|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
FUCK! Just as I spent an assload of time writing this I realize that the topic I've been responding into has been closed. Not going to let this go to waste though, so I'll make a blog post in reply to the OP of the closed thread, since the original idea of it was not that bad.
First, I think you mess up terminology somewhat. To be more precise, axioms and postulates. An axiom should be treated mostly as a basis for abstract analysis. According to Kant, analysis doesn't give any essentially new data, it just reveals the "hidden" properties of the initial statement. Well, an axiom is that initial statement. The difference from postulate, however, is that that initial statement may be totally random in case of an axiom, since it's absract. I can axiomatize "10=0" (oh well, we all know I actually can't, since I will also need to redefine "10", "0" and "=" in a different way that doesn't automatically imply that "10!=0" which it does in common definitions, but that's not the point, let's take it the simplest) and build a mathematical theory out of it, and it will be valid. To be more precise, validity is not even a concern here, as it's not something that can be applied to axioms. In contrast, a postulate is a statement that too, serves as a basis for analysis, but actually comes from some observations of the real world. It's not necessary to delve deeper into this, it's enough to say that postulates are based on observations, while axioms are based on nothing. Therefore, it's perfectly okay to question the validity of a postulate, but not an axiom. That for Neumann thing is somewhat different, as it's just an assumption that was later crushed by analysis, it's not an axiom, but since it's on the borderline between empyric and abstract (as much of probability and statistics is), it's best called a hypothesis, much like the ergodic hypothesis. Nothing wrong with a hypothesis proven false.
Well, that was somewhat offtopic, but messing up definitions when talking on such complex subjects generally leads to nothing good. Returning to the subject of faith (again, a little more proper word for this case, but not nearly that relevant), speaking of it, it's quite logical to discuss god. I'm sorry if my wording is poor, it's hard to discuss it even in my native language. God is an absolution of the idea of faith and studying extreme cases of something is a common scientific method. Well, as an idea, what properties does god have? It's main property is absolution, let's assume it takes manifest in absolute power in context of the material world. Definition is the hardest thing here, it will probably lead to a different result if defined differently, but I'll also try to provide some basis for why I define it like this. Had power not been absolute, the subject should be adhering to some sort of law, physical, mystical or whatever. Something that strictly adheres a law, however, is a phenomenon. Now moving on to the next part - to scientifically prove if something exists, we must conduct an experiment. What is experiment in it's essence? In essence, an experiment is a question to nature, to the world, but the point is that it's a question nature has to answer. If me measure voltage, we may ask "is voltage above 100mV?" and there is no way that question won't be answered. You can't get "no answer" from nature when experimenting, unless, of course, your equipment stops to function (but as fun as this picture is when applied to a god-measuring experiment, equipment malfunction in 100 consecutive tests is a result as well). One of the main postulates of quantum mechanics is that it's impossible to conduct a measurement that won't influence the object being studied. Experiment, therefore, implies we take some action on the studied object it can't resist. So, assuming it's possible to conduct an experiment that would prove the existence of god, we're automatically saying that we can ask god questions he can't refuse to answer or, wording it differently, we can apply some sort of force to god, which contradicts his absolute power. Therefore, in we define god with absolution in mind, it's inherently immeasurable. Inherentely unobservable. That doesn't in any way "prove" that god doesn't exist, since any kind of that proof would too rely on an experiment, but it immediately raises a point with the neo-positivist "verifying principle" that states:
Whatever isn't verifiable (it's impossible to think of an experiment that proves or disproves our statement) is not a scientific matter.
That simple, absolute god is not a scientific matter. The only way it limits us that any attempts to "prove" god's existence are fool's endeavours and frankly I'm amazed how many pseudo-scientifical books came out lately that try to blend god and science, and even more amazed at how many people actually buy this bullshit.
We can, however, define god as a non-absolute something, but those definitions are all inherently flawed. They are all either taken out by Occam's Razor (if god is just something that designed human without any additional properties, well, isn't it easier to assume that it's just an extraterrestrial intelligence, besides, synergetics tell us that simple laws with large numbers may lead to complexity and order being formed out of chaos by itself which is even more preferable) or have inherent definition loops (god made us, who made god?). The presence of absolution in god's definition should seem obvious.
