|
On June 30 2013 11:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 11:23 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2013 11:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:54 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Therefore, god supports abortion. Because he has the control over human life. The ones who were meant to live, lived. The ones who were meant to die, died. The Church (largely) teaches that God does not force actions upon people, but allows them to make choices of their own free-will. "Control over human life" would be more accurately stated as "Authority over human life/death". He doesn't make the girl have the abortion, she makes that decision. He (God) just doesn't accept it as righteous. You completely negated the post I was responding to. Bulletproof. Furthermore, where has god defined where life begins? Does he put the soul in at conception or after it takes breath? No... I didn't negate anything. I said the same thing as before, just changed the word "control" over to "authority" because you were using the wrong definition of "control" to make an argument. The Church defines life as beginning at conception. Also, the idea that it begins at conception is supported by the miraculous conception of Jesus, that from the moment of conception Jesus was God.
No, you used the word control wrong.
Church says conception. So conception is people. Jesus was a god. Pretty sure he's a special case (since god took control).
Regardless, you haven't really argued the benefits of religious rule. Think of it this way: When secularists (or any non christian group) gains a majority would you say that it is just for them to outlaw your religious way of thinking (based on their strongly-held beliefs).
|
Are you really discussing relgion in here right now? -_-
|
On June 30 2013 11:33 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 11:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 11:23 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2013 11:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:54 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Therefore, god supports abortion. Because he has the control over human life. The ones who were meant to live, lived. The ones who were meant to die, died. The Church (largely) teaches that God does not force actions upon people, but allows them to make choices of their own free-will. "Control over human life" would be more accurately stated as "Authority over human life/death". He doesn't make the girl have the abortion, she makes that decision. He (God) just doesn't accept it as righteous. You completely negated the post I was responding to. Bulletproof. Furthermore, where has god defined where life begins? Does he put the soul in at conception or after it takes breath? No... I didn't negate anything. I said the same thing as before, just changed the word "control" over to "authority" because you were using the wrong definition of "control" to make an argument. The Church defines life as beginning at conception. Also, the idea that it begins at conception is supported by the miraculous conception of Jesus, that from the moment of conception Jesus was God. No, you used the word control wrong. Church says conception. So conception is people. Jesus was a god. Pretty sure he's a special case (since god took control). Regardless, you haven't really argued the benefits of religious rule. Think of it this way: When secularists (or any non christian group) gains a majority would you say that it is just for them to outlaw your religious way of thinking (based on their strongly-held beliefs). I used control in the context of "He has the authority to decide who lives and dies" as in "God should have (and does) have control over who lives and dies". The fact that He does not exercise this ultimate control and authority in all instances is not contradictory to the idea that He has said control. The issue of a woman having an abortion and God not preventing the action is an example of Him not exercising His right and power of control. In the context you are speaking of (deterministic vs. free-will), "authority" is a more accurate term. As in: "The authority of deciding who lives and dies should (and does) belong to him."
The Church teaches that Jesus was both God and Man, not exclusively one or the other. The same physical applications of humanity applied to him, with some specific exceptions. Thus, it is reasonably to believe that if conception was the beginning of Jesus' personhood and Godhood, that conception is also the beginning of our (mere humans) personhood.
I'm not trying to argue the benefits of religious rule... I've never supported "religious rule", and even if I did, it is off-topic, as I said before.
On June 30 2013 11:36 Sokrates wrote:
Are you really discussing relgion in here right now? -_-
I am doing so only as it pertains to the discussion at hand. And I think it is somewhat valid to discuss religion insofar as it regards to the morality/philosophy of abortion. Obviously there are parts of the religious discussion that do not belong here, and I am honestly trying to steer away from those. Given the difficulty of doing so, I might have to end the my participation in the discussion altogether, but I haven't given up hope yet.
|
On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. + Show Spoiler +In fact, I think I should try to deconstruct the argument (I use the term loosely) you seem to be providing here:
P1: The Bible tells us what is right and wrong.
P2: It applied thousands of years ago.
C: It does not apply today.
Does not follow from premise.
P1: Basing arguments on books written thousands of years ago is stupid.
P2: The Bible was written thousands of years ago. (kind of incorrect, but whatever)
C: Basing arguments on the Bible is stupid.
Better in that it's somewhat logical, yet still pretty weak in that you've not said WHY basing argument on books written thousands of years ago is stupid, and you misunderstand what the Bible is (not a singular book, but rather a collection of books and stories). Show nested quote +edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject.
Religion is based on the premise of faith not reason, basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning. If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help.
|
in the end it all comes down to the future of an entire species being decided by women and women alone. that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen. i don't care if it's their bodies/their lives because this, is my species too.
|
On June 30 2013 14:07 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. + Show Spoiler +In fact, I think I should try to deconstruct the argument (I use the term loosely) you seem to be providing here:
P1: The Bible tells us what is right and wrong.
P2: It applied thousands of years ago.
C: It does not apply today.
Does not follow from premise.
