Originally posted by Strider:
Euripides, I'm registered at the forum but haven't partaken in any discussion there. But if you see anyone named "Strider" posting there...you'll know who it is.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:You can hardly suggest he conceal his true belief as a tactic for persuasion, though.
Just in principle, trying to jump from "God is everything in the world" to "God is nothing but a delusion" is too far for most people.
quote:I would be careful in using the word 'extremist'. The only way in which Dawkins' views are extreme is by virtue of them being very different to mainstream beliefs. But extremism also implies aggressive evangelicalism or even violence, neither of which Dawkins' espouses. He's stated that his concern over the status of religion versus science has grown because of the threat posed by Christian fundamentalism, but that's not the reason he believes what he believes. (I think you know that though - sorry if I'm being patronising.)
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
I am under the impression Dawkin's books are in response to religious extremists attacking science, and that he simply answered extremism with extremism.
quote:This is probably the case. As you've stated above though, Dawkins' first commitment is to the truth, rather than to a persuasive agenda. In many cases moderate believers in interviews have given him chances to make reconciliatory remarks that would ease some of the tensions between him and the religious, but he doesn't take the bait if he thinks it will corrupt his argument (often the case with such reconciliatory remarks). He doesn't surrender ground in exchange for sociability, but isn't rude or arrogant. I hold him in the highest esteem for that.
Here's an idea concerning persuasion: The closer your idea is to someone's currently held belief, the more likely you are to persuade them to change their mind.
quote:According to the NYT best sellers list, that isn't the case.
Just in principle, trying to jump from "God is everything in the world" to "God is nothing but a delusion" is too far for most people. It's such a dramatic change they probably won't ever read the book.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:Do you have any arguments against his thesis, or do you just resent that he is certain of it? I'm sure there are more than a few things you're pulpit thumping certain about.
Originally posted by Al:
I am repulsed by pulpit thumping certainty from anyone.
I call him one of the Über-fit: someone whose hubris has no limits.
quote:You're right; that is the bottom line.
Originally posted by Nick:
Bottom line, you can't ever argue with faith or a lack thereof.
quote:I disagree. It does take a sort of faith, I'll grant you, to be an atheist. But the leap is much shorter than that of deists.
it requires as much faith to absolutely disbelieve in God as it does to believe in him
quote:I would say that Dawkins specifically seeks to rebut this line of argument and eliminate it from the discussion. He would argue -- and does argue -- that we argue with "faith" all the time. When people come to psychiatric wards claiming that the radio speaks to them in their mind, we treat them with counseling and medication because we are sure the radio does not; it doesn't meet the smell test, so we start from a presumption of delusion. His argument is that the "God delusion" has been given a free pass for most of human history, and shouldn't be.
Bottom line, you can't ever argue with faith or a lack thereof.
quote:I disagree. I think God exists. I'm pretty well convinced of it. Enough so that I'm willing to act on the presumption that He does. Do I have faith that He exists? Not at all. Do I "feel" Him? Not that I'm aware of. But the preponderance of evidence that I've encountered tells me that His existence is a lot more likely than the alternative.
Originally posted by Nick:
One cannot possibly prove the existence or non-existence of a deity. I'll use the Judeo-Christian God as an example.
You cannot prove that God does not exist to those who believe in him because of faith. Their faith is not rational to anybody but themselves, therefore, rational argument is irrelevant.
You can't prove God does exist because modern science has no rational proof of biblical events nor personal beliefs based on one's faith.
It all comes down to one question: Do you have faith that God exists?
quote:Nope. God's never shown me anything directly. I've never felt any divine anything. The only experience I've ever had that wasn't 100 rationally explainable had to do with a naked Wiccan, a redwood wand, and a full moon on the summer solstice, and even that could have been some sort of weird hallucination on my part.
Originally posted by Nick:
If you do, then that is enough for you. Maybe you feel that God has shown you things in your life, or maybe you have felt that what the Bible calls the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost in your life and that convinced you to believe.
quote:Why add "without a shadow of a doubt"? It doesn't count unless you're 100% convinced and absolutely impervious to any facts that might turn up to the contrary? I don't buy that.
Originally posted by Nick:
If you don't, then you feel that people who do MUST be deluding themselves. How could they possibly believe without a shadow of a doubt that God exists, and that the words in the Bible actually happened?
quote:"No reasons"? I disagree. You've set up a false dichotomy between irrational belief and irrational disbelief.
Originally posted by Nick:
Either situation cannot be proven, you either believe or you don't. There are no reasons besides either a lack or an abundance of faith in God, which cannot be proven no matter how flawless you think your logic is or how rational your argument is.
quote:Interesting. I'd been assuming from what you wrote that you were an atheist. Because what you said fits their arguments so well, I mean. I can see King of Men posting more or less what you did. Until this point, anyway.
Originally posted by Nick:
Bottom line, you can't ever argue with faith or a lack thereof.
I cannot accept that God isn't real to me.
quote:You'll have to explain this one to me, as it appears patently false. Atheists have abandoned faith as a method of determining the truth, and do the best they can with the evidence available.
Originally posted by Christine:
I find atheism a little amusing. In truth, it requires as much faith to absolutely disbelieve in God as it does to believe in him.
quote:I think this process is well under way, unfortunately. My motive for starting this thread was to gauge how far down that road we've already come.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The problem is that the line between the latter group and people who are slightly more invested in their religion is very fuzzy, and he's likely to wind up pissing off that latter group to a huge extent. If so, they will begin to attack him as a force hostile to our way of life, and in so doing I expect they will be very successful at marginalizing his arguments.
quote:I'm not trying to be snarky, but what would your approach have been?
I wouldn't have personally taken his approach, although I understand he's getting old and impatient.
quote:I would agree, and want to be clear that when I quoted Nick I meant that it was the bottom line where arguments end. That is, if faith is a person's only defence against counter-evidence and counter-arguments, and s/he clings to it regardless, there is nothing left to say.
quote:I would say that Dawkins specifically seeks to rebut this line of argument and eliminate it from the discussion.
Bottom line, you can't ever argue with faith or a lack thereof.
quote:I agree wholeheartedly. I find it curious that theists will often resort to relativism and nihilism to justify their faith.