Well, that was a long introduction for a very short point. Faith is irrational. It doesn't have any basis and can't have one. You just believe in god, you draw him in whatever colors you want, and it's meant to make you happier. Nothing more, leave the explanation of the universe to science. Besides, science doesn't answer the question "why?", it only answers "how?", so the former one is still a matter of faith.
Finishing the post with some offtopic, I'll quote one post from this thread:
"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.
+ Show Spoiler [appendix] +I apologize to all people who might be offended by me referencing god as "it", but I'm more talking about god as an idea, without any gender specification.
|
Hmm, that's a pretty interesting topic there ^_^
Sucks that all that work had to go to waste without really proving its point 
|
Netherlands19129 Posts
|
On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does.
Common misconception of atheism is that it is a belief that there is no god. This is generally untrue. Atheism is not antitheism. This sort of messes up your last argument about atheism.
EDIT:
To clarify, the difference is that if scientific proof of gods and/or the supernatural were to be found, every true atheism would begin preaching the word of god, whereas antitheists would remain the same.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Well, after reading that, I stand corrected. Apply all the previous arguments to antitheism, atheism, I admit, was misunderstood by me. But it's still a system of beliefs I don't really like as it discards theism as destructive even though it has evident benefical features.
Replying to your edit:
Ain't what you're describing agnosticism? Besides, I hope that "scientifical proof" is as much of a loose assumption as "10=0".
|
very well written!
my opinion is however different regarding your answer to someones quote:
On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.
the most rational thing to me is to believe in stuff that can be proven by experiment (science). this makes me think that god doesnt exist (there doesnt seem to be a need for some sort of absolute being in the world). i wouldnt say i strictly believe that there is no god, but if i had to bet money on the issue, i would choose the "no god" answer.
if i get a question where i know answer a) is 30% chance of being right, and answer b) has a 70% chance the rational way would be to answer b) and this IMO makes me a rational atheist 
EDIT:
didnt see Southlights post, he writes sort of the same thing but with better wording T_T
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
the thread is not closed now, it is open
edit closed again, strange was decent thread
|
So it's most rational to be agnostic towards Wodan or Xenu? What about fairies?
If you have never heard of Anu then are you agnostic towards that god? Probably not. Does that mean you are irrational.
No. Being an atheist is the neutral position. Also, being an agnost means you claim one cannot know if something exists or not. You can be both a theistic agnost and an atheist agnost.
Since you can't proof that something doesn't exist, if there is a total lack of evidence, the only position you can take is one of disbelief. Once you stop doing that you are merely suspending your disbelief.
Everyone understands this. Even all theists understand this perfectly well and make the same argument when it's about a god they don't believe in. They just refuse to apply it to their own god because then they would stop believing. And that can't be happening.
|
Germany2896 Posts
You only proved that you can't disprove a god with absolute power. And that you can't prove his existance against his will.
But you could observe an experimental result which(assuming your postulats are correct) is impossible to get without the existance of a god.
|
On March 07 2008 00:36 BluzMan wrote:
Ain't what you're describing agnosticism? Besides, I hope that "scientifical proof" is as much of a loose assumption as "10=0".
The difference between atheism and agnosticism lies primarily in the beliefs of the believers. Atheists in general, or dare I say every atheist, do not believe in any sort of god, because of the lack of proof. On the other hand, a fair number of agnostics believe in a god, for agnosticism is merely the acknowledgment that there is no proof either way. It's a more skeptical version of faith, so to speak, but a lot less rigid, in terms of 'non-belief' than atheism. In a sense, you can have a Christian agnostic, but a true agnostic would call themselves an agnostic Christian, in that order.
As for scientific proof, it's tough, isn't it? There are those that devise strict, scientific experiments to test whether people have supernatural powers - I forget who the name of the guy who's most famous about this was. However, without any sort of knowledge about a god, it's tough to really describe what sort of 'proof' would be necessary to prove the existence of gods, because you cannot even begin to create an experimental methodology to test it. That's why the presence of gods has not been proven either way, and there is no headway into that segment of study.
|
On March 07 2008 00:29 Southlight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Common misconception of atheism is that it is a belief that there is no god. This is generally untrue. Atheism is not antitheism. This sort of messes up your last argument about atheism. EDIT: To clarify, the difference is that if scientific proof of gods and/or the supernatural were to be found, every true atheism would begin preaching the word of god, whereas antitheists would remain the same.
In other words, we consider the existence of god so unlikely as to be without merit.
If he does exist (and could be proven to exist) then obviously we would believe. If any evidence at all that he exists existed, then we would be more likely to believe.