P1: Basing arguments on books written thousands of years ago is stupid.
P2: The Bible was written thousands of years ago. (kind of incorrect, but whatever)
C: Basing arguments on the Bible is stupid.
Better in that it's somewhat logical, yet still pretty weak in that you've not said WHY basing argument on books written thousands of years ago is stupid, and you misunderstand what the Bible is (not a singular book, but rather a collection of books and stories). edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Religion is based on the premise of faith not reason, basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning. If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help.
Hmm... I was actually kind of hoping you'd argue the on-topic part, but I think this needs addressing. In the interest of brevity and on-topicness, I'll spoiler the rest:
+ Show Spoiler +Let's take these statements one at a time. (I will paraphrase for the sake of clarity, but will quote the source in a spoiler) Religion has no rational basis.+ Show Spoiler +"Religion is based on the premise of faith, not reason" Well, I suppose that could be said to be true in some ways. But it also ignores the vast history of Christian apologetics, much of which was based on finding logical basis for faith. It is simply not true that religion has no place for rational thought and is solely based upon "blind" faith. Whether or not you personally find the logical arguments and reasoning provided by the hundreds of Christian apologetics who over the past 20 centuries were interested in finding and developing logical basis' for their beliefs is irrelevant to the fact that they do exist. Basing your decisions on your faith is an example of irrational behavior.+ Show Spoiler +"basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning" This is ridiculous. I present you with this syllogism: P1: My faith is the centerpiece of all my beliefs. P2: My decisions should be in-line with my beliefs. C: My decisions should be based upon my faith. That is a perfectly rational, perfectly logical syllogism. If my faith, being based at least in part on logical reasoning, is the centerpiece of all my beliefs, is the core of how I define myself and my world; than it is only reasonable to assume that I should base my decisions upon that faith. Otherwise I would be acting against myself, and as we know: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." God's existence is not logical+ Show Spoiler +"a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place" Perhaps you have conceived some awesome, new argument that provides something every single philosopher that has ever lived could not, and have the ability to use a syllogism to actually prove the non-existence of God... or perhaps you don't. If you do, by all means, present it. If you do not, than understand that the question of the existence of God is not settled, either scientifically or logically. There are many arguments for both sides. I suggest you read some of the works of Thomas Aquinas. He may be a bit dated nowadays, and every atheist thinks to cut his or her teeth on taking on his works; but it is undeniable that he was a very rational, very intelligent man. His arguments may not be convincing, but he certainly provided more energy to the subject than you or I have (unless, perhaps you are the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens, or perhaps you are Richard Dawkins?). Either way, if you are saying that God's existence cannot (or at least, has not yet been) logically proven to be so... I agree. That doesn't mean anything to it's validity or truth, however. The various authors of the various books and stories in the Gospel were flawed in both their recollections and their interpretations.+ Show Spoiler +"collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god" Under what authority do you make this statement? How much time have you spent analyzing the Bible? How much study have you put to the beliefs and histories of the ancient Jews, to the lives and beliefs of the ancient Christians? I can guarantee you that the Catholic church has put more time, more effort, and more mental "sweat" into the subject than any other organization that has ever existed. Unless you can provide me with some reason not to, I will take their word over yours. Especially since you seem to misunderstand the fundamental purpose of many of the stories and books in the Bible, that many of the "historical" books were never meant to be literal histories, but were often morality tales. Further, that they were all "normal humans" is debatable. Some were probably insane. Others were probably extraordinarily brutal and primitive by today's standards. Others may or may not have been true prophets in communication with the all-knowing, all-powerful God. Basing your beliefs on the Bible is so illogical that it is self-evidently so. I have no need to provide an actual argument because your position is inherently inferior.+ Show Spoiler +"If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help." Well that's just rude. And it's actually a logical fallacy. At that point I can't truly argue with you because you haven't given an argument. You've thrown out an insult and taken a tone of superiority. You might as well have said: "U r dumb, lol" and you would have provided as much intellectual value as you have now, and saved some time. I had hoped for something better.... but I suppose such hope was baseless and ill founded. Curse my blind faith in your abilities! 
Hoo boy, that took a while. Well, hopefully we can move on from this better people. And I think I might just be done with the whole argument considering the fact that it seems impossible to bring up religion without having these same, inane discussions.
|
On June 30 2013 15:21 xM(Z wrote:
in the end it all comes down to the future of an entire species being decided by women and women alone. that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen. i don't care if it's their bodies/their lives because this, is my species too.
This seems rather hyperbolic, don't you think? Granting women the right to control their own bodies within reason in regards to pregnancy and ceding control of the entire species seem like rather different things.
|
On June 30 2013 15:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:21 xM(Z wrote:
in the end it all comes down to the future of an entire species being decided by women and women alone. that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen. i don't care if it's their bodies/their lives because this, is my species too. This seems rather hyperbolic, don't you think? Granting women the right to control their own bodies within reason in regards to pregnancy and ceding control of the entire species seem like rather different things.
a law that doesn't take into consideration worst case scenarios is no law at all.