The idea that "certainty is unscientific," as Al asserts here and as Resh has said in another thread -- both times in defense of faith -- is something that (understandably, IMO) infuriates Dawkins. The proposition that since we can't be "certain" that God exists that it is more scientific (or, as Resh put it, more "reasonable") to assume the possibility of God is, quite frankly, completely laughable;
quote:Tom already responded to this. And is right in that this is exactly the kind of thing Dawkins is arguing against. As soon as faith becomes this unquestionable belief free from argument and discussion it opens the door for extremism. When the conversation stops at "well, i have faith in this, so you have to respect my beliefs" we get people killing other people for their religion, when in truth, all they're doing is taking the words of their holy book literally.
Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:You're right; that is the bottom line.
Originally posted by Nick:
Bottom line, you can't ever argue with faith or a lack thereof.
I've mostly just been browsing their archives. My favorite things recently were the ongoing email debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan. And this lecture delivered years ago by Douglas Adams, Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond, and Steven Pinker. I made a thread about the latter. Didn't get much interest. Or, at least no voiced interest. I'm hoping some people found the video and enjoyed it.
quote:This was discussed recently I think. We could get in a messy discussion about how much good religion has done, and what the damage has been. It's hard to quantify virtue, to guess as to what people would have done in the absence of religion, etc. We do know that religion has been the casus belli of many wars though, and has been used to justify other more secularly motivated ones. Add to that the prejudice and violence that is so often the result of the belief which preaches that non-believers will go to hell, all the crimes and atrocities which were considered acceptable because of some supernatural belief. Add to that the cognitive dissonance, the compartmentalisation of reason in people's minds. That's a lot of harm.
Originally posted by David Bowles:
As for Dawkins himself, I think it is patently foolish to assume 1) that humanity would necessarily be better off without religion
quote:I'm going to ignore the wording of "infect" here. Why is it patently foolish to think this? There have been many unprecedented paradigm shifts in history. As a rough example, try feminism. The idea of gender equality as we know it today was laughable in the 19th century.
and 2) that any individual people or groups could memetically infect humanity to the extent that religion will gradually die off.
quote:Religious fundamentalism is violence based on an irrational belief (Lisa's convictions aside; not to marginalise her argument, but I believe she is in the minority in the religious community and I haven't seen any sound evidence of god's existence). The exclusivity and moral inflexibility of the belief system (as most major religions are) is fertile ground for chauvinistic and in extreme cases violent behaviour.
I realize that fundamentalism is a danger, but it's more of a political one than a religious one, imo, and should be dealt with as such.
quote:Cool.
Originally posted by Strider:
Euripides, I'm registered at the forum but haven't partaken in any discussion there. But if you see anyone named "Strider" posting there...you'll know who it is.
quote:You failed to realize that I was trying to make my point objectively. I am not an atheist, but I wrote some of the points that I believe an atheist would argue, that's all. Read and respond to the post as a whole. Were you attacking the arguments in my post point-by-point as you read it?
Originally posted by Lisa:
Interesting. I'd been assuming from what you wrote that you were an atheist. Because what you said fits their arguments so well, I mean. I can see King of Men posting more or less what you did. Until this point, anyway.
quote:Not my argument, just a possible one. You can argue with it, you're just not refuting me.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Why add "without a shadow of a doubt"? It doesn't count unless you're 100% convinced and absolutely impervious to any facts that might turn up to the contrary? I don't buy that.
Originally posted by Nick:
If you don't, then you feel that people who do MUST be deluding themselves. How could they possibly believe without a shadow of a doubt that God exists, and that the words in the Bible actually happened?
quote:I honestly don't know. But here's the problem: if Dawkins is right, and a belief in God is for most people the consequence of a socially acceptable delusion, confronting people about that delusion without power or from a position of respect is worse than useless. It's like walking up to a burly stranger at a bar, when you're a 90-lb. patron, and telling him that you think he's had enough to drink.
I'm not trying to be snarky, but what would your approach have been?
quote:I thought that being an outstanding biologist earned one a position of respect.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I honestly don't know. But here's the problem: if Dawkins is right, and a belief in God is for most people the consequence of a socially acceptable delusion, confronting people about that delusion without power or from a position of respect is worse than useless.
quote:Another non-snarky honest question: Is there a way to take Dawkins' firm atheist stance without insulting the faithful? I don't think there is. I'm also insulted when I'm told by implication that I'll burn in hell for eternity because I don't agree with someone's beliefs.
There are plenty of logically compelling arguments against the existence of a god, and almost none in any god's favor. But people still believe in God, by habit and by choice; insulting them for it without offering them a better alternative will not do more than chum the water.
quote:Problem is, a lot of people either don't know this, or this fact doesn't really mean much to them. A lot of people reading the God Delusion are completely unfamiliar with Dawkins's work outside that one book.
I thought that being an outstanding biologist earned one a position of respect.
quote:Not necessarily. That statement assumes that each religion and atheism are on the same standing. The key to the atheist world view is that faith isn't a valid method for discovering the truth, or the nature of reality. So 'thinking for yourself' on cosmological and moral matters is discouraged by religion while encouraged by the rationalist position.
Originally posted by Omega M.:
Of course, that same warning applies to raising a kid under atheism and blindly telling him or her that all traditional religions are delusions.
quote:It depends. Will I be faced with and forced to personally endure the consequences of other people learning the 'truth'?
I think most people hear would rather have the truth no matter what.
quote:You know Tom, this really is a logical, rational, well thought and well explained opinion. The only problem is that you expect it to be taken as the "truth" when you still haven't proven that faith is a delusion. That whole argument is based on the premise that faith is a delusion, which nobody can prove. So it comes back to what I said earlier: You can't argue with faith or the lack of it.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I would say that Dawkins specifically seeks to rebut this line of argument and eliminate it from the discussion. He would argue -- and does argue -- that we argue with "faith" all the time. When people come to psychiatric wards claiming that the radio speaks to them in their mind, we treat them with counseling and medication because we are sure the radio does not; it doesn't meet the smell test, so we start from a presumption of delusion. His argument is that the "God delusion" has been given a free pass for most of human history, and shouldn't be.
Bottom line, you can't ever argue with faith or a lack thereof.
quote:Then I will point out that plenty of unethical practices involve merely words.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I just want to point out that "crush it" in this context means "speak out against it."
quote:In what possible way is this an answer to what I said? The point is, both groups believe as they do on nothing but faith, and their beliefs directly contradict each other!
Muslim and Christian beliefs have some similarities. Some could are argue that either one of the groups has been led away from the original belief sometime in the past.
quote:Not in the US or Europe, no. Because we've had three centuries of religious war to teach us not to tolerate the most extreme forms of nonsense. Try prosecuting someone in a Moslem country for killing an apostate. But in any case, in the context we were actually discussing, namely what it should be permissible to believe without getting publicly ridiculed, faith - particular kinds of it, at least - does get a free ride.
