to having sex with."
In any case, your view of the issue is misguided because you view homosexuality as an integral part of identity whereas pedophilia etc is a disease. First of all, the idea that homosexuality really defines your identity is a totally modern creation; Greeks or Romans wouldn't define themselves in these terms, because homosexual behavior was not seen as central to your identity. God doesn't decide what traits people decide to see an integral to their identity, which means that there's no reason for God to make "parts of identity" morally uncondemnable as compared to "accidental behaviors" which he can condemn. There are no essential eternal lines that divide up identity and accidental behaviors, which means there is no way to construct an argument to say that identity, rather than accidental behaviors, cannot rightly be condemned by God (since there's no way to appropriately divide up these categories in the first place).
No. Homosexuality isn't integral to your identity, as such, except insofar as sexuality as a whole is certainly part of one's identity. It's not that homosexuality qua homosexuality is uniquely integral to one's identity, but that sexual identity is integral to one's identity because humans are pretty obviously sexual creatures. I don't think pedophilia qua pedophilia is immoral, since it's not an actual action controlled by any agent. It's just an attraction. So long as it's not acted upon, there's no decision to be condemned. The reason pedophilic acts are immoral isn't that it's a "disease," but rather that it's raping children.
Side note: that the Greeks and Romans were wildly homosexual in their actions is a bizarre myth. While it's true that pederasty was common (and noble) in Greek society, the Greeks (nor the Romans) didn't think of homosexuality and heterosexuality is some abstract psychological construction because, well, they just didn't! In addition, the Greeks explicitly condemned anal sex.That doesn't mean that homosexuality didn't exist back then, or that there weren't people who were exclusively attracted to people of the same sex as themselves. But, again, it's tangential to the point: it's clear that there exist, today (and almost certainly throughout history) a whole lot of people who are exclusively and genuinely only attracted to persons of the same sex. Now, provided both parties are consenting, and, for the hell of it, let's say they're in a loving, mutually respectful relationship, how exactly does homosexual sex wind up being immoral?
Moreover, you think that the fact that homosexual behavior is determined by physical factors means that it cannot be condemned (well, maybe you wouldn't go this far).
No, but it does mean you can't claim, as Ironman did, that homosexuality is a choice.
It simply doesn't matter whether or not we have a physical explanation of some piece of behavior unless we've already got a moral philosophy in hand that explains what kinds of physical causes absolve us of guilt and what kinds don't. We can give a theoretically physical explanation for why a person murdered someone else, but that doesn't mean the murder has no moral significance. Given your espoused proclivity for moral philosophy, you ought to see that the question of whether determinism invalidates moral responsibility is very controversial, and in no way settles in such a way that "homosexuals can't be at fault because they are biologically different" simply has to be accepted by any reasonable moral philosopher.
It matters when the thing being condemned isn't even a choice proper. Sexual orientation isn't something you decide, neither under hard determinism, nor under compatibilism, nor under libertarianism because it has nothing to do with the will., if such a thing exists.
You are very un-Kantian in your thinking. Kant makes a distinction between the rational moral agent and the contingent empirical agent who is subject to inclinations and desires. A rational moral agent simply must act in accordance with the categorical imperative, and it is not immediately clear that homosexuals really do that. Given Kant's broader views on sex and relationships, a lot of doubt is cast on the notion that a Kantian can really hold that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable.
You think you have to agree with Kant on sex to be a Kantian? I don't think any neo-Kantian scholars would seriously hold to Kant's views on sex. His views on relationships (interpersonal in general) aren't bad, but he doesn't seem to understand what sex even is, the way it's described.
I don't understand how homosexual sex violates the CI anymore than other kinds of sex. From the point of view of agency, the motivations and consenting and, really, just the whole thing in general doesn't really differ much from heterosexuality.
I think the danger of staying too close to Kant's original writings is that one could end up becoming a very sterile human being. I don't think that's particularly healthy, neither for morality nor for life in general. As much as Kant wishes it weren't so, human emotions, desires, inclinations, and whatnot do exist. Yes, we can talk about being rational till we're blue in the face, but you haven't (and nobody ever really has) provided anything even resembling a rational argument as to why people are obliged not to engage in homosexual intercourse. I'm not sure how you can say that "it is not immediately clear that homosexuals really do that" but then fail to mention that the moral imperative not to engage in homosexual sex (as opposed to, say, heterosexual sex) is even less clear.
I mean, homosexual sex is basically the same deal as any other kind of consensual sex, as far as I'm concerned. We can talk about counter-examples viz. what volition underpins said consent (e.g. I'm sure Kant would object to prostitutes on the grounds that, if nothing else, they're conceivably not respecting themselves or treating themselves/someone else as an end in themselves etc. etc. I'm sure he'd come up with something) till we're blue in the fact, but the fact is that homosexual sex, in the sense which one decides to engage in it/experiences it/desires it/perceives it, is nearly identical to heterosexual sex. Given that, you have to show that something about homosexual sex in particular (with respect to how it differs from heterosexual sex) makes it invalid to use the same or similar arguments as those which justify heterosexual sex to justify homosexual sex.
On October 24 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote: "Everyone should have the ability to individually determine who they are attracted to and act on it accordingly."
That wasn't so hard.
everyone should give his best that (his) society endures.
Everyone should make statements which aspires to put the maximal distance between itself and the tautological.
Everyone?
I think it should be:
Some people that have the ability to communicate may make statements which may or may not aspire to anything, and these statements, if heard and perceived correctly or incorrectly by potential listeners, may or may not be disagreed with, due to chemical releases in the brain, and therefore, pledge your hearts, minds and bodies to Mother Russia.
On October 24 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote: "Everyone should have the ability to individually determine who they are attracted to and act on it accordingly."
That wasn't so hard.
everyone should give his best that (his) society endures.
Everyone should make statements which aspires to put the maximal distance between itself and the tautological.
Everyone?
I think it should be:
Some people that have the ability to communicate may make statements which may or may not aspire to anything, and these statements, if heard and perceived correctly or incorrectly by potential listeners, may or may not be disagreed with, due to chemical releases in the brain, and therefore, pledge your hearts, minds and bodies to Mother Russia.
Yes, I think my imperatives need some work.
Concerning Shiori, by saying that
By Kantian, I don't mean that I'm literally Immanuel Kant. I mean that I agree with the spirit of his moral philosophy (that is, his deontological system) and the categorical imperative strikes me as pretty good. I also think Kantianism (in some form) is the strongest alternative to utilitarianism, and I really fucking hate utilitarianism.
you are really conjuring the impression of an eclectic system of personal values. What you are saying is that Categorical Imperative and its inversion in evil are good principles generally, but do not justify a critique of certain select actions.
The Kantian ethical system is merely a framework through which the validity of specific actions may be measured. It's unfair to demand a universal framework ("broadly compatible with reason in its universals") and then ask for a particular justification independent of that framework. I do not understand this, unless you do not see how homosexuality could possibly violate the aforementioned ethical system at all?
Can you not see that at least in its procreative function, heterosexual sex has a definite final cause which is missing in homosexual sex?
On October 24 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote: "Everyone should have the ability to individually determine whom they are attracted to and act on it accordingly."
That wasn't so hard.
No rational agent could will that to be universal moral law. An inclination-driven and irrational agent could will it, but in "acting on it accordingly," we reduce the other person to a mere object to desire; their fundamental dignity is destroyed.
On October 21 2013 23:49 ETisME wrote: if you would describe Christianity as love, it is a selfish form of love that binds people to follow their rules and banish those who don't. This is a shame because Christianity as a religion should be spreading love, instead of establishing what are right and wrong.
This is why I dislike religion as a whole. They started with a very good intention: bring people together, form what's good for the society, teaches love and peace and forgiving EVEN to those that are born in a harsh environment and receive no education.
But now they are just degraded themselves further with arrogance, ignorance, power corrupted etc. This is what happens when Church has too much wealth and power.
Not every church is like this. I know mine isn't. Please don't generalize and say that all Christian churches are bad now. You just haven't been to a good church yet.
Of cause, I am sorry if I offended anyone. But it's my belief that if the church remains in a structural order, such as the core church saying gay marriage is not acceptable, no matter what teachings there are,the church has failed to set an example of understanding and loving because it sets command of the fellow Christians to follow their decision.
The church is not about tolerance, or as people say, "live and let live." It's not about accepting the sinful lifestyle of another being. We can understand the sin, relate to the person in that area, and cope with it, but we can't just accept it and leave it that way. The church - the Christian life - is about changing lives. God changes your life if you allow him, and it's a good change. James 2:14-16 says, "What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, 'Goodbye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well'--but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?" Although this is more in line with expressing your faith in love to others, I do like to correlate this verse to changing lives as well within the church. If you're not helping someone become a better Christian, what was the point of inviting them to church? Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately, many Christians and churches are not very smooth and gentle about loving another person. Many are forceful, condemning and judgmental, and... "banishing" like you said. 2 Timothy 3:5 says, "they will act religious, but will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!" It may have to do with the area I'm in or perhaps I'm just lucky with the churches I've attended, but I haven't seen or witnessed a church be like that. The ones i've been to were very loving and hospitable. I've seen those attitudes in certain individuals from time to time, but not in churches. But like I said, that may have to do with the area i'm in or if I'm just lucky with finding the right church that my girlfriend and I currently attend.