But that evidence hasnt surfaced in the past 2000 years
|
United States22883 Posts
Southlight hit it dead on. Buddhism is an atheist religion.
While it's true we can't deductively prove that God doesn't exist, I think we have done a fairly good job doing so inductively. That is, given the nature of God, it is impossible to prove 100% that it doesn't exist, but I think we're closer to 100% than 0%.
Many religious philosophers (from all religions) accept that faith is irrational. The more pertinent question is then - does being irrational necessarily make religion false? I'd answer more fully but I'm busy doing intern applications. >.> Some people believe that because faith is private, subjective and irrational that it becomes even stronger. Essentially, how can you disprove God to someone who believes they have been touched by God? Not proven by something like Ontological/Cosmological/Teleological argument, but from within.
|
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.
All smart atheists are agnostic to some degree. But, as dawkins puts it, just because we can't prove the inexistence of a god doesn't mean the chances of there being one are 50:50. Bertrand Russel gav the argument of the celestial teapot, and it goes something like this:
You argue there is a possibility of a god because there's no proof that one doesn't exist. I retort that there must be a possiblity, then, of a teapot which is orbiting the sun precisely halfway between earth and mars, because there's no way to prove there isn't one. It seems silly, but now imagine people here on earth building shrines, sacrificing animals, and preforming otherwise nonsense rituals because they fear the wrath of this celestial teapot.
Clearly just because we can't disprove something doesn't mean that the chance of the existence of that something isn't 50:50.
|
On March 07 2008 01:28 MasterOfChaos wrote:
You only proved that you can't disprove a god with absolute power. And that you can't prove his existance against his will.
But you could observe an experimental result which(assuming your postulats are correct) is impossible to get without the existance of a god.
That sounds plausible, but the thing is what experiment could you carry out that would rule out all other reasonable explanations for the observed phenomena?
Another thing considering terminology I used in the OP, yea my use of axiom/postulate was screwy. Also, by religion I actually meant religion not faith, cause as far as I can tell, most everyone is part of a religion NOT a faith. A faith is belief in a God of some nature or another, whereas in the religion you believe in everythign else that accompanies that statement in whatever holy book or another you may have.
Being agnostic in faith I can see as being a justified position, but for religion? Religion seems to be completely irrational to me if for nothing else than its completely silly, controlling nature. It's like "you gotta do this this and that all because it's written in this book! And we claim that God wrote this book through human intermediaries! Wait what contradictory things in the book? No, they don't exist even if you point them out because God's work is perfect". There are those of the religion who do recognize their book has inconsistencies, and yet they still continue to believe in the religion, claiming that even if there are errors in their book, even if they are reading a version that was translated through multiple languages to get to their own language, it must necessarily still reflect the will of the God they believe in, and that just seems wrong to me.
Oh, and upon coming back from class today, I found the last page of replies in the closed thread utterly hilarious lol.
|
I don't like religion.
Science doesn't explain "why?"
Faith is something almost "axiomatic", so if you begin to argue about which faith can be proven, etc... you get nowhere because you're arguing about your axioms.
Just as you can't eat food and have it fill someone else's stomach, it's hard to get someone to understand the power of "faith" unless they have experienced a certain faith themselves. I'm pretty sure there are some things you have taken with faith that you probably would not be willing to scrutinize.
As for the the errancy of the bible, inerrants believe that only the original version of the bible (wherever that may be) is completely true. Any other translation has been tainted by differences in culture/imperfections of language.
I disagree with your distinction between religion and faith. Religion is the set rituals and traditional behaviors that accompany the faith. It is not necessary to maintain faith, but it can sometimes reinforce your faith.
In response to BlackStar, agnosticism, is the neutral stance. The neutral stance is always "it's possible", not "it's impossible" or "it is true" which are the views of atheists and theists, respectively.
|
whereas in the religion you believe in everythign else that accompanies that statement in whatever holy book or another you may have. No, you really don't.
|
o.O Then what the hell would be the point of the Bible and related books for other religions?
|
Take the relevant parts. If you actually bothered to read the Bible, Quran, TNK, any of the vedic books, you'd know that they're 90% bullshit and written in a historical context which simply doesn't apply to us. Do I read genesis and say "goddam, abraham musta lived 900 years because the book says so?" no. Just means he was important. There are directions on how to stone people in 3 of the above texts, does that mean we go out with rocks and pelt women who've slept with men they aren't married to? No. What you CAN do, however, is look for the general themes, messages, and lessons.