Faith in general is not given a free ride. You can't just start saying "I have faith that my god told me to kill my neighbor" and expect our laws not to prosecute you.
quote:Right. I'm not sure if you're offering this as a contradiction to what I said? It doesn't seem different.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Dawkins said "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."
He then goes on to state that without any supporting evidence, blind faith is strictly wrong under the principles of methodological science. He offers treatsies which have as a central premise the evidence of the nonexistance of god.
He outright states that it's wrong to believe in things which are unprovable. God is a delusion. This is his position.
quote:Not true. I wouldn't say there isn't a shred of evidence.
The fact is, you believe in things for which there is no shred of evidence; that makes you irrational and possibly dangerous.
quote:You'd be wrong, but that's a separate discussion. Let's just agree that there's no evidence capable of convincing someone who doesn't already believe, shall we?
Not true. I wouldn't say there isn't a shred of evidence.
quote:Actually, you can, but I suspect that what you meant was "You cannot provide rational evidence for everything in life." The point is, if you give a claim of fact without evidence, then you must expect to be ridiculed; your beliefs in god are no more to be respected than conspiracy theorists' beliefs about who shot Kennedy.
You just don't get it do you? Of course it's not rational. You can't rationalize everything in life.
quote:This is objectively false. Millions of people are convinced by evidence each year to believe in God or to believe in a different set of doctrines concerning God. Prior to being convinced, they were not believers. Once convinced, they were.
Let's just agree that there's no evidence capable of convincing someone who doesn't already believe, shall we?
quote:This is also objectively false, unless you artificially constrain the word "settle."
Therefore, the only way to settle an argument between believers is the old way, with fire and sword.
quote:First, I think your 'millions' exaggerated. Second, I think your 'by evidence' false. Third, the different doctrines are not relevant; I was discussing belief in the existence of a god, not whether partakers in mass are really cannibals. But in any case, I defy you to find any believer who was convinced by publicly available evidence.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This is objectively false. Millions of people are convinced by evidence each year to believe in God or to believe in a different set of doctrines concerning God. Prior to being convinced, they were not believers. Once convinced, they were.
Let's just agree that there's no evidence capable of convincing someone who doesn't already believe, shall we?
quote:I was using it in the sense of "one party is convinced of the correctness of the other, and therefore there is no further dispute". If you wish to use a different definition, by all means do so.
quote:This is also objectively false, unless you artificially constrain the word "settle."
Therefore, the only way to settle an argument between believers is the old way, with fire and sword.
quote:You're wrong. Regardless, certainly it has happened that frequently at various times in history.
First, I think your 'millions' exaggerated.
quote:Actually, you believe it to be false. Wanna fight about it? Pistols at 60 paces?
Second, I think your 'by evidence' false.
quote:You keep adding caveats, KoM. Make up your mind.
Third, the different doctrines are not relevant; I was discussing belief in the existence of a god, not whether partakers in mass are really cannibals. But in any case, I defy you to find any believer who was convinced by publicly available evidence.
quote:Ah, then you need to demonstrate why such settlement is necessary.
I was using it in the sense of "one party is convinced of the correctness of the other, and therefore there is no further dispute". If you wish to use a different definition, by all means do so.
quote:Well, why don't you find me that believer convinced by evidence, as defined above, then?
Actually, you believe it to be false. Wanna fight about it? Pistols at 60 paces?
quote:Could you pay attention now? You asserted that non-evidence-supported belief is bad because arguments about such beliefs cannot be resolved short of force. You have asserted that it is this attribute that makes such beliefs bad and why they should not be held.
Dag, you have made this criticism many times before, and I have always answered it the same way. Could you please pay attention, now? You need evidence for claims of fact. Let me repeat that: Claims of fact. Let me then give some examples. "God exists" is a claim of fact. "Jesus was divine" is a claim of fact. "The wine really turns into blood" is a claim of fact. Conversely, none of the questions you mention are questions of fact. Could you please stop asking this question now, or else tell me what you find objectionable about my answer? I've answered it at least half a dozen times.
quote:Your definition is self-contradictory. For example, hearsay is often admissible in court. More broadly, evidence that cannot be shown to anyone is admitted every single day in courtrooms throughout this country, as are statements about one's internal state of mind.
Now let me define evidence. Evidence can be shown to anyone; it is not internal to anyone's mind. Evidence does not rely on already believing that which is to be shown. Evidence is usually repeatable. Hearsay does not qualify. As a useful shorthand, we might say that evidence is that which is admissible in a court of law, though the standards applied by archaelogists, historians, and scientists might also be good to keep in mind. You will observe that all the phrases you list me as using might refer to this concept; I have redefined nothing, but have used different ways of trying to explain what I was talking about.
quote:Lisa, for one.
Well, why don't you find me that believer convinced by evidence, as defined above, then?
quote:Things like "I am immune to bullets" are empirically disprovable, so that makes them a far different issue than a philosophy ('can you PROVE that happiness is the most desireable moral goal?') or a religion ('can you PROVE that the Mormon God exists?'). I'd consider it pretty wrong. Now, if you were to ask me if it is wrong to hold faith in an idea that cannot be proven, I'd tell you 'probably not.' I don't have moral scruples with an idea held on faith for virtue of the fact that you can't test it to be true.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QB] Samp, I note that you didn't answer my question. IS it objectively wrong to believe that your radio is talking to you, or that you are immune to bullets?
quote:Not inherently, no! You could certainly do it in an arrogant fashion, though!
Moreover, is it arrogant to tell someone that it is wrong -- dangerous, even -- for him to believe that he is immune to bullets?
quote:I did not say that statements about a state of mind were not evidence. I said that the state itself was not evidence. To clarify the distinction, if I say "I am annoyed", that is evidence about my state of mind, which you may trust or not as you choose. Even if you believe that I am annoyed, however, that is not evidence of the existence of little annoyance-gremlins influencing my mental state.
Your definition is self-contradictory. For example, hearsay is often admissible in court. More broadly, evidence that cannot be shown to anyone is admitted every single day in courtrooms throughout this country, as are statements about one's internal state of mind.
quote:You will please note that I qualified repeatable with 'usually', for precisely this reason. Eyewitness testimony of miracles, however, dies on the second part of my requirements; to wit, nobody believes in any miracles of religions other than those he already belongs to.