On account of God changing lives, most people think it's a bad change, or simply just an outward change, like giving up certain hobbies or other "fun" things (parties, etc), prohibiting certain things in sex, and a few others. One person told me before, "the Christian life is boring, you guys have no fun." It's really not about that. Of course we have fun. It's about getting to know your Creator and letting him work through you to display his love to other people. Change comes inwardly by the working of the Holy Spirit, and he does all the work. Your outward change is a gradual process and happens for the rest of your lifetime. Your perspective on life becomes more in line with God's (you think and see certain things the way that he does with the Holy Spirit's help). What you do on the outside stems from the inward change. This is called 'Sanctification', which is becoming more and more Christ-like as life goes on. It's not vice versa like many people presume: that when you become a Christian you have to "behave." I think a lot of people forget about that part.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with? We're not talking like some tiny, dysfunctional minority group with associated pathologies, like pedophiles, or something. We're talking about people who are exactly the same as everyone else except they happen to be sexually attracted to a different gender. Why is it okay for a woman to feel attracted to a man but suddenly wrong when a man experiences the exact same thing?
Before you can reject "sinful lifestyles," you have to actually prove that they're sinful, which means that you have to prove that they are somehow immoral lifestyles or resort to a "God said so in the Bible" approach, which fails on account of the fact that the Bible is not a philosophy textbook, not concerned with making specific ethical commands (i.e. stuff other than universal like love your neighbour) to the 21st century, and, perhaps most importantly, not actually written by God.
placing the blame for the wrongs of Christianity at its structure really is a ground upon which a lot of Christians set off their apologia ("it's not Christianity that's wrong, it's the Church!")
Well, what do you want them to say? When someone tells me about the Westboro Baptist Church, I'm not guilty by being in the same category of religious affiliation (i.e. Christian). I don't think many people really object to the key tenets of Christianity, honestly, because many are purely theological (and have no ethical relevance to a non-believer) whereas others are basically just pretty obvious, broad ethical dictates like "do unto others" and so on. Given the nature of the early Church, it's not picking and choosing to say that the letters of Paul, of all the books in the NT, need to be taken in context, because they were written specifically for a context (i.e. to a particular Church undergoing a particular crisis or asking a particular question). Paul did not sit down and compose a huge body of letters to be read for all time. We should not act as if he did.
In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then? And give actual reasons that can be discussed, not just assertions or Biblical quotes. I don't think the Bible constitutes the sum-total of human knowledge, nor was it intended to; ergo, I think that the Bible should, at least, be broadly compatible with reason in its universals, and, with respect to things that proscribe interpersonal relations, should be absolutely connected to reason.
Um, I think it's probably more the former, but it's also the latter. I'm not sure what "natural freedom" is. I think, in some senses, the two are the same thing. I am more or less a Kantian, if that helps.
It should be fairly easy for a Kantian to see how homosexuality is a deficiency of good. One cannot perform homosexual behavior in a way that accords with the categorical imperative; there is no rationally universalizable maxim that allows one to perform homosexual activity ("everyone should have sex with people they're attracted to" "one should have sex without wanting to procreate" etc.).
By Kantian, I don't mean that I'm literally Immanuel Kant. I mean that I agree with the spirit of his moral philosophy (that is, his deontological system) and the categorical imperative strikes me as pretty good. I also think Kantianism (in some form) is the strongest alternative to utilitarianism, and I really fucking hate utilitarianism.
That said, I don't see what's so problematic about "everyone should have sex with people they're attracted to," unless you mean to say that the other person is obligated to have sex with them. We could just say "people should have sex only with those who consent to having sex with them, and whom they consent to having sex with."
In any case, your view of the issue is misguided because you view homosexuality as an integral part of identity whereas pedophilia etc is a disease. First of all, the idea that homosexuality really defines your identity is a totally modern creation; Greeks or Romans wouldn't define themselves in these terms, because homosexual behavior was not seen as central to your identity. God doesn't decide what traits people decide to see an integral to their identity, which means that there's no reason for God to make "parts of identity" morally uncondemnable as compared to "accidental behaviors" which he can condemn. There are no essential eternal lines that divide up identity and accidental behaviors, which means there is no way to construct an argument to say that identity, rather than accidental behaviors, cannot rightly be condemned by God (since there's no way to appropriately divide up these categories in the first place).
No. Homosexuality isn't integral to your identity, as such, except insofar as sexuality as a whole is certainly part of one's identity. It's not that homosexuality qua homosexuality is uniquely integral to one's identity, but that sexual identity is integral to one's identity because humans are pretty obviously sexual creatures. I don't think pedophilia qua pedophilia is immoral, since it's not an actual action controlled by any agent. It's just an attraction. So long as it's not acted upon, there's no decision to be condemned. The reason pedophilic acts are immoral isn't that it's a "disease," but rather that it's raping children.
Side note: that the Greeks and Romans were wildly homosexual in their actions is a bizarre myth. While it's true that pederasty was common (and noble) in Greek society, the Greeks (nor the Romans) didn't think of homosexuality and heterosexuality is some abstract psychological construction because, well, they just didn't! In addition, the Greeks explicitly condemned anal sex.That doesn't mean that homosexuality didn't exist back then, or that there weren't people who were exclusively attracted to people of the same sex as themselves. But, again, it's tangential to the point: it's clear that there exist, today (and almost certainly throughout history) a whole lot of people who are exclusively and genuinely only attracted to persons of the same sex. Now, provided both parties are consenting, and, for the hell of it, let's say they're in a loving, mutually respectful relationship, how exactly does homosexual sex wind up being immoral?
Moreover, you think that the fact that homosexual behavior is determined by physical factors means that it cannot be condemned (well, maybe you wouldn't go this far).
No, but it does mean you can't claim, as Ironman did, that homosexuality is a choice.
It simply doesn't matter whether or not we have a physical explanation of some piece of behavior unless we've already got a moral philosophy in hand that explains what kinds of physical causes absolve us of guilt and what kinds don't. We can give a theoretically physical explanation for why a person murdered someone else, but that doesn't mean the murder has no moral significance. Given your espoused proclivity for moral philosophy, you ought to see that the question of whether determinism invalidates moral responsibility is very controversial, and in no way settles in such a way that "homosexuals can't be at fault because they are biologically different" simply has to be accepted by any reasonable moral philosopher.
It matters when the thing being condemned isn't even a choice proper. Sexual orientation isn't something you decide, neither under hard determinism, nor under compatibilism, nor under libertarianism because it has nothing to do with the will., if such a thing exists.
You are very un-Kantian in your thinking. Kant makes a distinction between the rational moral agent and the contingent empirical agent who is subject to inclinations and desires. A rational moral agent simply must act in accordance with the categorical imperative, and it is not immediately clear that homosexuals really do that. Given Kant's broader views on sex and relationships, a lot of doubt is cast on the notion that a Kantian can really hold that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable.
You think you have to agree with Kant on sex to be a Kantian? I don't think any neo-Kantian scholars would seriously hold to Kant's views on sex. His views on relationships (interpersonal in general) aren't bad, but he doesn't seem to understand what sex even is, the way it's described.
I don't understand how homosexual sex violates the CI anymore than other kinds of sex. From the point of view of agency, the motivations and consenting and, really, just the whole thing in general doesn't really differ much from heterosexuality.
I think the danger of staying too close to Kant's original writings is that one could end up becoming a very sterile human being. I don't think that's particularly healthy, neither for morality nor for life in general. As much as Kant wishes it weren't so, human emotions, desires, inclinations, and whatnot do exist. Yes, we can talk about being rational till we're blue in the face, but you haven't (and nobody ever really has) provided anything even resembling a rational argument as to why people are obliged not to engage in homosexual intercourse. I'm not sure how you can say that "it is not immediately clear that homosexuals really do that" but then fail to mention that the moral imperative not to engage in homosexual sex (as opposed to, say, heterosexual sex) is even less clear.
I mean, homosexual sex is basically the same deal as any other kind of consensual sex, as far as I'm concerned. We can talk about counter-examples viz. what volition underpins said consent (e.g. I'm sure Kant would object to prostitutes on the grounds that, if nothing else, they're conceivably not respecting themselves or treating themselves/someone else as an end in themselves etc. etc. I'm sure he'd come up with something) till we're blue in the fact, but the fact is that homosexual sex, in the sense which one decides to engage in it/experiences it/desires it/perceives it, is nearly identical to heterosexual sex. Given that, you have to show that something about homosexual sex in particular (with respect to how it differs from heterosexual sex) makes it invalid to use the same or similar arguments as those which justify heterosexual sex to justify homosexual sex.