...within reason in regards to pregnancy ...
agreed but people in here want women to always have total control over pregnancies of any type/kind/duration.
|
On June 30 2013 15:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 14:07 zbedlam wrote:On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. + Show Spoiler +In fact, I think I should try to deconstruct the argument (I use the term loosely) you seem to be providing here:
P1: The Bible tells us what is right and wrong.
P2: It applied thousands of years ago.
C: It does not apply today.
Does not follow from premise.
P1: Basing arguments on books written thousands of years ago is stupid.
P2: The Bible was written thousands of years ago. (kind of incorrect, but whatever)
C: Basing arguments on the Bible is stupid.
Better in that it's somewhat logical, yet still pretty weak in that you've not said WHY basing argument on books written thousands of years ago is stupid, and you misunderstand what the Bible is (not a singular book, but rather a collection of books and stories). edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Religion is based on the premise of faith not reason, basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning. If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help. Hmm... I was actually kind of hoping you'd argue the on-topic part, but I think this needs addressing. In the interest of brevity and on-topicness, I'll spoiler the rest: + Show Spoiler +Let's take these statements one at a time. (I will paraphrase for the sake of clarity, but will quote the source in a spoiler) Religion has no rational basis.+ Show Spoiler +"Religion is based on the premise of faith, not reason" Well, I suppose that could be said to be true in some ways. But it also ignores the vast history of Christian apologetics, much of which was based on finding logical basis for faith. It is simply not true that religion has no place for rational thought and is solely based upon "blind" faith. Whether or not you personally find the logical arguments and reasoning provided by the hundreds of Christian apologetics who over the past 20 centuries were interested in finding and developing logical basis' for their beliefs is irrelevant to the fact that they do exist. Basing your decisions on your faith is an example of irrational behavior.+ Show Spoiler +"basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning" This is ridiculous. I present you with this syllogism: P1: My faith is the centerpiece of all my beliefs. P2: My decisions should be in-line with my beliefs. C: My decisions should be based upon my faith. That is a perfectly rational, perfectly logical syllogism. If my faith, being based at least in part on logical reasoning, is the centerpiece of all my beliefs, is the core of how I define myself and my world; than it is only reasonable to assume that I should base my decisions upon that faith. Otherwise I would be acting against myself, and as we know: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." God's existence is not logical+ Show Spoiler +"a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place" Perhaps you have conceived some awesome, new argument that provides something every single philosopher that has ever lived could not, and have the ability to use a syllogism to actually prove the non-existence of God... or perhaps you don't. If you do, by all means, present it. If you do not, than understand that the question of the existence of God is not settled, either scientifically or logically. There are many arguments for both sides. I suggest you read some of the works of Thomas Aquinas. He may be a bit dated nowadays, and every atheist thinks to cut his or her teeth on taking on his works; but it is undeniable that he was a very rational, very intelligent man. His arguments may not be convincing, but he certainly provided more energy to the subject than you or I have (unless, perhaps you are the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens, or perhaps you are Richard Dawkins?). Either way, if you are saying that God's existence cannot (or at least, has not yet been) logically proven to be so... I agree. That doesn't mean anything to it's validity or truth, however. The various authors of the various books and stories in the Gospel were flawed in both their recollections and their interpretations.+ Show Spoiler +"collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god" Under what authority do you make this statement? How much time have you spent analyzing the Bible? How much study have you put to the beliefs and histories of the ancient Jews, to the lives and beliefs of the ancient Christians? I can guarantee you that the Catholic church has put more time, more effort, and more mental "sweat" into the subject than any other organization that has ever existed. Unless you can provide me with some reason not to, I will take their word over yours. Especially since you seem to misunderstand the fundamental purpose of many of the stories and books in the Bible, that many of the "historical" books were never meant to be literal histories, but were often morality tales. Further, that they were all "normal humans" is debatable. Some were probably insane. Others were probably extraordinarily brutal and primitive by today's standards. Others may or may not have been true prophets in communication with the all-knowing, all-powerful God. Basing your beliefs on the Bible is so illogical that it is self-evidently so. I have no need to provide an actual argument because your position is inherently inferior.+ Show Spoiler +"If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help." Well that's just rude. And it's actually a logical fallacy. At that point I can't truly argue with you because you haven't given an argument. You've thrown out an insult and taken a tone of superiority. You might as well have said: "U r dumb, lol" and you would have provided as much intellectual value as you have now, and saved some time. I had hoped for something better.... but I suppose such hope was baseless and ill founded. Curse my blind faith in your abilities! Hoo boy, that took a while. Well, hopefully we can move on from this better people. And I think I might just be done with the whole argument considering the fact that it seems impossible to bring up religion without having these same, inane discussions.