Further, your contention that evidence be "repeatable" is absolutely incompatible with evidence that is admissible in court. Testimony concerning past events is not "repeatable" unless one simply means that the eyewitness can repeat it - which I assume is not what you meant, since eyewitnesses have repeated testimony of miracles you reject time and time again.
quote:So she claims; if you press her, however, you'll find that her 'evidence' boils down to her father telling her, and her believing him.
Lisa, for one.
quote:Are you absolutely sure you want to draw the distinction here? I ask because it amounts to teetering on the edge of a very, very huge and tricksy chasm.
Things like "I am immune to bullets" are empirically disprovable, so that makes them a far different issue than a philosophy ('can you PROVE that happiness is the most desireable moral goal?') or a religion ('can you PROVE that the Mormon God exists?')
Nobody can blame them for so thinking.
quote:Only to show how messy it was. Then I returned right back to why that discussion can be avoided. I think truth is more important.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Euripides, for someone who did not want to get into that discussion, you certainly dove right into that discussion.
quote:If that's your position, then we do have to return to the above 'messy discussion'. I for one consider spreading major falsehoods to be immoral.
For myself, I would rather know the truth. But I'm not sure I would voluntarily choose that for everyone, if it would make their lives worse. I am not sure if that would be considered a virtue.
quote:I think Tom has addressed this in his responses, but I want to explicitly say that god or no god is a question of probability. The fact that there is no evidence for god's existence makes it very highly improbable.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Dawkins et. al. are practicing a sort of hardliner reducto skepticism, where they're going to work on a philosophical principle that if it can not be proven, then you're *objectively* wrong to hold any faith in it.
quote:To be fair that's a sensationalist title that was forced on him, and he explicitly says so. Nothing is the root of all evil. Religion is the root of a lot of evil.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
He seemed interesting and moderate about religion until 9/11. He then seemed to suddenly decide that religion is the "Root of all Evil" and it seems his understanding of Christianity is not adequate to make such a claim.
quote:We're convinced the faithful are wrong, and try to show them why through reasoned argument. That doesn't land us in the same category as Marxist guerilla fighters. It would land us in the same category as Marxists who write essays and talk about the harm capitalism is doing, but the shared trait there is the fact that our views aren't accepted by the establishment, that's all.
I disagree with him of course, but I am just noting that where once he was content to let education slowly stifle the ill effects of religion, now he seems to believe that the only way to stop religion is to crush it. Much like how extremist Marxists think the only way to stop the evils of capitalism is to crush it.
quote:Thanks for saying so.
But I agree, Dawkins has not suggested fighting fire with fire as a means to combat religious extremism.
quote:Nick, have you actually read a word Dawkins has written?
Originally posted by Nick:
Yet this man writes with the assumption that all religious people are as equally deluded or crazy as the religious extremists.
quote:Right. That doesn't mean that your hypothesis and my hypothesis are equally as probable. There is no evidence in your favour (though you've challenged that statement, and I'd welcome any evidence you could bring to the table).
You nor Dawkins can prove there isn't a God, just as I can't prove to you that there is one.
quote:I didn't say that only the bad could be quantified. I don't think that the net effect of religion can be quantified accurately, because so much of it depends on how it motivated people to take certain actions. I do think a rough estimate is possible though, especially if you take the example of recent history rather than all of human history, and I think you'd find that the net effect is negative.
Originally posted by TheGrimace:
Euripedes, one of the things that bothers me about your previous post about the various evils resulting from religion is what bothers me about a lot of the Atheists' arguments about what would make the world better. If you can somewhat quantify one side of the argument, but can't quantify the other at all it means you can't use that argument as support of anything. Perhaps you can say "the presence of religion has caused X-billion deaths/wasted lives" or whatever (assuming X is a known value). but you also admit that there is Y, where Y is an unknown quantification of how much good religion has caused in the world... say X = 300, well Y might equal 0.0001 or it might equal 1000000000 or it might equal 300... basically the argument that religion has caused evil, pain and death is moot until someone can similarly quantify the good it has caused. and since there is no control group to compare against this isn't possible.
quote:In all seriousness, do really want to use this analogy?
Just look at Pastwatch as a good example of this type of concept, if you change one thing that you know caused bad consequences it doesn't mean that suddenly everything is going to be rosy...
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:People terrorize and kill over abortion. It is not far from that to warfare.
...none have been fought over abortion.
quote:I consider spreading (deliberate) falsehoods to be immoral as well. I add that qualifier because to me, most of morality lies in intent. As for 'more important'...more important than what?
I think truth is more important.
If that's your position, then we do have to return to the above 'messy discussion'. I for one consider spreading major falsehoods to be immoral.
quote:More important than any positive impacts that can be ascribed to religion.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
As for 'more important'...more important than what?
quote:What's "abstract truth"? Is there a difference between it and specific truths? I think the nature of the cosmos and our system of morality has profound effects on our lives, so it's not really 'abstract' to me.
How important is abstract truth, to you? How many people's lives are you willing to end, how much happiness are you willing to destroy, how much desperation and loneliness are you willing to inflict, in pursuit of truth-for other people?
quote:The only argument you've made here is that there were reasons other than religion for most wars. I would agree. But religion is so often a convenient and successful justification which works where the bare secular motives would not, and definitely has been the cause of much violence and bloodshed in a more direct sense. Just open your bible, if you accept that book as historical evidence.
Granted, you clearly believe the world would be better without religion. I think that's a dubious claim at best, not very well supported at all by wars fought supposedly on behalf of religion, for which there were always at least one other major reason.
quote:That's fine. I've thought about it, and obviously if I was in a room with a Christian and was told that he would be shot if I 'deconverted' him, I wouldn't start talking to him about evolution; the circumstances matter. I've thought about our current context, and I think that the morality of honesty and the good that atheism will do far outweighs the discomfort of disillusionment.
I think it's an important question to ask someone committed to bringing 'truth' to the world, because issues about this particular search for truth have a big impact on humanity. It seems irresponsible not to define boundaries before one begins.
quote:Boy, I'd sure like to see what part of my argument makes it out to be universally harmless. Because I don't see that aaaaatt allllllllll.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So believing in things which are not empirically provable is, by your argument, universally harmless?
quote:Well, you're claiming that harm only comes in the results of belief, the actions we take according to those beliefs, and that any belief in something which isn't empirically provable is categorically different from a belief in something which is. (Note: I was actually surprised by this, because once you're asserting that actions and not beliefs are harmful, you don't really need to make a distinction between types of belief.)
Boy, I'd sure like to see what part of my argument makes it out to be universally harmless. Because I don't see that aaaaatt allllllllll.
quote:No, it's being TOLD to someone else.