I don't think you seriously considered what I meant in explaining that homosexuality need not be considered integral to identity, so I'm not going to respond to what you said w/r/t that.
In any case, there are, I think, serious issues for someone who wants to maintain Kant's deontological framework while doing away with his views on the dignity of persons and the separation of the agent qua rationality and agent qua inclinations etc. There's no reason to get into exegetical arguments about Kant, though, so I'll move the argument to the level of homosexual sex. It is difficult to maintain that sex performed solely for the sake of pleasure (which, I remind you, means all homosexual sex, and most heterosexual) can be endorsed if we see autonomy of the will as supreme.
It's not as though this is a silly result of Kant's views on reason vs inclinations and so forth. Rather, there are real problems if we start viewing others and ourselves just as a means to pleasure. Kant's emphasis on human freedom and autonomy are tied up with his disparagement of inclinations. We're acting freely when we act according to our own reason, but it's difficult to see how we can act freely as a result of our inclinations. Or rather, it's difficult to distinguish between "inappropriate" inclinations like drug addictions or sudden whimsy and "appropriate" inclinations like garden-variety desires etc. This isn't impossible, but I don't think we can maintain the same overall structure shaped around autonomy (i.e. the foundation of Kant's ethical system) if we allow our inclinations to dictate some of our free actions.
People are obliged not to engage in homosexual sex, and a good deal of heterosexual sex, because it is morally wrong to reduce another person to a means for pleasure. Kant, obviously, didn't think the aim of procreation really made heterosexual sex rationally justifiable, but this view is certainly open to a Kantian. Given that someone with even vaguely Kantian beliefs about human dignity has a prima facie strong reason to think that sex for the sake of pleasure is bad, the defender of homosexual sex needs to build up an edifice for validating it besides that which immediately suggests itself in the case of heterosexuality, viz. producing kids and making it so humans don't die out. I don't think Kant's own defense of sex within a marriage is available to a modern proponent of homosexual sex, namely because he won't think that homosexual sex is only okay within a marriage, nor that marriage means gaining a total right to the other person's body and soul. (Very few people think both that homosexual sex is okay and that there is no such thing as rape within a marriage)
So, put shortly: from a Kantian point of view, how can the obvious breach of human dignity present in homosexual sex be justified?
On October 24 2013 03:54 farvacola wrote: "Everyone should have the ability to individually determine who they are attracted to and act on it accordingly."
That wasn't so hard.
everyone should give his best that (his) society endures.
meant
On October 24 2013 07:52 MoltkeWarding wrote: Can you not see that at least in its procreative function, heterosexual sex has a definite final cause which is missing in homosexual sex?
It is difficult to maintain that sex performed solely for the sake of pleasure (which, I remind you, means all homosexual sex, and most heterosexual)
Are you kidding me? You think that all that stuff about deepening one's emotional connection to another person, establishing intimacy/trust, and so on and so forth, doesn't exist?
You are in no way using another person solely as a means when you have sex in a consensual, "loving" context. That's just absolutely false, and if we can't even agree on that, there's not much point moving forward.
Thinking that having homosexual sex (or, really, anything other than strictly procreative sex, or whatever bizarre restriction you'd put on it) amounts to disregarding the dignity of the person is just...ridiculously offensive. Are people not allowed to love other people in the world you're arguing for? And I mean are they actually allowed to love as human beings, not as empty computers, or whatever.
Or rather, it's difficult to distinguish between "inappropriate" inclinations like drug addictions or sudden whimsy and "appropriate" inclinations like garden-variety desires etc.
Well, I'm not really arguing for us to think of people as "just a means to pleasure." I don't think that homosexuals are arguing for special status in that regard. They're asking why, even if they view the person they're having sex with as the light of their life and consider sex (like the rest of humanity) to be the most intimate way of bonding (which is probably accurate given its neurochemical effects) how are they treating that person as a means, or particularly "just" as a means? This is how human beings express love. To deny one's emotions entirely (when they are so obviously tied to one's thoughts, as modern psychology has demonstrated) is more of an attack on dignity than anything else. Kant was brilliant, but he was pre-psychological. That's important.
I don't think Kant's own defense of sex within a marriage is available to a modern proponent of homosexual sex, namely because he won't think that homosexual sex is only okay within a marriage, nor that marriage means gaining a total right to the other person's body and soul. (Very few people think both that homosexual sex is okay and that there is no such thing as rape within a marriage)
That's fine. Kant's arguments about marriage are very obviously him biting the bullet, in a sense. Sex, for Kant, seems to be the one thing that, well, just can't be done away with, but which is emotionally laden.
On October 24 2013 07:59 farvacola wrote: "Rational agents" don't exist anyway, so I'm not sure why I even commented
Explain though...!
I've seen you in threads which have substance so I was wondering why your posts are so short and so "naked" so to speak. So checked it out and you've posted 24 times in this thread, and you've averaged 2.5 lines per post (probably less because I rounded partial lines as one). Your only post with more than 5 lines had 12 and it's because I insisted that you write something. 10 of your 24 posts are one-liners and 8 are two-liners.
It's clear to me that in some areas you're at least a pretty smart guy and I could learn a thing or two from you, if you stopped acting like everything you say is obvious because you know (or believe) it.
PS: I know what you mean when you say rational agents don't exist, but the conversation can't possibly end with that.
Lixler is still operating under the assumption that Shiori subscribes to a Kantian outlook, and both provides and demands his justification in the same currency. If this were so, his critique is valid: it would be extremely difficult to justify homosexuality in Kantian ethics.
However it's obvious that Shiori has abandoned that outpost a while ago, although we don't exactly know where he has fled to.
They're asking why, even if they view the person they're having sex with as the light of their life and consider sex (like the rest of humanity) to be the most intimate way of bonding (which is probably accurate given its neurochemical effects) how are they treating that person as a means, or particularly "just" as a means?
Actually, the artificial inducement of intimate feelings through the secretion of endorphins undoubtedly accounts for the implausibly high number of teenage girls who trespass into dead-end relationships. Using sex to drug the mind into pushing a friendship into the relationship zone generally does not end well. To put it in the prosaic language of economics, it's the stimulus which distorts the price equilibrium set by the market.
I thought this to be obvious from the context -.-
Sorry, when I read your high-minded language, my mind was too lofty to look into the gutter.
On October 24 2013 09:12 MoltkeWarding wrote: Lixler is still operating under the assumption that Shiori subscribes to a Kantian outlook, and both provides and demands his justification in the same currency. If this were so, his critique is valid: it would be extremely difficult to justify homosexuality in Kantian ethics.
Not really. Kantianism has evolved in some ways to make it serviceable.
However it's obvious that Shiori has abandoned that outpost a while ago, although we don't exactly know where he has fled to.
Haven't fled anywhere. But it's ultimately irrelevant. The question stands as it was. Are there any good arguments against all homosexual sex?
They're asking why, even if they view the person they're having sex with as the light of their life and consider sex (like the rest of humanity) to be the most intimate way of bonding (which is probably accurate given its neurochemical effects) how are they treating that person as a means, or particularly "just" as a means?
Actually, the artificial inducement of intimate feelings through the secretion of endorphins undoubtedly accounts for the implausibly high number of teenage girls who trespass into dead-end relationships. Using sex to drug the mind into pushing a friendship into the relationship zone generally does not end well. To put it in the prosaic language of economics, it's the stimulus which distorts the price equilibrium set by the market.
I don't think this is unique to females. This is more or less true of everything teenagers do. I'm not really sure what this has to do with consenting adults though.
It is difficult to maintain that sex performed solely for the sake of pleasure (which, I remind you, means all homosexual sex, and most heterosexual)
Are you kidding me? You think that all that stuff about deepening one's emotional connection to another person, establishing intimacy/trust, and so on and so forth, doesn't exist?
You are in no way using another person solely as a means when you have sex in a consensual, "loving" context. That's just absolutely false, and if we can't even agree on that, there's not much point moving forward.
Thinking that having homosexual sex (or, really, anything other than strictly procreative sex, or whatever bizarre restriction you'd put on it) amounts to disregarding the dignity of the person is just...ridiculously offensive. Are people not allowed to love other people in the world you're arguing for? And I mean are they actually allowed to love as human beings, not as empty computers, or whatever.
Or rather, it's difficult to distinguish between "inappropriate" inclinations like drug addictions or sudden whimsy and "appropriate" inclinations like garden-variety desires etc.
Well, I'm not really arguing for us to think of people as "just a means to pleasure." I don't think that homosexuals are arguing for special status in that regard. They're asking why, even if they view the person they're having sex with as the light of their life and consider sex (like the rest of humanity) to be the most intimate way of bonding (which is probably accurate given its neurochemical effects) how are they treating that person as a means, or particularly "just" as a means? This is how human beings express love. To deny one's emotions entirely (when they are so obviously tied to one's thoughts, as modern psychology has demonstrated) is more of an attack on dignity than anything else. Kant was brilliant, but he was pre-psychological. That's important.