You really need to accept that bible based religion is completely irrational. You can talk all you want about how Christians have been searching for a rationalization for their belief for 20 centuries (even though it's only been like 5), but you can not give one example of any of them that have succeeded because it is an impossibility. Saying that religion is logical is misinterpretation of faith and slap in the face to actual logical thinking.
|
Zack, I think where expecting too much, logic is hard. 
|
On June 30 2013 14:07 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. + Show Spoiler +In fact, I think I should try to deconstruct the argument (I use the term loosely) you seem to be providing here:
P1: The Bible tells us what is right and wrong.
P2: It applied thousands of years ago.
C: It does not apply today.
Does not follow from premise.
P1: Basing arguments on books written thousands of years ago is stupid.
P2: The Bible was written thousands of years ago. (kind of incorrect, but whatever)
C: Basing arguments on the Bible is stupid.
Better in that it's somewhat logical, yet still pretty weak in that you've not said WHY basing argument on books written thousands of years ago is stupid, and you misunderstand what the Bible is (not a singular book, but rather a collection of books and stories). edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Religion is based on the premise of faith not reason, basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning. If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help.
your entire post is flawed, but I suppose that would be a discussion for another topic. but it seems to me that how you claim with a conviction which would shame a dozen fundamentalists that you live by reason only and have no faith, that you are clearly "beyond help".
|
On June 30 2013 06:27 heliusx wrote:
Who gives a shit what your religion believes. You don't get to make decisions for people based off your fairy tales.
no, but you get to make them based on yours?
|
On June 30 2013 15:45 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:07 zbedlam wrote:On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. + Show Spoiler +In fact, I think I should try to deconstruct the argument (I use the term loosely) you seem to be providing here:
P1: The Bible tells us what is right and wrong.
P2: It applied thousands of years ago.
C: It does not apply today.
Does not follow from premise.
P1: Basing arguments on books written thousands of years ago is stupid.
P2: The Bible was written thousands of years ago. (kind of incorrect, but whatever)
C: Basing arguments on the Bible is stupid.
Better in that it's somewhat logical, yet still pretty weak in that you've not said WHY basing argument on books written thousands of years ago is stupid, and you misunderstand what the Bible is (not a singular book, but rather a collection of books and stories). edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Religion is based on the premise of faith not reason, basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning. If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help. Hmm... I was actually kind of hoping you'd argue the on-topic part, but I think this needs addressing. In the interest of brevity and on-topicness, I'll spoiler the rest: + Show Spoiler +Let's take these statements one at a time. (I will paraphrase for the sake of clarity, but will quote the source in a spoiler) Religion has no rational basis.+ Show Spoiler +"Religion is based on the premise of faith, not reason" Well, I suppose that could be said to be true in some ways. But it also ignores the vast history of Christian apologetics, much of which was based on finding logical basis for faith. It is simply not true that religion has no place for rational thought and is solely based upon "blind" faith. Whether or not you personally find the logical arguments and reasoning provided by the hundreds of Christian apologetics who over the past 20 centuries were interested in finding and developing logical basis' for their beliefs is irrelevant to the fact that they do exist. Basing your decisions on your faith is an example of irrational behavior.+ Show Spoiler +"basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning" This is ridiculous. I present you with this syllogism: P1: My faith is the centerpiece of all my beliefs. P2: My decisions should be in-line with my beliefs. C: My decisions should be based upon my faith. That is a perfectly rational, perfectly logical syllogism. If my faith, being based at least in part on logical reasoning, is the centerpiece of all my beliefs, is the core of how I define myself and my world; than it is only reasonable to assume that I should base my decisions upon that faith. Otherwise I would be acting against myself, and as we know: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." God's existence is not logical+ Show Spoiler +"a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place" Perhaps you have conceived some awesome, new argument that provides something every single philosopher that has ever lived could not, and have the ability to use a syllogism to actually prove the non-existence of God... or perhaps you don't. If you do, by all means, present it. If you do not, than understand that the question of the existence of God is not settled, either scientifically or logically. There are many arguments for both sides. I suggest you read some of the works of Thomas Aquinas. He may be a bit dated nowadays, and every atheist thinks to cut his or her teeth on taking on his works; but it is undeniable that he was a very rational, very intelligent man. His arguments may not be convincing, but he certainly provided more energy to the subject than you or I have (unless, perhaps you are the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens, or perhaps you are Richard Dawkins?). Either way, if you are saying that God's existence cannot (or at least, has not yet been) logically proven to be so... I agree. That doesn't mean anything to it's validity or truth, however. The various authors of the various books and stories in the Gospel were flawed in both their recollections and their interpretations.+ Show Spoiler +"collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god" Under what authority do you make this statement? How much time have you spent analyzing the Bible? How much study have you put to the beliefs and histories of the ancient Jews, to the lives and beliefs of the ancient Christians? I can guarantee you that the Catholic church has put more time, more effort, and more mental "sweat" into the subject than any other organization that has ever existed. Unless you can provide me with some reason not to, I will take their word over yours. Especially since you seem to misunderstand the fundamental purpose of many of the stories and books in the Bible, that many of the "historical" books were never meant to be literal histories, but were often morality tales. Further, that they were all "normal humans" is debatable. Some were probably insane. Others were probably extraordinarily brutal and primitive by today's standards. Others may or may not have been true prophets in communication with the all-knowing, all-powerful God. Basing your beliefs on the Bible is so illogical that it is self-evidently so. I have no need to provide an actual argument because your position is inherently inferior.+ Show Spoiler +"If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help." Well that's just rude. And it's actually a logical fallacy. At that point I can't truly argue with you because you haven't given an argument. You've thrown out an insult and taken a tone of superiority. You might as well have said: "U r dumb, lol" and you would have provided as much intellectual value as you have now, and saved some time. I had hoped for something better.... but I suppose such hope was baseless and ill founded. Curse my blind faith in your abilities! Hoo boy, that took a while. Well, hopefully we can move on from this better people. And I think I might just be done with the whole argument considering the fact that it seems impossible to bring up religion without having these same, inane discussions. You really need to accept that bible based religion is completely irrational.