Touching the evidence that cannot be shown to anyone, what are you thinking of? If it's being shown in court, then by definition it's being shown to quite randomly selected lawyers and jury members. How do they not qualify as 'anyone'?
quote:And yet we have counterexamples galore. Or do you believe no one is ever converted to believing in God?
You will please note that I qualified repeatable with 'usually', for precisely this reason. Eyewitness testimony of miracles, however, dies on the second part of my requirements; to wit, nobody believes in any miracles of religions other than those he already belongs to.
quote:I believe that only a vanishingly small minority of people who convert from one religion to another do so without first deciding that they prefer the trappings of the new religion. Any belief in the second religion's miracles seems to come later.
Or do you believe no one is ever converted to believing in God?
quote:I don't really understand why you think that 'abstract' precludes serious importance in human lives. People fight and die for the abstract all the time.
What's "abstract truth"? Is there a difference between it and specific truths? I think the nature of the cosmos and our system of morality has profound effects on our lives, so it's not really 'abstract' to me.
quote:Yes, well, just to make sure: I did not say that being an atheist automatically makes one desperate or lonely.
I do think the question is moot because the net impact is negative, and being an atheist doesn't make you desperate and lonely (though being excluded from your community because of it might) etc.
quote:Well, OK. You're not a fanatic about it. That's really what I was asking-some people are. Incidentally, you don't have "the truth about reality", you only have what you are convinced is not the truth about reality, that is religion. Religion answers questions about the "truth about reality" that science does not, and yes by 'answers' I acknowledge it does not use scientific or strictly rational methods to do so.
The decision depends very much on the circumstances, and the circumstances of reality today are such that spreading the truth about the nature of reality is not only moral in that it's honest, but alleviates the cognitive dissonance resulting from religion.
quote:You're assuming that the "bare secular motives" would not work out. That's a pretty serious assumption, don't you think? Or let's say that I agree, and that wars which have been fought on behalf of religion but which actually had a host of other, materialistic causes, lacked religion as a justification. Why do you think no other justification would be found? People are pretty creative.
The only argument you've made here is that there were reasons other than religion for most wars. I would agree. But religion is so often a convenient and successful justification which works where the bare secular motives would not, and definitely has been the cause of much violence and bloodshed in a more direct sense. Just open your bible, if you accept that book as historical evidence.
quote:Certainly I would.
Would you disagree that one less irrational belief that could be used to justify war would be a good thing?
quote:Religious people often think a great deal about the "things they don't think about". Just because they do not apply cold reason to their beliefs does not mean they aren't thinking about it, it just means you have little to no respect for those ways of thinking about it. And you're welcome to that opinion, I just want to make sure we're clear about it.
Also consider how readily religion corrupts reason. Many intelligent theists compartmentalise what they apply reason to and what they don't; what they think about and what they won't think about. Those boundaries between what is thought about and what isn't can be stretched and modified, and evidence based enquiry bumps up against faith to cause unresolved paradoxes in one's mind. This is what I'm alluding to when I mention cognitive dissonance.
quote:Why on Earth do you think atheism will do good? You have no real evidence for it being a beneficial element on a large, whole-society scale. In fact, the only examples of large, whole society atheism we've got are unpleasant at best.
I've thought about our current context, and I think that the morality of honesty and the good that atheism will do far outweighs the discomfort of disillusionment.
quote:I agree. Most theists are instructed by their beliefs to do so regularly, in written word, in discussion, and in thought-well, that kind of thought you don't respect, the not-strictly-rational kind, but thought nonetheless.
I think theists should think hard about the moral implications of their beliefs too.
quote:I don't understand how you define "trappings" and "miracles." Are you saying they enjoy the social and perhaps other aesthetic things within the religion that are attractive and THEN buy into the miraculous aspects of it?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I believe that only a vanishingly small minority of people who convert from one religion to another do so without first deciding that they prefer the trappings of the new religion. Any belief in the second religion's miracles seems to come later.
Or do you believe no one is ever converted to believing in God?
quote:I can see why it'd be important to you to believe that. But it's not true. Actually, I grew up in a non-religious home. When it comes to morals, what my father taught me was "You can do anything you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone."
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:So she claims; if you press her, however, you'll find that her 'evidence' boils down to her father telling her, and her believing him.
Lisa, for one.
quote:Yes. Although I include philosophical concepts and the like, as well as the personalities of the members, the frequency of church events, etc. Very few people are converted by either unprompted, unsolicited flashes of divine inspiration and/or discussions of dogma.
Are you saying they enjoy the social and perhaps other aesthetic things within the religion that are attractive and THEN buy into the miraculous aspects of it?
quote:I don't think that. To clear up any misunderstanding, the word 'abstract' entering the conversation came across as a conditional statement.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:quote:I don't really understand why you think that 'abstract' precludes serious importance in human lives. People fight and die for the abstract all the time.
What's "abstract truth"? Is there a difference between it and specific truths? I think the nature of the cosmos and our system of morality has profound effects on our lives, so it's not really 'abstract' to me.
quote:Science can't account for the existence of the universe, no. But there are a lot of established hypotheses with plenty of evidence going for them that are precluded by religion; many truths that conflict with religious belief.
Incidentally, you don't have "the truth about reality", you only have what you are convinced is not the truth about reality, that is religion. Religion answers questions about the "truth about reality" that science does not, and yes by 'answers' I acknowledge it does not use scientific or strictly rational methods to do so.
quote:So do you think that in the absence of religion, all the violence we've seen in history would have happened anyway?
You're assuming that the "bare secular motives" would not work out. That's a pretty serious assumption, don't you think? Or let's say that I agree, and that wars which have been fought on behalf of religion but which actually had a host of other, materialistic causes, lacked religion as a justification. Why do you think no other justification would be found? People are pretty creative.
quote:I'm assuming you read 'agree' rather than 'disagree' as I had typed.
quote:Certainly I would.
Would you disagree that one less irrational belief that could be used to justify war would be a good thing?
quote:Thought disconnected from reason isn't a legitimate method of determining the nature of reality. So for that purpose, I don't have respect for it.
Religious people often think a great deal about the "things they don't think about". Just because they do not apply cold reason to their beliefs does not mean they aren't thinking about it, it just means you have little to no respect for those ways of thinking about it. And you're welcome to that opinion, I just want to make sure we're clear about it.
quote:It can be overcome; by not worrying about resolving the paradox, or convincing oneself of the truth of religion using some trick of logic. That doesn't make you unintelligent.