I don't think Kant's own defense of sex within a marriage is available to a modern proponent of homosexual sex, namely because he won't think that homosexual sex is only okay within a marriage, nor that marriage means gaining a total right to the other person's body and soul. (Very few people think both that homosexual sex is okay and that there is no such thing as rape within a marriage)
That's fine. Kant's arguments about marriage are very obviously him biting the bullet, in a sense. Sex, for Kant, seems to be the one thing that, well, just can't be done away with, but which is emotionally laden.
Of course humans are free to love each other! In fact, that everyone may love each other is something we all ought to hope for. But there is no reason to confuse this love for other humans qua their humanity with love for other humans qua their attractiveness etc. It's a quite modern convention to think that love and sex necessarily go together (blah blah).
In what sense are you treating the other person as an end in themselves when you have gay sex with them? Please explain it to me. When I consider sex, a variety of motives all present themselves to me, but none of them seem to be to treat the other person as as end. It looks like you are resorting to a fairy tale movie-version of sex where sex is just partaken of in order to bond the two partners, or to express love, or something. But clearly this is not the case, and no rational defender of gay sex is going to draw the line here. A good deal of sex is done solely in order to derive pleasure (or some other emotion), not in accordance with the categorical imperative. Someone really defending gay sex can't agree that you ought only to treat other rational agents as ends in themselves, unless they also hold the ridiculous notion that all or most sex is done solely for the sake of the partner.
Note that Kant's distinction between an animalistic desire-filled love and a real love for rational agents really does have something going for it. There is no reason to think that expressing this latter sort of love culminates in sex, and there is plenty of reason to think that sex demonstrating the former kind cannot satisfy the categorical imperative. If you have to hold that all sex is really some sublimated deep expression of selfless interest, then your defense of gay sex looks prima facie implausible to anyone who has ever glimpsed a porno.
You're arguing against something that I don't hold. I have no idea why you move from "a lot of sex is done for pleasure" to "homosexual sex is particularly bad."
See, your argument is against promiscuity, not homosexuality.I don't know what world you live in, but, for my part, I can say that I've definitely had sex to express love/enrich a bond. Nowhere have I argued that this is always the case.
You seem to be implying that all gay people are promiscuous, or something. Do you seriously believe that all gay sex is done solely for pleasure?
Here's what Kant actually says: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Sex in no way violates this, unless you consider the other MERELY as a means to an end. MERELY. For God's sake, sex is not a substitute variable for "person's dignity."
On October 24 2013 10:24 Shiori wrote: You're arguing against something that I don't hold. I have no idea why you move from "a lot of sex is done for pleasure" to "homosexual sex is particularly bad."
See, your argument is against promiscuity, not homosexuality.I don't know what world you live in, but, for my part, I can say that I've definitely had sex to express love/enrich a bond. Nowhere have I argued that this is always the case.
You seem to be implying that all gay people are promiscuous, or something. Do you seriously believe that all gay sex is done solely for pleasure?
Here's what Kant actually says: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Sex in no way violates this, unless you consider the other MERELY as a means to an end. MERELY. For God's sake, sex is not a substitute variable for "person's dignity."
I am arguing that any argument in favor of homosexual sex will also have to make promiscuous sex morally kosher. But Kant gives us good reason to think that promiscuous sex is not morally kosher. Therefore any argument in favor of homosexual sex will also have to argue for something false. But this just means that such an argument would itself be unsound. The options here are 1) to distinguish homosexual sex from promiscuous sex, which won't work because any reasonable defender of homosexual sex also thinks promiscuous sex is fine, 2) to argue against Kant that promiscuous sex is just fine, which is a perfectly fine angle of attack, or 3) to accept that promiscuous, and therefore most homosexual, sex is morally wrong.
You have tried and are currently trying to do something like 1, but I really do not think this is a solid line of argumentation. Nobody's moral sympathies really imply that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable, but just when it's particularly loving and considerate. Any rational defender of homosexual sex, given that he will be for the most part defending sex outside of marriages, has also to hold that this kind of promiscuous sex is just fine. But this means taking option 2, which I think is quite difficult.
Any rational defender of homosexual sex, given that he will be for the most part defending sex outside of marriages, has also to hold that this kind of promiscuous sex is just fine.
Cute trick.
I mean that's not even what the word "promiscuous" means, so...
Nobody's moral sympathies really imply that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable, but just when it's particularly loving and considerate
The equivalent can be very easily said of heterosexual sex. Just because there's a procreative element doesn't mean that it's "perfectly acceptable" to do anything.
to accept that promiscuous, and therefore most homosexual, sex is morally wrong.
You mean most period. As in, not just homosexual; most sex period is the product of promiscuity, which I have no problem considering (in some sense, anyway) immoral. But the notion that heterosexuality somehow escapes this, or that homosexual sex is uniquely promiscuous, is absurd.
You're, again, arguing against promiscuous sex, which I have nowhere argued is a good thing. I am arguing that the act of homosexual intercourse no more constitutes immorality on its own that does heterosexual intercourse. There is no requirement that either part be promiscuous, because I'm not trying to argue that all sex (homosexual or otherwise) is the product of sound moral reasoning. I'm saying that there's no reason to single out homosexual sex on the grounds of promiscuity (appealing to the word marriage is completely ridiculous, particularly given that marriage as it exists today is a recent invention, and that what we had before wasn't very desirable).
Any rational defender of homosexual sex, given that he will be for the most part defending sex outside of marriages, has also to hold that this kind of promiscuous sex is just fine.
Cute trick.
I mean that's not even what the word "promiscuous" means, so...
Nobody's moral sympathies really imply that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable, but just when it's particularly loving and considerate
The equivalent can be very easily said of heterosexual sex. Just because there's a procreative element doesn't mean that it's "perfectly acceptable" to do anything.
to accept that promiscuous, and therefore most homosexual, sex is morally wrong.
You mean most period. As in, not just homosexual; most sex period is the product of promiscuity, which I have no problem considering (in some sense, anyway) immoral. But the notion that heterosexuality somehow escapes this, or that homosexual sex is uniquely promiscuous, is absurd.
Again: your remarks here cash out in accepting that promiscuous sex is wrong. This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds. What would be the point in defending homosexual sex if we had to give up a wide range of our other beliefs about the morality of sex in general? My point here is that defending homosexual sex is not as easy as showing that it is a lot like heterosexual sex. We have to do the very difficult positive work of showing that either promiscuous sex is okay or that whatever particular lines we happen to draw between morally permissible and morally impermissible sex are the right ones. It might appear in the argument as if a defender of homosexual sex can simply show that homosexual sex is often the same as heterosexual sex and go home, but any rational and coherent defender of same has to have an account handy of how to show that most sex in general, which I'll maintain is quite promiscuous, is morally permissible. You have not done this, and therefore you are committed, until further developments, to the belief, just like your opponents, that most homosexual sex is wrong.
This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds.
I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either.
You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious.
This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds.
I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either.
You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious.
It's a very strange move for you to defend homosexual sex from conservative detractors by showing that it is relevantly similar to heterosexual sex, when most of both kinds of sex turn out to be morally wrong. If you really held the set of beliefs you're claiming, you would point out to these conservatives that heterosexual sex, too, was for the most part wrong. But this is precisely what you did not do. I now cite a battery of quotes as evidence.
But if you look at actual ethical philosophy, and science, and really the human understanding of goodness in general, homosexuality is just so obviously not an evil thing.
In what way are homosexuals disrespecting their bodies or treating their bodies poorly?
In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then?
If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with?
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets.
I don't think you're twisting around your views on purpose, but I do think you emphasize and deemphasize certain parts of your largely unstable network of beliefs in order to better your argumentative position at any given time. It sure looks here like you're saying that homosexuality isn't for the most part sinful, but this is precisely what you just admitted (unless you also hold that most homosexual sex is not promiscuous, a very dubious claim). In fact, assuming you aren't being facetious in epousing theism, it seems as though you're specifically giving arguments against the possibility of homosexuality mostly wrong. But, again, you just conceded that it was mostly wrong. How did you do that? Why make arguments saying that God couldn't rightfully condemn homosexuals initially, and then later agree with me that most homosexual activity is morally wrong? That's sure a funny thing to do.
I'm arguing that homosexuality in itself is not sinful. I am arguing that homosexual sex is not innately immoral. There is no inconsistency, here. Homosexuality is not in any part sinful. Homosexual sex can be done in an immoral manner and in a moral manner. That's all I'm arguing and have ever been arguing. Homosexuality itself isn't sinful.
I'm not really sure where the idea that we need to look at average promiscuity came from, but, if anything, that seems decidedly un-Kantian.
On October 24 2013 07:59 farvacola wrote: "Rational agents" don't exist anyway, so I'm not sure why I even commented
Explain though...!