You really need to learn what the word: "irrational" means.
You can talk all you want about how Christians have been searching for a rationalization for their belief for 20 centuries (even though it's only been like 5)
Never heard of Thomas Aquinas, huh? (~8 centuries ago)
Well, if you've never heard of him than you've definitely never heard of Augustine of Hippo. (~16 centuries ago)
And I suppose that expecting you to have heard of Justin Martyr (~19 centuries ago) and Tertullian (~19 centuries ago) would just be too much.
I mean... it's not like these are well known historical figures or anything like that.
Though, perhaps, and this is a bit of a stretch, you've heard of Paul the Apostle? (~20 centuries ago) Maybe you recognize the name?
but you can not give one example of any of them that have succeeded because it is an impossibility.
You do understand what "logical" means right? Here, this will help:
logic (n): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic
By definition, the apologists were successful in creating logical rationales for their beliefs.
Saying that religion is logical is misinterpretation of faith and slap in the face to actual logical thinking.
Saying that people who created valid logical syllogisms were not logicians and were not using logic is a slap in the face to actual definitions.
|
I seriously can make a better proof of god than those guys.
|
On June 30 2013 17:47 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 14:07 zbedlam wrote:On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. + Show Spoiler +In fact, I think I should try to deconstruct the argument (I use the term loosely) you seem to be providing here:
P1: The Bible tells us what is right and wrong.
P2: It applied thousands of years ago.
C: It does not apply today.
Does not follow from premise.
P1: Basing arguments on books written thousands of years ago is stupid.
P2: The Bible was written thousands of years ago. (kind of incorrect, but whatever)
C: Basing arguments on the Bible is stupid.
Better in that it's somewhat logical, yet still pretty weak in that you've not said WHY basing argument on books written thousands of years ago is stupid, and you misunderstand what the Bible is (not a singular book, but rather a collection of books and stories). edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Religion is based on the premise of faith not reason, basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning. If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help. your entire post is flawed, but I suppose that would be a discussion for another topic. but it seems to me that how you claim with a conviction which would shame a dozen fundamentalists that you live by reason only and have no faith, that you are clearly "beyond help".
Never claimed anything about myself.
|
On June 30 2013 18:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 15:45 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 15:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:07 zbedlam wrote:On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. + Show Spoiler +In fact, I think I should try to deconstruct the argument (I use the term loosely) you seem to be providing here:
P1: The Bible tells us what is right and wrong.
P2: It applied thousands of years ago.
C: It does not apply today.
Does not follow from premise.
P1: Basing arguments on books written thousands of years ago is stupid.
P2: The Bible was written thousands of years ago. (kind of incorrect, but whatever)
C: Basing arguments on the Bible is stupid.