Some of the most meaningful philosophers and scientists in human history have been religious and somehow overcame this corrosive dissonance you speak of. I'm not very concerned about it.
quote:Religion is doing harm. Atheism is defined by its opposition to theism; that alone will only help expose the truth (one again, a virtue according to my morality). Humanist moral philosophy will then do further good.
Why on Earth do you think atheism will do good? You have no real evidence for it being a beneficial element on a large, whole-society scale. In fact, the only examples of large, whole society atheism we've got are unpleasant at best.
quote:
Let me ask this: Do you think that in the absence of religion, people will act immorally? Is god (and the rewards and punishments he doles out) the only reason you behave morally? I don't think so. And if you want counterexamples for the first question, there are plenty of atheists who have a system of morality they live by and are defensible by reason. If you are a Christian who doesn't accept the moral imperatives in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, chances are you've already whittled Christian doctrine down to some moral precepts you find acceptable. And again, chances are, those moral precepts will have a lot in common with those of humanists.
quote:Atheism is not a moral philosophy. It's a commitment to reason which denies the validity of religion.
The only evidence you've got for it being a good thing is hindsight focusing on the flaws with religion.
quote:It can be. But I think it rarely is.
Originally posted by Euripides:
Atheism is not a moral philosophy. It's a commitment to reason which denies the validity of religion.
quote:You just wrote a whole huge post saying that you came to your beliefs because you read stuff and believed it. If the evidence was so convincing, why don't you list some of it, instead of giving your life story?
You don't have to believe that I came to my views on Judaism and God rationally and logically, but that's pure, irrational, gut-level belief on your part. You don't know me, and yet you're willing to make categorical statements like the one you made. I wonder how you square that sort of thing with your supposed commitment to drawing conclusions solely from evidence. I'm sure you must have some rationalization or other for it.
quote:How about you addressing the issue of how you reached a solid conclusion with zero evidence first? I've given some of my reasons in the past, and frankly, I don't think you have the attention span for a fuller explanation (though if I'm wrong, my e-mail address is in my profile). But you put on a big show of being Mr. Logical-and-Rational, and I think it's really nothing but a show. And I think you've made that abundantly clear in this case. So since we have you on the stage, O King, honor us with an explanation, wouldja?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:You just wrote a whole huge post saying that you came to your beliefs because you read stuff and believed it. If the evidence was so convincing, why don't you list some of it, instead of giving your life story?
You don't have to believe that I came to my views on Judaism and God rationally and logically, but that's pure, irrational, gut-level belief on your part. You don't know me, and yet you're willing to make categorical statements like the one you made. I wonder how you square that sort of thing with your supposed commitment to drawing conclusions solely from evidence. I'm sure you must have some rationalization or other for it.
quote:I agree with this, except with the implication that "religious belief" as a whole is in conflict with established hypotheses. There is no monolithic "religious belief".
Science can't account for the existence of the universe, no. But there are a lot of established hypotheses with plenty of evidence going for them that are precluded by religion; many truths that conflict with religious belief.
quote:Not exactly the same violence, of course not. Different violence, certainly. Humanity has never needed religion to endorse violence-it just helps, sometimes. But religions does not help solely incite some people to violence. It influences other things, too.
So do you think that in the absence of religion, all the violence we've seen in history would have happened anyway?
quote:This is a belief you have, Euripedes. That reasoned thought alone is the exclusive method of determining the nature of reality. For some aspects of reality, I share your belief. For others, I do not.
Thought disconnected from reason isn't a legitimate method of determining the nature of reality. So for that purpose, I don't have respect for it.
quote:Well, alright. I'll accept your more charitable phrasing that is actually quite different than what some atheists say on a regular basis about religious people. Please note that when you speak again about "religious thinking".
It can be overcome; by not worrying about resolving the paradox, or convincing oneself of the truth of religion using some trick of logic. That doesn't make you unintelligent.
quote:It seems to me that when you're confronted with a scientist who was pressured by society to concede some form of belief, that barring other evidence besides this vague pressure, the reasonable thing to do is to say, "I don't know if he believed or not," if he says he does, rather than conclude he did not and was merely pressured by society to do so.
You might be surprised though, how common atheists are among the intellectual elite. I don't advance this as an argument against religion; I point it out because the fact that many scholars and scientists have resolved this paradox in their minds is overshadowed by the fact that many are pressured by society to concede some form of belief. Then there are deists, or those like Einstein, how believe in god as a metaphor for Nature (so, de facto atheism).
quote:Yes, religion is doing harm. So is democracy, capitalism, communism, charity, altruism, atheism, and pretty much any other -ism or -acy I could name. "Religion is doing harm" is a meaningless statement as far as persuading people is concerned, unless you examine the good religion does and try to get the tally.
Religion is doing harm. Atheism is defined by its opposition to theism; that alone will only help expose the truth (one again, a virtue according to my morality). Humanist moral philosophy will then do further good.
quote:How can you possibly ask me that question seriously, Euripedes? In our entire discussion, you've been deliberately focusing exclusively on the bad religion does. And I'm supposed to take a wider view of atheists why, exactly?
As for examples of atheist states having been unpleasant examples, sure; Pol Pot's Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. Don't you think that has more to do with their extremist and violent political philosophies?
Why ignore all the peaceful and moral secularists in existence today?
quote:I don't want to argue that. I was quite clear, I think, when I asked about what you would do earlier, I was asking because I wanted to know how far you valued sharing/exposing the truth. Not because I actually believe that humanity cannot possibly be happy without religion.
If you want to argue that abandoning religion will result in evil, you'll have to take into consideration the humanist moral precepts most atheists hold dear. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia conspicuously lacked such a moral philosophy.
quote:As a matter of fact, I do have evidence. To wit, if any religious sect had any good solid evidence that would convince neutral observers, they'd trumpet it to the skies and neutral observers would be convinced. No such thing has happened. Therefore, no such evidence exists.
How about you addressing the issue of how you reached a solid conclusion with zero evidence first?
quote:Actually, I'm convinced by quite a bit of it. Not all of it, of course. But much of it.
And yet, somehow, you do not find her evidence convincing, do you?
quote:There is no such thing as a neutral observer. There is no such thing as an unbiased judge. There is no such thing as perfect evidence.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:As a matter of fact, I do have evidence. To wit, if any religious sect had any good solid evidence that would convince neutral observers, they'd trumpet it to the skies and neutral observers would be convinced. No such thing has happened. Therefore, no such evidence exists.