I've seen you in threads which have substance so I was wondering why your posts are so short and so "naked" so to speak. So checked it out and you've posted 24 times in this thread, and you've averaged 2.5 lines per post (probably less because I rounded partial lines as one). Your only post with more than 5 lines had 12 and it's because I insisted that you write something. 10 of your 24 posts are one-liners and 8 are two-liners.
It's clear to me that in some areas you're at least a pretty smart guy and I could learn a thing or two from you, if you stopped acting like everything you say is obvious because you know (or believe) it.
PS: I know what you mean when you say rational agents don't exist, but the conversation can't possibly end with that.
Yes well this is the end result of my using internet communication as a sort of outlet when, in my everyday life, I have an immensely difficult time being succinct. I've also made really long posts in the pasts and was convinced that no one really read them, so perhaps I was wrong in that regard.
On a basic level, most of what I believe in and know is informed by the understanding that words and language itself are fundamentally limited; however, the boundaries of this limitation are not set in stone across all dynamics of reference. In other words, some times our words work better than others, and figuring out where and when to rely on them as essentially truth-bearing is one of the best goals to have in pursuit of knowledge in a general sense. In terms of academic reference, I really enjoy a book by the name of Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein, which is essentially an odd list of numbered quips in which Wittgenstein plays word games that display how utterly contextual meaning in language ends up being, with an emphasis on use and function as the most prominent bearers of "truth". Where I differ with this view mostly has to do with where we go after realizing that many (if not most or all) extended questions in metaphysical philosophy are essentially language games that talk their way out of meaningful reference. Many would suggest that we simply pay attention to other things and give up these metaphysical pursuits in futility, whereas I think creative expression and breaking the rules of these language games in deliberate ways open up our ability to touch on difficult to speak of concepts.
It is along these lines that I would consider most attempts at logically or analytically explaining the tenets of a "good" Christian faith or the meaning/concept of "God" useful only to a very limited point. Both sides of the debate, those being the believers/apologists and the atheists/"logicians", are coming into the ring with vastly different systems of reference, so much so that the debate fizzles out before it begins. For example, the concept of belief itself is an incredibly personal idea, one that turns upon how one (sub)consciously conceptualizes their being. Typically, this dynamic can be described using the soul/mind dichotomy, and for many on this forum, the "rational" mind is given de facto conscious primacy in terms of how they characterize their perception. Accordingly, these folk conceptualize belief in a fairly narrow fashion a la that which is irrational and to be avoided if possible; knowledge is, of course, to be relied on above all else. (keep in mind that I am painting in broad strokes here, there are obvious exceptions).
While I cannot speak for others who would defend religion (ironman speaks for himself ), my personal experience with "belief" is that it actually includes a ton of doubt, and this is not exactly a new idea. The story of Thomas the Apostle first comes to mind, but the likes of Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard have also spoken on how authentic belief requires that one acknowledge a rational doubt that effectively follows you for the rest of your life. So when others imply that religious folk categorically adhere to outlandish systems of faith that proudly mock Rationality in their resolve, they are acting on a misunderstanding of terms. It certainly doesn't help that many major religious institutions put forth very difficult to reason with doctrines in addition to having acted in an absolutely deplorable fashion, but to act on that knowledge in describing commonalities among Christians would be like using US foreign policy to describe your average US citizen; it might be tempting, but when the scale and nature of religious identification are taken into account, it becomes an untenable position. Many not only doubt their faith but also the entirety of the religious superstructure through which they participate every Sunday/Saturday, but this doubt comes alongside experience that has played a demonstrably positive role in their lives, be it through their interaction with charity, education, or personal knowledge. This is not to say that we cannot or should not call a spade a spade; when belief is implemented as a justification for "bad" ideas, be they the likes of homophobia, judgmentalism, violence, or scientific quackery, it is obvious that such things are to be dismissed and fought against.
There are many churches out there that are rather unlike the Church, contrary to what many on these boards would suggest. I grew up going to an Episcopalian church in Toledo, Ohio that was full to the brim with people from all walks of life. There were extremely flamboyant gay couples, very homeless bad smelling dudes, and well to do suburban families all coming together to basically sing songs, say a few prayers, and maybe run a soup kitchen that afternoon. Our pastor moved to North Carolina only to be replaced by a lesbian, and I then got to hand out programs at an unofficial gay wedding. No, most churches are not like this, I'm well aware, but I've met many self proclaimed religious people who entertain incredibly "rational" and hardnosed perspectives alongside their difficult to describe relationship with faith. Keeping in mind how I described the differences in how people act on belief and conceptualize it, it doesn't really make sense to assume that, by definition, Christians adhere to some crazily stilted view on how the Bible is the infallible word of God or that even the majority let the proclamations of the Church dictate how they view others or live their lives. Sorry, but you asked for it
(Oh yeah, "rational actor" is just a useful illusion that words let us conjure up. When it comes to something like faith or economics, I'd say its less useful and more illusion. In the words of Pierre Bourdieu, it makes more sense to say something like "feel for the game" which implicitly includes the notion that humans persistently act on a mix of rational and irrational complusions.)
On October 24 2013 07:59 farvacola wrote: "Rational agents" don't exist anyway, so I'm not sure why I even commented
Explain though...!
I've seen you in threads which have substance so I was wondering why your posts are so short and so "naked" so to speak. So checked it out and you've posted 24 times in this thread, and you've averaged 2.5 lines per post (probably less because I rounded partial lines as one). Your only post with more than 5 lines had 12 and it's because I insisted that you write something. 10 of your 24 posts are one-liners and 8 are two-liners.
It's clear to me that in some areas you're at least a pretty smart guy and I could learn a thing or two from you, if you stopped acting like everything you say is obvious because you know (or believe) it.
PS: I know what you mean when you say rational agents don't exist, but the conversation can't possibly end with that.
Yes well this is the end result of my using internet communication as a sort of outlet when, in my everyday life, I have an immensely difficult time being succinct. I've also made really long posts in the pasts and was convinced that no one really read them, so perhaps I was wrong in that regard.
On a basic level, most of what I believe in and know is informed by the understanding that words and language itself is fundamentally limited; however, the boundaries of this limitation are not set in stone across all dynamics of reference. In other words, some times our words work better than others, and figuring out where and when to rely on them as essentially truth-bearing is one of the best goals to have in pursuit of knowledge in a general sense. In terms of academic reference, I really enjoy a book by the name of Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein, which is essentially an odd list of numbered quips in which Wittgenstein plays word games that display how utterly contextual meaning in language ends up being, with an emphasis on use and function as the most prominent bearers of "truth". Where I differ with this view mostly has to do where we go after realizing that many (if not most or all) extended questions in metaphysical philosophy are essentially language games that talk their way out of meaningful reference. Many would suggest that we simply pay attention to other things and give up these metaphysical pursuits in futility, whereas I think creative expression and breaking the rules of these language games in deliberate ways open up our ability to touch on difficult to speak of concepts.
It is along these lines that I would consider most attempts at logically or analytically explaining the tenets of a "good" Christian faith or the meaning/concept of "God" useful only a very limited point. Both sides of the debate, those being the believers/apologists and the atheists/"logicians", are coming into the ring with vastly different systems of reference, so much so that the debate fizzles out before it begins. For example, the concept of belief itself is an incredibly personal idea, one that turns upon how one (sub)consciously conceptualizes their being. Typically, this dynamic can be described using the soul/mind dichotomy, and for many on this forum, the "rational" mind is given de facto conscious primacy in terms of how they characterize their perception. Accordingly, these folk conceptualize belief in a fairly narrow fashion a la that which is irrational and to be avoided if possible; knowledge is, of course, to be relied on above all else. (keep in mind that I am painting in broad strokes here, there are obvious exceptions).
While I cannot speak for others who would defend religion (ironman speaks for himself ), my personal experience with "belief" is that it actually includes a ton of doubt, and this is not exactly a new idea. The story of Thomas the Apostle first comes to mind, but the likes of Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard have also spoken on how authentic belief requires that one acknowledge a rational doubt that effectively follows you for the rest of your life. So when others imply that religious folk categorically adhere to outlandish systems of faith that proudly mock Rationality in their resolve, they are acting on a misunderstanding of terms. It certainly doesn't help that many major religious institutions put forth very difficult to reason with doctrines in addition to having acted in an absolutely deplorable fashion, but to act on that knowledge in describing commonalities among Christians would be like using US foreign policy to describe your average US citizen; it might be tempting, but when the scale and nature of religious of identification are taken into account, it becomes an untenable position. Many not only doubt their faith but also the entirety of the religious superstructure through which they participate every Sunday/Saturday, but this doubt comes alongside experience that has played a demonstrably positive role in their lives, be it through their interaction with charity, education, or personal knowledge. This is not to say that we cannot or should not call a spade a spade; when belief is implemented as a justification for "bad" ideas, be they the likes of homophobia, judgmentalism, violence, or scientific quackery, it is obvious that such things are to be dismissed and fought against.