Better in that it's somewhat logical, yet still pretty weak in that you've not said WHY basing argument on books written thousands of years ago is stupid, and you misunderstand what the Bible is (not a singular book, but rather a collection of books and stories). edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Religion is based on the premise of faith not reason, basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning. If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help. Hmm... I was actually kind of hoping you'd argue the on-topic part, but I think this needs addressing. In the interest of brevity and on-topicness, I'll spoiler the rest: + Show Spoiler +Let's take these statements one at a time. (I will paraphrase for the sake of clarity, but will quote the source in a spoiler) Religion has no rational basis.+ Show Spoiler +"Religion is based on the premise of faith, not reason" Well, I suppose that could be said to be true in some ways. But it also ignores the vast history of Christian apologetics, much of which was based on finding logical basis for faith. It is simply not true that religion has no place for rational thought and is solely based upon "blind" faith. Whether or not you personally find the logical arguments and reasoning provided by the hundreds of Christian apologetics who over the past 20 centuries were interested in finding and developing logical basis' for their beliefs is irrelevant to the fact that they do exist. Basing your decisions on your faith is an example of irrational behavior.+ Show Spoiler +"basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning" This is ridiculous. I present you with this syllogism: P1: My faith is the centerpiece of all my beliefs. P2: My decisions should be in-line with my beliefs. C: My decisions should be based upon my faith. That is a perfectly rational, perfectly logical syllogism. If my faith, being based at least in part on logical reasoning, is the centerpiece of all my beliefs, is the core of how I define myself and my world; than it is only reasonable to assume that I should base my decisions upon that faith. Otherwise I would be acting against myself, and as we know: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." God's existence is not logical+ Show Spoiler +"a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place" Perhaps you have conceived some awesome, new argument that provides something every single philosopher that has ever lived could not, and have the ability to use a syllogism to actually prove the non-existence of God... or perhaps you don't. If you do, by all means, present it. If you do not, than understand that the question of the existence of God is not settled, either scientifically or logically. There are many arguments for both sides. I suggest you read some of the works of Thomas Aquinas. He may be a bit dated nowadays, and every atheist thinks to cut his or her teeth on taking on his works; but it is undeniable that he was a very rational, very intelligent man. His arguments may not be convincing, but he certainly provided more energy to the subject than you or I have (unless, perhaps you are the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens, or perhaps you are Richard Dawkins?). Either way, if you are saying that God's existence cannot (or at least, has not yet been) logically proven to be so... I agree. That doesn't mean anything to it's validity or truth, however. The various authors of the various books and stories in the Gospel were flawed in both their recollections and their interpretations.+ Show Spoiler +"collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god" Under what authority do you make this statement? How much time have you spent analyzing the Bible? How much study have you put to the beliefs and histories of the ancient Jews, to the lives and beliefs of the ancient Christians? I can guarantee you that the Catholic church has put more time, more effort, and more mental "sweat" into the subject than any other organization that has ever existed. Unless you can provide me with some reason not to, I will take their word over yours. Especially since you seem to misunderstand the fundamental purpose of many of the stories and books in the Bible, that many of the "historical" books were never meant to be literal histories, but were often morality tales. Further, that they were all "normal humans" is debatable. Some were probably insane. Others were probably extraordinarily brutal and primitive by today's standards. Others may or may not have been true prophets in communication with the all-knowing, all-powerful God. Basing your beliefs on the Bible is so illogical that it is self-evidently so. I have no need to provide an actual argument because your position is inherently inferior.+ Show Spoiler +"If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help." Well that's just rude. And it's actually a logical fallacy. At that point I can't truly argue with you because you haven't given an argument. You've thrown out an insult and taken a tone of superiority. You might as well have said: "U r dumb, lol" and you would have provided as much intellectual value as you have now, and saved some time. I had hoped for something better.... but I suppose such hope was baseless and ill founded. Curse my blind faith in your abilities! Hoo boy, that took a while. Well, hopefully we can move on from this better people. And I think I might just be done with the whole argument considering the fact that it seems impossible to bring up religion without having these same, inane discussions. You really need to accept that bible based religion is completely irrational. You really need to learn what the word: "irrational" means. Show nested quote +You can talk all you want about how Christians have been searching for a rationalization for their belief for 20 centuries (even though it's only been like 5) Never heard of Thomas Aquinas, huh? (~8 centuries ago) Well, if you've never heard of him than you've definitely never heard of Augustine of Hippo. (~16 centuries ago) And I suppose that expecting you to have heard of Justin Martyr (~19 centuries ago) and Tertullian (~19 centuries ago) would just be too much. I mean... it's not like these are well known historical figures or anything like that. Though, perhaps, and this is a bit of a stretch, you've heard of Paul the Apostle? (~20 centuries ago) Maybe you recognize the name? Show nested quote +but you can not give one example of any of them that have succeeded because it is an impossibility. You do understand what "logical" means right? Here, this will help: logic (n): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoninghttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logicBy definition, the apologists were successful in creating logical rationales for their beliefs. Show nested quote +Saying that religion is logical is misinterpretation of faith and slap in the face to actual logical thinking. Saying that people who created valid logical syllogisms were not logicians and were not using logic is a slap in the face to actual definitions.
lol. Posting the definition of a word and telling me I don't know what it means doesn't make religion logical. Loose generalizations and looking at nature as an expression of god and making connections between the real world and the bible is not real logic. The philosophers, monks and saints that were tasks with finding god in nature found nothing. They were simply looking at the universe through a religious lens. Nothing that any of them wrote stands up to modern scientific logical thinking because it is based on invalid assumptions at their core. The only way they can be seen as logical is if you start with the bible, and assume that god is good, great, and in all things. It's all bullshit and calling it logical isn't going to make it any more so.
|
On June 30 2013 15:21 xM(Z wrote:
in the end it all comes down to the future of an entire species being decided by women and women alone. that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen. i don't care if it's their bodies/their lives because this, is my species too.