It doesn't even have to do with translation through languages, its just a contextualized and relevant approach to religious literature.
|
Well i did read the entirety of the Bible a couple of times. The about that is, if you accept 90% of the Bible as bullshit, what's to say the overarching themes in it are not bullshit as well? It's like saying, "well this book I'm reading is just so completely full of bullshit, but I'll believe this and that point selectively from it anyways". it's just....... I dunno what to call it.
|
United States22883 Posts
By looking for the general themes and lessons, you're cherry picking which values you find acceptable. That implies that values and morality exist independent of the religion because certain parts of the holy books are worthwhile and others aren't. If morality exists independent of religion, then you should be obeying morality and not the religion.
|
yea that's exactly what I thought
|
On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
Well, that was a long introduction for a very short point. Faith is irrational. It doesn't have any basis and can't have one. You just believe in god, you draw him in whatever colors you want, and it's meant to make you happier. Nothing more, leave the explanation of the universe to science. Besides, science doesn't answer the question "why?", it only answers "how?", so the former one is still a matter of faith.
Finishing the post with some offtopic, I'll quote one post from this thread:
"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.
While i agree with most of what you say, i don't really follow your logic here.
The biggest reason i'm an atheist is because i reject organized religion. If you think about the endless numbers of gods and religions that have been though up by humans, most people here will agree how logically inconsistent they are.
So if you reject religion, but you don't reject god where does your definition of god come from? Is "he" all powerful and all seeing? Or is he just very powerful and have a physical form like ancient greek/roman gods? If you think the god that may or may not exist is an all-powerful supernatural being, then you haven't rejected any major religions have you? Because that definition just comes right from ancient Judaism.
If we can't define god, how can you say you don't know whether or not he exists? It's like the flying teapot. Because the traditional notion of god is just as unbased as the religions, you can't say it's more likely that god exists than a magical flying teapot. So even though nobody can disproove the existance of any of these, it does lead me to to think it's highly unlikely.
|
what's to say the overarching themes in it are not bullshit as well? It's like saying, "well this book I'm reading is just so completely full of bullshit, but I'll believe this and that point selectively from it anyways". it's just....... I dunno what to call it. Its just proper reading? If a bunch of material is historically sensitive and doesn't apply anymore, then so be it. Would you call something as simple as the golden rule, or the ten commandments completely bullshit because they're in the same book that says that you shouldn't eat cockroaches on pain of being cast out of god's life? No. Classic fallacy in the same form of "oh, hitler was for xyz, thus it must be evil". Reading the books contextually just plain makes sense.
I wouldn't read a Shakespearean play and say "wow, this shit is fucking stupid because these people didn't exist, and I'm sure the historical characters didn't say EXACTLY THESE LINES". That's not the point. The point is the messages and truths the books are supposed to impart.
By looking for the general themes and lessons, you're cherry picking which values you find acceptable... If morality exists independent of religion, then you should be obeying morality and not the religion.
You can if you want to be cynical about religion, but if you find a lesson that you don't want to learn, what then? You can apply that notion to any text or any form of morality, and that's a product of the person, not the code. You can challenge yourself with lessons and themes that aren't continuous with your own actions, or you can choose to take the challenge and live up to them.
And if morality exists independent of religion, which it obviously must, the question is: who's morality. Mine sure as hell won't be the same as yours. Society can't judge you based on an ambiguous moral code, it codifies it in order to keep itself in order. The fact that most legal traditions are heavily derived from religious beliefs about the self and society shouldn't go unappreciated here. So no, I shouldn't be obeying 'morality', because I can make morality into whatever's convenient. Western religions have typically operated a few core ideas, one of which is the sanctity of life. If you remove that from our legal histories and our religions, and replace it with something like "efficiency is the highest virtue", then we'd start being able to rationalize, accept and promote the wholesale liquidation of the infirm, weak, mentally handicapped, criminals, etc. That wouldn't just be expedient, It would be moral. That's not to say that removing religion leads to mass slaughter, its just to show how powerful the underlying core 'axioms' of morality are in swaying morality.
|
To take your own words, and what would make you choose the ten commandments over the rule saying that if you eat cockroaches, god casts you out? Just because one rule seems more valid than the other, so you choose to follow it over the other?