There are many churches out there that are rather unlike the Church, contrary to what many on these boards would suggest. I grew up going to an Episcopalian church in Toledo, Ohio that was full to the brim with people from all walk of life. There were extremely flamboyant gay couples, very homeless bad smelling dudes, and well to do suburban families all coming together to basically sing songs, say a few prayers, and maybe run a soup kitchen that afternoon. Our pastor moved to North Carolina only to be replaced by a lesbian, and I then got to hand out programs at an unofficial gay wedding. No, most churches are not like this, I'm well aware, but I've met many self proclaimed religious people who entertain incredibly "rational" and hardnosed perspectives alongside their difficult to describe relationship with faith. Keeping in mind how I described the differences in how people act on belief and conceptualize it, it doesn't really make sense to assume that, by definition, Christians adhere to some crazily stilted view on how the Bible is the infallible word of God or that even the majority let the proclamations of the Church dictate how they view others or live their lives. Sorry, but you asked for it
(Oh yeah, "rational actor" is just a useful illusion that words let us conjure up. When it comes to something like faith or economics, I'd say its less useful and more illusion. In the words of Pierre Bourdieu, it makes more sense to say something like "feel for the game" which implicitly includes the notion that humans persistently act on a mix of rational and irrational complusions.)
THANK you for that Wittgenstein title. I've been trying to figure out what book that is for ages. I saw a snippet from it a long time ago, and I hadn't really ever gotten around to tracking it down. Definitely something I wanna read.
Also, the rest of what you said, I agree with. Kierkegaard, especially, resonates with me.
On October 24 2013 07:59 farvacola wrote: "Rational agents" don't exist anyway, so I'm not sure why I even commented
Explain though...!
I've seen you in threads which have substance so I was wondering why your posts are so short and so "naked" so to speak. So checked it out and you've posted 24 times in this thread, and you've averaged 2.5 lines per post (probably less because I rounded partial lines as one). Your only post with more than 5 lines had 12 and it's because I insisted that you write something. 10 of your 24 posts are one-liners and 8 are two-liners.
It's clear to me that in some areas you're at least a pretty smart guy and I could learn a thing or two from you, if you stopped acting like everything you say is obvious because you know (or believe) it.
PS: I know what you mean when you say rational agents don't exist, but the conversation can't possibly end with that.
Yes well this is the end result of my using internet communication as a sort of outlet when, in my everyday life, I have an immensely difficult time being succinct. I've also made really long posts in the pasts and was convinced that no one really read them, so perhaps I was wrong in that regard.
On a basic level, most of what I believe in and know is informed by the understanding that words and language itself is fundamentally limited; however, the boundaries of this limitation are not set in stone across all dynamics of reference. In other words, some times our words work better than others, and figuring out where and when to rely on them as essentially truth-bearing is one of the best goals to have in pursuit of knowledge in a general sense. In terms of academic reference, I really enjoy a book by the name of Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein, which is essentially an odd list of numbered quips in which Wittgenstein plays word games that display how utterly contextual meaning in language ends up being, with an emphasis on use and function as the most prominent bearers of "truth". Where I differ with this view mostly has to do with where we go after realizing that many (if not most or all) extended questions in metaphysical philosophy are essentially language games that talk their way out of meaningful reference. Many would suggest that we simply pay attention to other things and give up these metaphysical pursuits in futility, whereas I think creative expression and breaking the rules of these language games in deliberate ways open up our ability to touch on difficult to speak of concepts.
It is along these lines that I would consider most attempts at logically or analytically explaining the tenets of a "good" Christian faith or the meaning/concept of "God" useful only to a very limited point. Both sides of the debate, those being the believers/apologists and the atheists/"logicians", are coming into the ring with vastly different systems of reference, so much so that the debate fizzles out before it begins. For example, the concept of belief itself is an incredibly personal idea, one that turns upon how one (sub)consciously conceptualizes their being. Typically, this dynamic can be described using the soul/mind dichotomy, and for many on this forum, the "rational" mind is given de facto conscious primacy in terms of how they characterize their perception. Accordingly, these folk conceptualize belief in a fairly narrow fashion a la that which is irrational and to be avoided if possible; knowledge is, of course, to be relied on above all else. (keep in mind that I am painting in broad strokes here, there are obvious exceptions).
While I cannot speak for others who would defend religion (ironman speaks for himself ), my personal experience with "belief" is that it actually includes a ton of doubt, and this is not exactly a new idea. The story of Thomas the Apostle first comes to mind, but the likes of Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard have also spoken on how authentic belief requires that one acknowledge a rational doubt that effectively follows you for the rest of your life. So when others imply that religious folk categorically adhere to outlandish systems of faith that proudly mock Rationality in their resolve, they are acting on a misunderstanding of terms. It certainly doesn't help that many major religious institutions put forth very difficult to reason with doctrines in addition to having acted in an absolutely deplorable fashion, but to act on that knowledge in describing commonalities among Christians would be like using US foreign policy to describe your average US citizen; it might be tempting, but when the scale and nature of religious identification are taken into account, it becomes an untenable position. Many not only doubt their faith but also the entirety of the religious superstructure through which they participate every Sunday/Saturday, but this doubt comes alongside experience that has played a demonstrably positive role in their lives, be it through their interaction with charity, education, or personal knowledge. This is not to say that we cannot or should not call a spade a spade; when belief is implemented as a justification for "bad" ideas, be they the likes of homophobia, judgmentalism, violence, or scientific quackery, it is obvious that such things are to be dismissed and fought against.
There are many churches out there that are rather unlike the Church, contrary to what many on these boards would suggest. I grew up going to an Episcopalian church in Toledo, Ohio that was full to the brim with people from all walks of life. There were extremely flamboyant gay couples, very homeless bad smelling dudes, and well to do suburban families all coming together to basically sing songs, say a few prayers, and maybe run a soup kitchen that afternoon. Our pastor moved to North Carolina only to be replaced by a lesbian, and I then got to hand out programs at an unofficial gay wedding. No, most churches are not like this, I'm well aware, but I've met many self proclaimed religious people who entertain incredibly "rational" and hardnosed perspectives alongside their difficult to describe relationship with faith. Keeping in mind how I described the differences in how people act on belief and conceptualize it, it doesn't really make sense to assume that, by definition, Christians adhere to some crazily stilted view on how the Bible is the infallible word of God or that even the majority let the proclamations of the Church dictate how they view others or live their lives. Sorry, but you asked for it
(Oh yeah, "rational actor" is just a useful illusion that words let us conjure up. When it comes to something like faith or economics, I'd say its less useful and more illusion. In the words of Pierre Bourdieu, it makes more sense to say something like "feel for the game" which implicitly includes the notion that humans persistently act on a mix of rational and irrational complusions.)
Excellent read farva, thank you. Our previous disagreements, IMO, were largely misunderstandings on my part because you didn't give me much to go off of. If you had just expressed your thoughts (which are actually food for thought), then perhaps we wouldn't have gotten off on the wrong foot.
I think you should keep that up. And I don't mean to sound patronizing here, you legitimately cleared some stuff up for me. (I still try to park myself on team rationality though).
On October 24 2013 11:35 farvacola wrote: Haha no problem, I push that book on most people whom I've met, just ask Sam
Which translation did you read? I see there's a new one that's not by Anscombe. Should I try and get it or should I just read the free Anscombe translation off the internet?
Any rational defender of homosexual sex, given that he will be for the most part defending sex outside of marriages, has also to hold that this kind of promiscuous sex is just fine.
Cute trick.
I mean that's not even what the word "promiscuous" means, so...
Nobody's moral sympathies really imply that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable, but just when it's particularly loving and considerate
The equivalent can be very easily said of heterosexual sex. Just because there's a procreative element doesn't mean that it's "perfectly acceptable" to do anything.
to accept that promiscuous, and therefore most homosexual, sex is morally wrong.
You mean most period. As in, not just homosexual; most sex period is the product of promiscuity, which I have no problem considering (in some sense, anyway) immoral. But the notion that heterosexuality somehow escapes this, or that homosexual sex is uniquely promiscuous, is absurd.
Again: your remarks here cash out in accepting that promiscuous sex is wrong. This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds. What would be the point in defending homosexual sex if we had to give up a wide range of our other beliefs about the morality of sex in general? My point here is that defending homosexual sex is not as easy as showing that it is a lot like heterosexual sex. We have to do the very difficult positive work of showing that either promiscuous sex is okay or that whatever particular lines we happen to draw between morally permissible and morally impermissible sex are the right ones. It might appear in the argument as if a defender of homosexual sex can simply show that homosexual sex is often the same as heterosexual sex and go home, but any rational and coherent defender of same has to have an account handy of how to show that most sex in general, which I'll maintain is quite promiscuous, is morally permissible. You have not done this, and therefore you are committed, until further developments, to the belief, just like your opponents, that most homosexual sex is wrong.