I am genuinely amazed at this kind of nonsensical statement. Access to abortion has been made "easy" in most developed countries and there is absolutely no problem with regards to "the future of the species" (also, since women are the ones carrying babies in the first place, and you can't control what they do with their pregnancies, regardless of whether easy medical access to abortion exists or not).
|
On June 30 2013 15:21 xM(Z wrote:
in the end it all comes down to the future of an entire species being decided by women and women alone. that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen. i don't care if it's their bodies/their lives because this, is my species too.
You know, human population is still rapidly increasing. The future of the species is not in jeopardy, at least not with regards to number of births. If some cataclysmic event reduced humanity to just a few hundred thousand individuals, then you might have a good point about not letting individual women have the final say about abortions. But we're not in that situation right now.
|
In my opinion the biggest single issue human race is facing now is that there are simply too many people on this planet. If we can't stop the population growth of this planet, we will destroy it with our resource consumption. "Global warming" and all other environmental issues are a direct result of population growth, in addition to rising living standards. Some seriously hard decisions have to be made to control the birth rates, if we let population grow too large.
Educating people about birth control and allowing abortion are two of the best and easiest ways to do it. A lot of issues could be solved by these two simple steps. Best of all, these two ways don't take anyones rights away. It's a lot easier than what we have to do once we hit the "peak food production".
+ Show Spoiler +
Do you see that population dropped by about half? When we hit the peak food production, if we haven't managed to stabelize the population things will get very ugly.
|
On June 30 2013 18:25 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 18:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 15:45 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 15:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 14:07 zbedlam wrote:On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. + Show Spoiler +In fact, I think I should try to deconstruct the argument (I use the term loosely) you seem to be providing here:
P1: The Bible tells us what is right and wrong.
P2: It applied thousands of years ago.
C: It does not apply today.
Does not follow from premise.
P1: Basing arguments on books written thousands of years ago is stupid.
P2: The Bible was written thousands of years ago. (kind of incorrect, but whatever)
C: Basing arguments on the Bible is stupid.
Better in that it's somewhat logical, yet still pretty weak in that you've not said WHY basing argument on books written thousands of years ago is stupid, and you misunderstand what the Bible is (not a singular book, but rather a collection of books and stories). edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Religion is based on the premise of faith not reason, basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning. If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help. Hmm... I was actually kind of hoping you'd argue the on-topic part, but I think this needs addressing. In the interest of brevity and on-topicness, I'll spoiler the rest: + Show Spoiler +Let's take these statements one at a time. (I will paraphrase for the sake of clarity, but will quote the source in a spoiler) Religion has no rational basis.+ Show Spoiler +"Religion is based on the premise of faith, not reason" Well, I suppose that could be said to be true in some ways. But it also ignores the vast history of Christian apologetics, much of which was based on finding logical basis for faith. It is simply not true that religion has no place for rational thought and is solely based upon "blind" faith. Whether or not you personally find the logical arguments and reasoning provided by the hundreds of Christian apologetics who over the past 20 centuries were interested in finding and developing logical basis' for their beliefs is irrelevant to the fact that they do exist. Basing your decisions on your faith is an example of irrational behavior.+ Show Spoiler +"basing your decisions on your faith has no rational reasoning" This is ridiculous. I present you with this syllogism: P1: My faith is the centerpiece of all my beliefs. P2: My decisions should be in-line with my beliefs. C: My decisions should be based upon my faith. That is a perfectly rational, perfectly logical syllogism. If my faith, being based at least in part on logical reasoning, is the centerpiece of all my beliefs, is the core of how I define myself and my world; than it is only reasonable to assume that I should base my decisions upon that faith. Otherwise I would be acting against myself, and as we know: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." God's existence is not logical+ Show Spoiler +"a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place" Perhaps you have conceived some awesome, new argument that provides something every single philosopher that has ever lived could not, and have the ability to use a syllogism to actually prove the non-existence of God... or perhaps you don't. If you do, by all means, present it. If you do not, than understand that the question of the existence of God is not settled, either scientifically or logically. There are many arguments for both sides. I suggest you read some of the works of Thomas Aquinas. He may be a bit dated nowadays, and every atheist thinks to cut his or her teeth on taking on his works; but it is undeniable that he was a very rational, very intelligent man. His arguments may not be convincing, but he certainly provided more energy to the subject than you or I have (unless, perhaps you are the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens, or perhaps you are Richard Dawkins?). Either way, if you are saying that God's existence cannot (or at least, has not yet been) logically proven to be so... I agree. That doesn't mean anything to it's validity or truth, however. The various authors of the various books and stories in the Gospel were flawed in both their recollections and their interpretations.+ Show Spoiler +"collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god" Under what authority do you make this statement? How much time have you spent analyzing the Bible? How much study have you put to the beliefs and histories of the ancient Jews, to the lives and beliefs of the ancient Christians? I can guarantee you that the Catholic church has put more time, more effort, and more mental "sweat" into the subject than any other organization that has ever existed. Unless you can provide me with some reason not to, I will take their word over yours. Especially since you seem to misunderstand the fundamental purpose of many of the stories and books in the Bible, that many of the "historical" books were never meant to be literal histories, but were often morality tales. Further, that they were all "normal humans" is debatable. Some were probably insane. Others were probably extraordinarily brutal and primitive by today's standards. Others may or may not have been true prophets in communication with the all-knowing, all-powerful God. Basing your beliefs on the Bible is so illogical that it is self-evidently so. I have no need to provide an actual argument because your position is inherently inferior.