How about you addressing the issue of how you reached a solid conclusion with zero evidence first?
quote:Why do you say that?
There is no such thing as a neutral observer.
quote:You cannot build a ledge that will tip over at exactly 40 lbf. No matter how precise and excact you attempt to make this theoretical ledge it will actualy be tippable with slightly less or slightly more than 40 lbf, i.e. it will be biased.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why do you say that?
There is no such thing as a neutral observer.
If I build a ledge that will tip when more than forty pounds of weight are placed upon it, I have just built a neutral observer.
quote:Yes. It's in a category of things that I can rationally prove or disprove.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Well, you're claiming that harm only comes in the results of belief, the actions we take according to those beliefs, and that any belief in something which isn't empirically provable is categorically different from a belief in something which is.
quote:Who am I to say? I can only judge a belief to be 'harmful' based on the results of actions based on that belief, so I would have no way to attest that belief itself could be directly harmful without any connection to actions based on that belief.
Are there situations in which a belief in something empirically unprovable can be harmful in and of itself?
quote:I'd have to disagree. While I admit that not all atheists will see truth as a virtue in the way I do, I think the vast majority if not all of us abandon religion because we reject faith in favour of reason (and don't think there is evidence for god).
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:It can be. But I think it rarely is.
Originally posted by Euripides:
Atheism is not a moral philosophy. It's a commitment to reason which denies the validity of religion.
Though I'd point out that "a commitment to reason" is itself a moral philosophy. Atheism, for those very few who espouse it for the reasons you do, derives from a moral philosophy, but is not, itself a moral philosophy.
quote:All religious belief systems conflict with parts of science, or at least posit hypothesis without any rational grounds. Accepting that as reality is obscuring the actual truth.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:quote:I agree with this, except with the implication that "religious belief" as a whole is in conflict with established hypotheses. There is no monolithic "religious belief".
Science can't account for the existence of the universe, no. But there are a lot of established hypotheses with plenty of evidence going for them that are precluded by religion; many truths that conflict with religious belief.
quote:So the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the civil war between Sunni and Shiites, sacrifices of human beings, wars waged in the name of god(s), the divisive prejudice; all that would have just taken another equally severe form? Religion has been the direct cause of war and violence. What evidence do you have that in the absence of secular motives, men would have invented one?
quote:Not exactly the same violence, of course not. Different violence, certainly. Humanity has never needed religion to endorse violence-it just helps, sometimes. But religions does not help solely incite some people to violence. It influences other things, too.
So do you think that in the absence of religion, all the violence we've seen in history would have happened anyway?
quote:I don't accept these other methods of thinking (I think they are more accurately described as feeling, unless like Lisa you are convinced there is evidence for the existence of god) because there is simply no reason to suggest that they are right. I know, there can't be a rational justification of faith; well, I need one. Reason can be applied to virtually all human endeavours except theology. Why?
quote:This is a belief you have, Euripedes. That reasoned thought alone is the exclusive method of determining the nature of reality. For some aspects of reality, I share your belief. For others, I do not.
Thought disconnected from reason isn't a legitimate method of determining the nature of reality. So for that purpose, I don't have respect for it.
quote:Not if there is evidence to the contrary, revealing that their beliefs were more accurately deistic or de facto atheist, which is the case for many scientists and thinkers like Einstein.
It seems to me that when you're confronted with a scientist who was pressured by society to concede some form of belief, that barring other evidence besides this vague pressure, the reasonable thing to do is to say, "I don't know if he believed or not," if he says he does, rather than conclude he did not and was merely pressured by society to do so.
quote:Yes, I've discussed the good. Religion is doing more harm than good; I think I've made my position on that issue clear.
Yes, religion is doing harm. So is democracy, capitalism, communism, charity, altruism, atheism, and pretty much any other -ism or -acy I could name. "Religion is doing harm" is a meaningless statement as far as persuading people is concerned, unless you examine the good religion does and try to get the tally.
quote:Religion extols many virtues I as an atheist hold dear, and many good works (to adopt the phraseology) have been done in the name of god(s). I sound like a broken record, but the divisiveness, the violence that is so often the logical extension of deeply held religious beliefs, the obfuscation of the truth, all those things outweigh the good.
quote:How can you possibly ask me that question seriously, Euripedes? In our entire discussion, you've been deliberately focusing exclusively on the bad religion does. And I'm supposed to take a wider view of atheists why, exactly?
As for examples of atheist states having been unpleasant examples, sure; Pol Pot's Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. Don't you think that has more to do with their extremist and violent political philosophies?
Why ignore all the peaceful and moral secularists in existence today?
quote:But you do think the world is a better place because of religion, and I'm trying to show that it isn't. When you mentioned that previous incarnations of atheist states have been rather unpleasant, I thought you were using the classic Nazism Stalinist Communism argument.
quote:I don't want to argue that. I was quite clear, I think, when I asked about what you would do earlier, I was asking because I wanted to know how far you valued sharing/exposing the truth. Not because I actually believe that humanity cannot possibly be happy without religion.
If you want to argue that abandoning religion will result in evil, you'll have to take into consideration the humanist moral precepts most atheists hold dear. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia conspicuously lacked such a moral philosophy.
quote:Like Euripides said, what other possible method of determining the nature of reality is there? What is there other than thought? Emotion? I can buy that, but emotion stems from somewhere. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. Every emotion we have is rooted in physical biological causes. What is important is trying to understand where an emotion comes from. Because obviously thoughts that are born out of emotions can be true of false. Emotions can mislead. And yet emotions are in a sense gut reactions, and gut reactions have developed over millions of years of evolution and a lifetime of experiences. My point is that we shouldn't ignore emotion, but emotion can't exist outside of reason/logic. It must work with it. So what aspect of reality is it that you're talking about where reasoned thought alone(in the true sense, taking into account everything you think and feel and where it comes from) isn't sufficient.
quote:This is a belief you have, Euripedes. That reasoned thought alone is the exclusive method of determining the nature of reality. For some aspects of reality, I share your belief. For others, I do not.
Thought disconnected from reason isn't a legitimate method of determining the nature of reality. So for that purpose, I don't have respect for it.
quote:Again, covered, but if you read some of Einstein's writings he does actually state pretty clearly that he doesn't believe in god. a personal god. some quotes:
quote:It seems to me that when you're confronted with a scientist who was pressured by society to concede some form of belief, that barring other evidence besides this vague pressure, the reasonable thing to do is to say, "I don't know if he believed or not," if he says he does, rather than conclude he did not and was merely pressured by society to do so.