"Classic fallacy in the same form of "oh, hitler was for xyz, thus it must be evil""
Well, this is different. To modify that statement, it would be
"Classic fallacy in the same form of "oh, God said to do xyz, thus it must be done".
If you call that a fallacy, then that is cherry picking. From what I got through reading the Old Testament parts of the Bible, God's law is supposed to be perpetual and thorough. As such, lack of validiity of some commandments due to passage of time would seem to be a contradictory statement.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11
So you shouldn't eat squid, shouldn't consume pork, etc. Yet clearly Christians do so nonetheless nowadays. Some say that the first few chapters of the Bible were meant for the Jews and thus they are not bound by it, but that seems bullshit to me cause it's in the Bible that they follow. So what then? Are such commandments bullshit nowadays due to different circumstances?
|
United States22883 Posts
The fact that most legal traditions are heavily derived from religious beliefs about the self and society shouldn't go unappreciated here.
...
Western religions have typically operated a few core ideas, one of which is the sanctity of life.
The codification of laws existed long before organized religion implemented them, and I assure you that the sanctity of life concept is not unique to Western religions. I don't see why people always bring this up.
Society can absolutely judge you on moral code, because it's a collective of norms and ideas agreed upon by the people operating within it.
It's simply absurd to look to parts of the Bible for morality when you find other parts of it immoral. Certainly you can highlight and agree with examples, but those examples should not be the basis of your morality, they should only supplement it.
|
On March 07 2008 07:56 EtherealDeath wrote:If you call that a fallacy, then that is cherry picking. From what I got through reading the Old Testament parts of the Bible, God's law is supposed to be perpetual and thorough. As such, lack of validiity of some commandments due to passage of time would seem to be a contradictory statement. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11So you shouldn't eat squid, shouldn't consume pork, etc. Yet clearly Christians do so nonetheless nowadays. Some say that the first few chapters of the Bible were meant for the Jews and thus they are not bound by it, but that seems bullshit to me cause it's in the Bible that they follow. So what then? Are such commandments bullshit nowadays due to different circumstances?
God's law is perpetual and thorough. However, you have to realize the old testament deals with the Old Covenant, with the chosen people, the Jews. Those laws were all before Jesus Christ came to this earth. Before that you had to be fucking careful, or God would just be like: "Ooops, you're dead" (Example... Uzzah and the Ark) After Jesus, there was the New Covenant, which is not just with the Jews, but now includes Gentiles.
The New Covenant was based on forgiveness. That's why those laws were valid back then, but they can safely be ignored now.
Of course, if you were a Jew, and you still believed you were bound by the "old covenant" then you shouldn't eat squid, pork, etc... (which is why Jews don't eat Pork?)
All those rules handed down to Moses are crazy... hard to follow. Especially all the parts about cleanliness and not being in the presence of a woman in period, and subsequent quarantine, etc...
|
United States22883 Posts
Jews don't eat pork because of poor agricultural practices 2,500 years ago.
And the New Testament tells us we should still follow every word of the Old Testament. Plus the New Testament has some harsh things in it as well. Not to mention if God's law was perpetual, he shouldn't need to make a revision. >.>
|
Where does the New Testament say that we need to follow Moses' Law? Sure, there are some harsh things, I don't deny it. He didn't make a revision. He recontracted on better terms for his subjects.
|
So what the heck is the purpose of the majority of the Old Testament being in the Bible? A nice excursion in history? o.O
|
The codification of laws existed long before organized religion implemented them, Actually, no, we have very little information on the timeframe of the first known codified legal system, which is the Egyptian one, and from what archaeological evidence we do have, their religion developed fairly early on. The Babylonian code, which was the first to be codified and accessible to the public does not predate Babylonian religion.
Society can absolutely judge you on moral code, because it's a collective of norms and ideas agreed upon by the people operating within it. I didn't disagree with that. I said you can't be judged by an ambiguous personal moral code. A legal moral code is essentially the same thing as a religion's moral code. When the vast majority of norms and ideas that were included in said legal tradition are religious in foundation, which they are in pretty much every nation in the world, your legal system is founded on religious axioms. Even Nikita Khrushchev surmised that in trying to remove religion from the soviet union, they had created a religion of state.