+ Show Spoiler +"If you need me to tell you WHY basing an argument on collection of books and stories from thousands of years ago from the (many times) flawed recollection of events from normal humans and their interpretation of what "god", a being with no logical explanation for existing in the first place is flawed you are clearly beyond help." Well that's just rude. And it's actually a logical fallacy. At that point I can't truly argue with you because you haven't given an argument. You've thrown out an insult and taken a tone of superiority. You might as well have said: "U r dumb, lol" and you would have provided as much intellectual value as you have now, and saved some time. I had hoped for something better.... but I suppose such hope was baseless and ill founded. Curse my blind faith in your abilities! Hoo boy, that took a while. Well, hopefully we can move on from this better people. And I think I might just be done with the whole argument considering the fact that it seems impossible to bring up religion without having these same, inane discussions. You really need to accept that bible based religion is completely irrational. You really need to learn what the word: "irrational" means. You can talk all you want about how Christians have been searching for a rationalization for their belief for 20 centuries (even though it's only been like 5) Never heard of Thomas Aquinas, huh? (~8 centuries ago) Well, if you've never heard of him than you've definitely never heard of Augustine of Hippo. (~16 centuries ago) And I suppose that expecting you to have heard of Justin Martyr (~19 centuries ago) and Tertullian (~19 centuries ago) would just be too much. I mean... it's not like these are well known historical figures or anything like that. Though, perhaps, and this is a bit of a stretch, you've heard of Paul the Apostle? (~20 centuries ago) Maybe you recognize the name? but you can not give one example of any of them that have succeeded because it is an impossibility. You do understand what "logical" means right? Here, this will help: logic (n): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoninghttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logicBy definition, the apologists were successful in creating logical rationales for their beliefs. Saying that religion is logical is misinterpretation of faith and slap in the face to actual logical thinking. Saying that people who created valid logical syllogisms were not logicians and were not using logic is a slap in the face to actual definitions. lol. Posting the definition of a word and telling me I don't know what it means doesn't make religion logical. Loose generalizations and looking at nature as an expression of god and making connections between the real world and the bible is not real logic. The philosophers, monks and saints that were tasks with finding god in nature found nothing. They were simply looking at the universe through a religious lens. Nothing that any of them wrote stands up to modern scientific logical thinking because it is based on invalid assumptions at their core. The only way they can be seen as logical is if you start with the bible, and assume that god is good, great, and in all things. It's all bullshit and calling it logical isn't going to make it any more so.
modern scientific logical thinking because it is based on invalid assumptions at their core
You are doing exactly the same thing, only you are looking through a scientific lense instead of another one.
You seem to mess up your definitions as the other guy already pointed out, and when you are reminded of that you just dismiss it, apart from this being an unscientific attitude, it is also really hard to have a discussion with someone who acts like that. Claiming that real logic is not real logic because you say so is hardly better than saying that God exists because I say so, and since it seems you have a problem when people do the latter...
I will try nonetheless. For examply there are many forms of rationality, the most common ones are instrumental and coherent rationality. By definition of the former being rational means, if your goal is to get from A to B as fast as possible, then it is rational to go from A to B in a straight line, and it would be irrational to go from A to B through C, when C means taking a detour. By definition of the latter, being rational means having a coherent beliefset or system. It would be irrational to hold two beliefs that contradict each other, and you are rational insofar you do not have such contradicting beliefs. In daily use being rational is often confused with being reasonable (which means providing justified reasons/arguments), being logical (which is what Superfan tried to explain, logic is empty and you can claim the most evil and cruel things while being perfectly logical) and with common sense, which seems to be what you are doing. However claiming common sense is pretty vague and it seems to me it goes agains the modern scientific attitude you are trying to defend.
The same goes for dismissing stuff you do not understand or do not care to understand or simply do not agree with as bullshit. In fact, the early scientific method is largely indebted to these guys because they laid the foundation for logical deduction which was, for the early centuries of the scientific development, the primary method of justification. Now this has shifted to induction, or more recently perhaps abduction or inference to the best explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning). However atleast induction has been shown to be irrational (read Goodman's Riddle of Induction), yet it is still largely used by scientists in the field. So much for that. Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lacatos have already convincingly argued against the position you are trying to take here, namely that of an independent, objective point of view, which is so problematic we can safely say it does not exist (pretty much in the same way you claim that God has no logical basis in the world, the same can be said about that objective "birds eye" point of view).
You are as much affected by theory, by ideology as the next (religious) man. Is this an argument to support religion, "hell no". I do hope that it tempers you to make so many wildly unfounded claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.codeproject.com/KB/openGL/Wator/graph.jpg)