I find it quite bewildering that you would argue that most sexual acts are performed solely for pleasure. You never defined what you meant by "promiscuous," by which you seem to mean done solely for the selfish pleasure of the actor. You also haven't explained why you think it's dubious that the majority of, or merely many, homosexual acts are not "promiscuous." Most expressive acts between individuals are done for a myriad of reasons, rather than simply and wholly for pleasure, perhaps foremost among them being a desire to communicate with a willing partner. Such communication is inherently a two-way street.
This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds.
I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either.
You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious.
It's a very strange move for you to defend homosexual sex from conservative detractors by showing that it is relevantly similar to heterosexual sex, when most of both kinds of sex turn out to be morally wrong. If you really held the set of beliefs you're claiming, you would point out to these conservatives that heterosexual sex, too, was for the most part wrong. But this is precisely what you did not do. I now cite a battery of quotes as evidence.
But if you look at actual ethical philosophy, and science, and really the human understanding of goodness in general, homosexuality is just so obviously not an evil thing.
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets.
I don't think you're twisting around your views on purpose, but I do think you emphasize and deemphasize certain parts of your largely unstable network of beliefs in order to better your argumentative position at any given time. It sure looks here like you're saying that homosexuality isn't for the most part sinful, but this is precisely what you just admitted (unless you also hold that most homosexual sex is not promiscuous, a very dubious claim). In fact, assuming you aren't being facetious in epousing theism, it seems as though you're specifically giving arguments against the possibility of homosexuality mostly wrong. But, again, you just conceded that it was mostly wrong. How did you do that? Why make arguments saying that God couldn't rightfully condemn homosexuals initially, and then later agree with me that most homosexual activity is morally wrong? That's sure a funny thing to do.
Here's a funny thing to do: try to poke holes in someone else's argument without presenting a counter-argument. Are you trying to assert that homosexuality is sinful? If so, just come right out and say that.
On October 24 2013 11:35 farvacola wrote: Haha no problem, I push that book on most people whom I've met, just ask Sam
Which translation did you read? I see there's a new one that's not by Anscombe. Should I try and get it or should I just read the free Anscombe translation off the internet?
The revised fourth edition Anscombe is the one I use, but the one available on the internet for free should work just fine. One of my go to professor friends on the subject said the new one is of middling difference and probably not worth the time given discrepancies in how it would read against the veneer of Anscombe's convention, which has proven to be more than sufficient I'd say.
On October 24 2013 11:11 Shiori wrote: I'm arguing that homosexuality in itself is not sinful. I am arguing that homosexual sex is not innately immoral. There is no inconsistency, here. Homosexuality is not in any part sinful. Homosexual sex can be done in an immoral manner and in a moral manner. That's all I'm arguing and have ever been arguing. Homosexuality itself isn't sinful.
I'm not really sure where the idea that we need to look at average promiscuity came from, but, if anything, that seems decidedly un-Kantian.
Again, you might think this is what you are arguing, but this position is simply not tenable given your other beliefs. You've reduced it down to a difference in words that does not mesh with your earlier arguments that e.g. a benevolent creator God would not make homosexual sex a sinful thing and then go ahead and make homosexuals. Clearly a tightrope can be walked here, the one I've described earlier, but the position lacks intuitive support and has to argue on the one hand that some homosexual sex is good/permissible while subscribing to the position that the majority of sex is bad, and on the other hand that a good deal of heterosexual sex is impermissible. Especially your earlier arguments about why God would make people who were gay if gay sex was a bad thing - you yourself have agreed that gay sex is a bad thing. It takes a lot of very strange nitpicking to show that really it's fine for God to condemn gay sex (which is performed by homosexuals because of their biology) because it's promiscuous and wrong, but it wouldn't be okay for God to condemn gay sex (which is performed by homosexuals because of their biology) because it's gay.
Put differently, your earlier arguments about the contrast b/t a benevolent creator God and homosexual sex acts being immoral are not compatible with the position that most sex is immoral and that there is a benevolent creator God.
This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds.
I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either.
You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious.
It's a very strange move for you to defend homosexual sex from conservative detractors by showing that it is relevantly similar to heterosexual sex, when most of both kinds of sex turn out to be morally wrong. If you really held the set of beliefs you're claiming, you would point out to these conservatives that heterosexual sex, too, was for the most part wrong. But this is precisely what you did not do. I now cite a battery of quotes as evidence.
But if you look at actual ethical philosophy, and science, and really the human understanding of goodness in general, homosexuality is just so obviously not an evil thing.
In what way are homosexuals disrespecting their bodies or treating their bodies poorly?
In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then?
If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with?
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets.
I don't think you're twisting around your views on purpose, but I do think you emphasize and deemphasize certain parts of your largely unstable network of beliefs in order to better your argumentative position at any given time. It sure looks here like you're saying that homosexuality isn't for the most part sinful, but this is precisely what you just admitted (unless you also hold that most homosexual sex is not promiscuous, a very dubious claim). In fact, assuming you aren't being facetious in epousing theism, it seems as though you're specifically giving arguments against the possibility of homosexuality mostly wrong. But, again, you just conceded that it was mostly wrong. How did you do that? Why make arguments saying that God couldn't rightfully condemn homosexuals initially, and then later agree with me that most homosexual activity is morally wrong? That's sure a funny thing to do.
Here's a funny thing to do: try to poke holes in someone else's argument without presenting a counter-argument. Are you trying to assert that homosexuality is sinful? If so, just come right out and say that.
Yes. I am asserting that most homosexual activity is wrong because most homosexual activity is promiscuous and does not satisfy the CI.
Where I differ with this view mostly has to do with where we go after realizing that many (if not most or all) extended questions in metaphysical philosophy are essentially language games that talk their way out of meaningful reference. Many would suggest that we simply pay attention to other things and give up these metaphysical pursuits in futility, whereas I think creative expression and breaking the rules of these language games in deliberate ways open up our ability to touch on difficult to speak of concepts.
I suppose it is almost banal to point out that regarding "natural language" as a limitation is a rather arbitrary frame of reference. I have always preferred to regard it as a cooperative component of reality created by the conscious mind, since what is "real" has no meaning outside of that context. There is a sense in which metaphysical debate can be seen as a red herring fixated on logical rather than existential truth, but there is also an anthropocentric sense in which the purely logical is a form of created existence, and a necessary one at that.
P.S. As a historian, one of the few axioms I hold to more or less rigidly is that of Burckhardt, when he called philosophical history a monstrous centaur: philosophy is the nichtgeschichte and history the nichtphilosophie. I would be happy to leave these kinds of threads alone, but these fellows here keep making so many mistakes!!!
argue on the one hand that some homosexual sex is good/permissible while subscribing to the position that the majority of sex is bad, and on the other hand that a good deal of heterosexual sex is impermissible
I have no idea what you find so objectionable about this. I seriously just don't make any distinction between homosexual and heterosexual sex when it comes to promiscuity. You seem to be under the impression that homosexual sex being "mostly promiscuous" (whatever that means; you still haven't actually defined promiscuity) implies that the act itself is necessarily immoral. I have no idea how that's supposed to follow. What's more, your own assertion (homosexual sex is immoral since most homosexual sex doesn't satisfy the CI) would invalidate heterosexual sex by the exact same token. Are you really going to play the "but procreation" card to exonerate heterosexual sex from the ridiculously constricting framework you've put on sexuality?
I am of the opinion that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are, with respect to moral decision-making, perceived similarly by their participants. Some people have promiscuous sex. Some people don't. The proportion is irrelevant. What matters is whether and individual making a moral decision is doing so from a universalizable maxim, and you have no grounds whatsoever to forbid all homosexual sex on the grounds that lots of homosexuals are promiscuous, no more than you have the grounds to ban all heterosexual sex for the same reasons.
I'm not arguing that it's impossible for specific homosexual acts to be immoral. I'm arguing that it would be incoherent from a Creator God to define homosexual sex as necessarily evil (which is what IronManSC was arguing) when there's no reason to suggest that such a thing is true.
On October 24 2013 11:11 Shiori wrote: I'm arguing that homosexuality in itself is not sinful. I am arguing that homosexual sex is not innately immoral. There is no inconsistency, here. Homosexuality is not in any part sinful. Homosexual sex can be done in an immoral manner and in a moral manner. That's all I'm arguing and have ever been arguing. Homosexuality itself isn't sinful.
I'm not really sure where the idea that we need to look at average promiscuity came from, but, if anything, that seems decidedly un-Kantian.