To take your own words, and what would make you choose the ten commandments over the rule saying that if you eat cockroaches, god casts you out? Just because one rule seems more valid than the other, so you choose to follow it over the other? No, because one rule makes sense in a historical context, and the other makes sense in an overarching context. I already said this. The bible is like a novel; You can open it up and read it literally, and come away with a single story which doesn't apply anywhere else in your life, or you can try to understand the metaphors and messages which aren't staring you in the face and discover more timely truths. That's kinda why the TNK has volumes and volumes of rabbinical interpretation of the text so that you can actually follow along what's being said. Not only that, but the rabbinic interpretation is the binding section of the text, and it changes over time as new rabbis add their reasoning to it.
And yeah, new covenant makes nearly all of the old testament moot in terms of restrictions, otherwise god would quite literally get to smiting every time we married a non-jew, and much of the new testament is letters of the early church which are also subject to revision by future popes, who hold the same station as peter did when he wrote those letters.
So what the heck is the purpose of the majority of the Old Testament being in the Bible? A nice excursion in history? o.O Context.
|
United States22883 Posts
Psalm 119:151-2
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Malachi 4:4
Remember ye the law of Moses.
Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Obviously these are contradictory to other parts of the New Testament which say Christians can forgo the original, which makes a good case for not committing yourself to an imperfect, man made document.
|
Hammurabi's code
To quote, wikipedia,
The Code of Hammurabi (also known as Codex Hammurabi) is one of the earliest and best preserved law codes from ancient Babylon, created ca. 1760 BC (middle chronology). It was enacted by the sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi.[1] Earlier collections of laws include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).[2]
The earliest form of the bible is generally accepted to be the Hebrew Bible, of which the dating is a bit more haphazard because carbon dating isn't too specific and there's no clear significant author to relate it to (as opposed to ancient kings, for whom it's slightly easier to nail a relative date to).
While the books of the New Testament may be dated with some confidence, the dates of many of the texts of the Hebrew Bible are difficult to establish. Textual criticism places all of them within the 1st millennium BC[citation needed], while traditionalist schools assign the Pentateuch a 15th century BC to 13th century BC date.
At best, the Torah comes roughly 200 years after Hammurabi's Code, which is arguably not even the first true code of law. Hammurabi is simply famous for being the best preserved code. Given the state of human culture, it's quite reasonable to assume that there were plenty of oral and unsaid laws and morales that lorded over human societies during those times. After all, society cannot exist without a common mode of thought - you'd get anarchy and conflict otherwise.
Thus, it is preposterous and egotistical to believe any incarnation of the Bible is the basis for many modern laws. Rather, most biblical references in laws are most likely the result of the Church having a significant impact on soverignties - you can attribute this to Charlemagne's Great Failure (being crowned Emperor by the Pope) as well as the incredible amount of faith held by believers during those times.
|
On March 07 2008 11:51 ItsYoungLee wrote:
Where does the New Testament say that we need to follow Moses' Law? Sure, there are some harsh things, I don't deny it. He didn't make a revision. He recontracted on better terms for his subjects.
Moses died. Sure, he supposedly lived to 120 (a theory, as it cannot be proven, but most people will accept it as fact because there's no real reason to argue otherwise), but he technically lived in 13th century BC, which would entail his death would have been around roughly 12th century BC. Then there is, technically, an inexplicable silence until Jesus at roughly 0 BC (1200 years to retract). For the sake of argument, we'll assume Jesus is a second prophet. We'll also assume he died somewhere around 30 AD. A number of New Testament works are dated around 100 AD. What happened? Did God come back down and say "oh shizzle, I forgots to tell y'all, I screwed up, take back what I says to Moses mmkay? I'll give y'all a new set, bit shorter so y'all can remember these ones, follow 'em well ya hear?" and tell these random people the new, condensed version?
On the note of these supposed miracle-makers and the likes, I'd like to borrow the words of Thomas Hobbes (whose Leviathan you should check out):
How then can he to whom God hath never revealed His will immediately (saving by the way of natural reason) know when he is to obey or not to obey His word, delivered by him that says he is a prophet? Of four hundred prophets, of whom the King of Israel, asked counsel concerning the war he made against Ramoth Gilead, only Micaiah was a true one. [I Kings, 22] The prophet that was sent to prophesy against the altar set up by Jeroboam, [Ibid., 13] though a true prophet, and that by two miracles done in his presence appears to be a prophet sent from God, was yet deceived by another old prophet that persuaded him, as from the mouth of God, to eat and drink with him. If one prophet deceive another, what certainty is there of knowing the will of God by other way than that of reason? To which I answer out of the Holy Scripture that there be two marks by which together, not asunder, a true prophet is to be known. One is the doing of miracles; the other is the not teaching any other religion than that which is already established. Asunder, I say, neither of these is sufficient. "If a prophet rise amongst you, or a dreamer of dreams, and shall pretend the doing of a miracle, and the miracle come to pass; if he say, Let us follow strange gods, which thou hast not known, thou shalt not hearken to him, etc. But that prophet and dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he hath spoken to you to revolt from the Lord your God." [Deuteronomy, 13. 1-5] In which words two things are to be observed; first, that God will not have miracles alone serve for arguments to approve the prophet's calling; but (as it is in the third verse) for an experiment of the constancy of our adherence to Himself. For the works of the Egyptian sorcerers, though not so great as those of Moses, yet were great miracles. Secondly, that how great soever the miracle be, yet if it tend to stir up revolt against the king or him that governeth by the king's authority, he that doth such miracle is not to be considered otherwise than as sent to make trial of their allegiance. For these words, revolt from the Lord your God, are in this place equivalent to revolt from your king. For they had made God their king by pact at the foot of Mount Sinai; who ruled them by Moses only; for he only spake with God, and from time to time declared God's commandments to the people. In like manner, after our Saviour Christ had made his Disciples acknowledge him for the Messiah (that is to say, for God's anointed, whom the nation of the Jews daily expected for their king, but refused when he came), he omitted not to advertise them of the danger of miracles. "There shall arise," saith he, "false Christs, and false prophets, and shall do great wonders and miracles, even to the seducing (if it were possible) of the very elect." [Matthew, 24. 24] By which it appears that false prophets may have the power of miracles; yet are we not to take their doctrine for God's word. St. Paul says further to the Galatians that "if himself or an angel from heaven preach another Gospel to them than he had preached, let him be accursed." [Galatians, 1. 8] That Gospel was that Christ was King; so that all preaching against the power of the king received, in consequence to these words, is by St. Paul accursed. For his speech is addressed to those who by his preaching had already received Jesus for the Christ, that is to say, for King of the Jews.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
historically the line between nontheism and atheism is a bit blurry. only recently do we have various sorts of atheisms. the reason for the classification is due to people not wanting to be seen as taking aggressive positions against the belief of god. an agnostic's positon may be commonly described as 'we dunno.' atheists do not generally challenge this, but highlight the 'we do not believe,' which in its explicit form is 'there is no god.' in most instances, the motivation for this difference in stress is not some epistemological insight, (and if it is, well the guy is not very good at metaphysics) but how one views the very topic of god. agnostics may simply do not give a shit, or be mystically attached, or even in a state of confusion. the atheist do not have these worries, and generally feels strongly about this issue. in any case, the point being, atheists and other sort of nontheisms are not really differentiated epistemologically but are attitudes, to use a crude word.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 07 2008 07:56 EtherealDeath wrote:To take your own words, and what would make you choose the ten commandments over the rule saying that if you eat cockroaches, god casts you out? Just because one rule seems more valid than the other, so you choose to follow it over the other? "Classic fallacy in the same form of "oh, hitler was for xyz, thus it must be evil"" Well, this is different. To modify that statement, it would be "Classic fallacy in the same form of "oh, God said to do xyz, thus it must be done". If you call that a fallacy, then that is cherry picking. From what I got through reading the Old Testament parts of the Bible, God's law is supposed to be perpetual and thorough. As such, lack of validiity of some commandments due to passage of time would seem to be a contradictory statement. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 11So you shouldn't eat squid, shouldn't consume pork, etc. Yet clearly Christians do so nonetheless nowadays. Some say that the first few chapters of the Bible were meant for the Jews and thus they are not bound by it, but that seems bullshit to me cause it's in the Bible that they follow. So what then? Are such commandments bullshit nowadays due to different circumstances? why can't you say it is an inferior position and all sorts of stupid without calling it a formal fallacy? situatiosn like this should illustrate the inadequacy of formal logic, rather than the other way around.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 07 2008 12:36 EtherealDeath wrote:
So what the heck is the purpose of the majority of the Old Testament being in the Bible? A nice excursion in history? o.O
there is no necessary purpose. it may be due to the historical development of the religion that defined what the bible is in the first place.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Geez people you are awful. You turn any kind of a discussion into bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