Again, you might think this is what you are arguing, but this position is simply not tenable given your other beliefs. You've reduced it down to a difference in words that does not mesh with your earlier arguments that e.g. a benevolent creator God would not make homosexual sex a sinful thing and then go ahead and make homosexuals. Clearly a tightrope can be walked here, the one I've described earlier, but the position lacks intuitive support and has to argue on the one hand that some homosexual sex is good/permissible while subscribing to the position that the majority of sex is bad, and on the other hand that a good deal of heterosexual sex is impermissible. Especially your earlier arguments about why God would make people who were gay if gay sex was a bad thing - you yourself have agreed that gay sex is a bad thing. It takes a lot of very strange nitpicking to show that really it's fine for God to condemn gay sex (which is performed by homosexuals because of their biology) because it's promiscuous and wrong, but it wouldn't be okay for God to condemn gay sex (which is performed by homosexuals because of their biology) because it's gay.
Put differently, your earlier arguments about the contrast b/t a benevolent creator God and homosexual sex acts being immoral are not compatible with the position that most sex is immoral and that there is a benevolent creator God.
This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds.
I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either.
You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious.
It's a very strange move for you to defend homosexual sex from conservative detractors by showing that it is relevantly similar to heterosexual sex, when most of both kinds of sex turn out to be morally wrong. If you really held the set of beliefs you're claiming, you would point out to these conservatives that heterosexual sex, too, was for the most part wrong. But this is precisely what you did not do. I now cite a battery of quotes as evidence.
But if you look at actual ethical philosophy, and science, and really the human understanding of goodness in general, homosexuality is just so obviously not an evil thing.
In what way are homosexuals disrespecting their bodies or treating their bodies poorly?
In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then?
If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with?
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets.
I don't think you're twisting around your views on purpose, but I do think you emphasize and deemphasize certain parts of your largely unstable network of beliefs in order to better your argumentative position at any given time. It sure looks here like you're saying that homosexuality isn't for the most part sinful, but this is precisely what you just admitted (unless you also hold that most homosexual sex is not promiscuous, a very dubious claim). In fact, assuming you aren't being facetious in epousing theism, it seems as though you're specifically giving arguments against the possibility of homosexuality mostly wrong. But, again, you just conceded that it was mostly wrong. How did you do that? Why make arguments saying that God couldn't rightfully condemn homosexuals initially, and then later agree with me that most homosexual activity is morally wrong? That's sure a funny thing to do.
Here's a funny thing to do: try to poke holes in someone else's argument without presenting a counter-argument. Are you trying to assert that homosexuality is sinful? If so, just come right out and say that.
Yes. I am asserting that most homosexual activity is wrong because most homosexual activity is promiscuous and does not satisfy the CI.
Seems like your argument is built on your taking a leap and saying that most sex is promiscuous, i.e. treats the other as merely an object from which to obtain pleasure. Shiori then seems to have agreed with you that some sex is like that. You ostensibly agree but then continue as if he had said that all sex is like that. You can keep repeating your conclusion if you want but it's not very convincing when you have simply assumed that most, if not all sex, is performed merely for self-gratification.
Returning to the argument about the incoherence of God, let us depart from this Kantian orthodoxy for its own sake, because you are happy to ignore the extension of his thinking to sexual matters, and the theologial argument derived from classical tradition differs from Kantian ethics on many points.
Kant despises all forms of lustful behaviour, whereas in Christian thinking there is usually some sort of hierarchy of evils. The Kantian formulation is probably more politically correct nowadays, but let us ignore the sensations of political correctness, and moans about the innate "offensiveness" of an idea and stay on course.
The "procreation" card is literally essential here, although it must be modified from the assumptions hitherto given. God as the creator of a perfectly framed nature, has also supplied nature with a set of actions whose virtue derives from their optimal use. Thus actions which correlate with the essence of the thing is said to be natural action. Essence is what thing is said to be in respect to itself. Sex is not a gyrating act of physical contact between human bodies, it is not the release of endorphins in the process of erotic action, it is not even the act which expresses friendship or love. All of those things may be particular attributes of certain species of sex, but sex itself is essentially the reproductive act. Reproduction is inseparable from the essence of sex. This is just elementary Aristotle. Extrapolated into religious terms, reproduction is the cardinal purpose of sex in a divine sense.
Therefore unnatural sex is one which in the principle of action is corrupted from its intended use. In a genus, the worst form of corruption is the principle upon which all the rest depends. Under this reasoning, promiscuous homosexual sex is a worse kind of sin than promiscuous heterosexual sex, since the essential principle of sex is here not merely alloyed by subsidiary forms of corruption, it is removed all together and is itself the corruption.
The relationship you prefer to emphasise between love and sex modifies this argument, which I have no time right now to ponder, but those are in the main, the features of the Tomist's argument whereby homosexuality constitutes a revolt against divine order.
I am familiar with the Thomistic argument; I'm a practicing Catholic (who'd have thought, eh?) and was basically brought up reading a lot of Aquinas. Really, really lovely philosopher. I don't think his natural law is particularly accurate, though, because a lot of it really just doesn't mesh very well with our modern understanding of the psyche. Minds, as it turns out, are a lot subtler than we initially believed, and notions like "essence" or "purpose" or "final cause" are really, at least in some sense, sort of arbitrary.
I think it's specious to suggest that, even within the confines of some sort of adapted form of natural law ethics, the procreative aspect of heterosexual sex somehow "saves" heterosexual promiscuity. To me, that just doesn't really make any sense, because I don't really evaluate ethical decisions based on things that really have nothing at all to do with the intent of the agent relative to himself. A promiscuous homosexual person engaging in sexual intercourse and a promiscuous heterosexual person engaging in sex are entirely equivalent, in a moral sense, from my point of view. To argue that the lack of a procreative element somehow damns homosexual sex more than heterosexual sex insofar as it's something like, I don't know, offensive to God (I'm not sure what else "corrupted from its intended use" could mean).
But even such a thing would beg the question: why do homosexuals exist, and, more importantly, why is their sexual identity so similar to that of heterosexuals? The way a heterosexual woman is attracted to men isn't particularly different from the way homosexual men are attracted to men.
But anyway, going back to the original argument concerning essences, you seem to sort of want to have your cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, you point to sex as being fundamentally natural, in some sense, and that only the human species enjoys other attributes like friendship, and so on. But on the other hand, you want to say that human beings, unlike animals (who quite clearly have all sorts of sex, including the homosexual kind) are, as moral agents, above animals and should refrain from "unnatural" behaviour. You try to allay this by saying that "reproduction is inseparable from the essence of sex." Aside from the fact that strict essentialism strikes me as a game of definitions, how exactly is reproduction any more inseparable from the essence of sex than the release of endorphins? Sterile, or, perhaps more realistically, post-menopausal heterosexual women, can engage in sexual intercourse with the reproductive element entirely removed; yet the release of endorphins, emotive qualities, and the ability to express love remain.
I'm not denying that procreation is central to heterosexual intercourse as an action; from a biological point of view, it certainly exists because it permits the transmission of genetic material. But at the same time, I see no reason to be confined to the principles of natural selection when making our moral codes. What exactly is the "natural" purpose of homosexuality supposed to be, then? It's pretty clear that that a lot of people are homosexual, and it's also clear that most of them have no associated pathologies (unlike other "sexually deviant" groups, like zoophiles, or pedophiles). Do you not think it, at the very least, a pretty cruel joke on the part of God to give these people the exact same sort of sexual identity as that of a heterosexual (with respect to how it feels to them, how they experience attraction/intimacy, etc.) but at the same time give them a body which, for whatever reason, forbids them from ever acknowledging or participating in that part of themselves?
If anything, the existence of homosexuality, along with the massive history of sex-for-reasons-other-than-just-procreation (both in humans and animals), is an argument against a procreative element being necessarily for moral sexual conduct.
I don't think unabashed Thomism really makes much sense in the context of a post-Psychological Revolution world. People aren't really as simple as things moving toward some end; sexual identity isn't really as simple as just "oh btw you like this gender," but rather impacts virtually every facet of a person's life.
I also don't think the conclusion of your Aristotelian argument really follows, either. If anything, it suggests that homosexual sex isn't actually sex, but is something else altogether, and it's not clear how that other thing would be immoral, given that, since it isn't actually sex at all, can't really be regarded as a corruption of sex. See, maybe it'd be better to think of the "essence" of sexual orientation (if such a thing exists) rather than the essence of sex. In that vein, it's not like homosexual people should be going out and having sex with the opposite sex (which would be a betrayal of their own integrity, and would show disrespect for themselves, at best) when they're not having homosexual sex.
In what way, for you, is homosexual sex similar enough to heterosexual sex to be considered "sex," but not similar enough to still be considered a corruption of the same? Is there another, purer (i.e. not corrupted) version of sex available to the homosexual?
Actually, as a born again believer, I don't even like to utilize the term Christian anymore. Most people who call themselves Christians are so busy living a worldly lifestyle, there is no distinction. However, this is confirmation as to what "perceptions" have survived, and now thrive, in our culture. I am writing a book to address this topic, so this was easy research. Thanks. Hope more "haters" post. THAT was a joke. Obviously, I am using language that has helped perpetrate myths against people of faith.