You might be surprised though, how common atheists are among the intellectual elite. I don't advance this as an argument against religion; I point it out because the fact that many scholars and scientists have resolved this paradox in their minds is overshadowed by the fact that many are pressured by society to concede some form of belief. Then there are deists, or those like Einstein, how believe in god as a metaphor for Nature (so, de facto atheism).
quote:
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
quote:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
quote:
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
quote:
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
quote:
Why do you write to me “God should punish the English”? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.
quote:Though to be fair, he also said this:
To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.
quote:And one last one because it's just awesome:
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.
quote:Sorry for the overabundance of quotes. I got carried away.
"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."
quote:Because atheism isn't a set of social/moral/political precepts. It's simply a statement of non-belief in a deity. That's it. If someone who happens to be an atheist commits evil acts, their non-belief in a deity did not cause that. And yet our point is that religious doctrine is from the outset enabling these tragedies to occur.
quote:How can you possibly ask me that question seriously, Euripedes? In our entire discussion, you've been deliberately focusing exclusively on the bad religion does. And I'm supposed to take a wider view of atheists why, exactly?
As for examples of atheist states having been unpleasant examples, sure; Pol Pot's Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. Don't you think that has more to do with their extremist and violent political philosophies?
Why ignore all the peaceful and moral secularists in existence today?
quote:well, theoretically it's possible to make one that would tip over at exactly 40lbs. right?
You cannot build a ledge that will tip over at exactly 40 lbf. No matter how precise and excact you attempt to make this theoretical ledge it will actualy be tippable with slightly less or slightly more than 40 lbf, i.e. it will be biased.
quote:Well, yeah, obviously.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I don't understand how you define "trappings" and "miracles." Are you saying they enjoy the social and perhaps other aesthetic things within the religion that are attractive and THEN buy into the miraculous aspects of it?
quote:Eh, what?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Why on Earth do you think atheism will do good? You have no real evidence for it being a beneficial element on a large, whole-society scale. In fact, the only examples of large, whole society atheism we've got are unpleasant at best.
quote:I agree with the thrust of your post, but I don't see how this scenario helps your argument. To the Aztecs the arrival of Cortez and his conquistadors on horseback was miraculous, as they had no alternative explanation; in their eyes, it would have confirmed beliefs they already had. These 'miracles' did not cause the Aztecs (at least most of them) to convert to Christianity.
Originally posted by Mucus:
The most obvious is perhaps the quick conversion of much of the Aztecs. They thought Cortez was one of their fortold gods, the combination of the Spanish killing their leaders, and the smallpox which "miraculously" killed only the natives leaving the Spanish untouched proved to be a very potent combination, no evidence of "miracles" was required.
quote:I disagree, for a given definition of "exactly." In fact, it's theoretically possible with our current technology to build such a ledge out to about nine digits of precision. The fact that we can even REFERENCE "digits of precision" when talking about this sort of observer indicates, by the way, the obvious superiority of this sort of epistemology.
You cannot build a ledge that will tip over at exactly 40 lbf. No matter how precise and excact you attempt to make this theoretical ledge it will actualy be tippable with slightly less or slightly more than 40 lbf, i.e. it will be biased.
quote:The Holocaust, you'll remember, also slaughtered vast numbers of people not for religious reasons. The handicapped, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc. Given that, I think it is very possible the Holocaust might have happened if religion did not exist. The people killed were different, Hitler needed a scapegoat, and the Germans weren't willing to consider the issue to carefully or face up to it.
So the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the civil war between Sunni and Shiites, sacrifices of human beings, wars waged in the name of god(s), the divisive prejudice; all that would have just taken another equally severe form? Religion has been the direct cause of war and violence. What evidence do you have that in the absence of secular motives, men would have invented one?
quote:I don't worship the God of the Inquisition. I have decided not to get angry about the implication that I do, but please be aware it was extremely offensive to me.
Or otherwise (since you don't worship the Aztecs' gods), what about the Inquisition?
quote:Sure you do, but you don't go into detail, do you? From your posts on the topic here, it does not seem like you have considered what good religion leads to. Here's an easy example: divisive prejudice, the Civil Rights movement. Wouldn't have happened without religion.
As for the 'other things', I've said that yes, religion does lead to good. A lie can have good consequences. I've also said they're outweighed by the evils.
quote:As for why I skipped over that question, I made that clear. You're asking me why I'm "ignoring" all the peaceful, just, moral atheists in the world. I asked you why I should take that question seriously, when that is precisely what you're doing when it comes to peaceful, just, moral theists in the world.
You also skipped over my question (originally posed to TheGrimace), which I think is pertinent. Just as you say that wars ostensibly fought in the name of religion might have been justified by other means, consider how much of the good that people have done in the name of religion might have been done anyway, for other reasons; like empathy or a respect for human life.
quote:Clearly it's because we're deluded, and religion is false, eh?
...well, I need one. Reason can be applied to virtually all human endeavours except theology. Why?
quote:Certainly, not if there is evidence to the contrary for people such as Einstein. I reject the "revert to atheism" standard you appeared to be applying, when there was no other evidence, however.
Not if there is evidence to the contrary, revealing that their beliefs were more accurately deistic or de facto atheist, which is the case for many scientists and thinkers like Einstein.
quote:You haven't "discussed the good". You've said, "I acknowledge religion does good, but it does more bad than good." That's one statement, not a discussion.
Yes, I've discussed the good. Religion is doing more harm than good; I think I've made my position on that issue clear.
quote:I'm having a difficult time taking your claims that you've discussed the good religion does seriously precisely because of quotes like this. What you say here is true. It is not, however, the way religion is applied. Like all human beliefs, even atheism, sometimes it is applied well and sometimes not.
Christianity has so often been the justification of a miserable status quo, and has had peasants working under terrible conditions in the false hope that they will ascend to heaven one day, all the time subjecting them to the fear of punishment for sins and an arbitrary association of guilt with sensual pleasure. That's just one example. Here's another one; tell a child that sinners will burn in hell, a place filled with unrelenting anguish and pain, for eternity, and that only strict observance of a legalistic moral code will save them from punishment by an all-forgiving god. That causes psychological trauma. I know; even if I wasn't brought up in a comparatively religious context, the fear of sin and the consequences it entailed were very real to me in the days I called myself a Christian.
quote:I think you're understandably conflating two separate issues. Regardless of whether the Aztecs thought horses, artillery, and people with white skin were miraculous or supernatural, *we* know they were not.
Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:I agree with the thrust of your post, but I don't see how this scenario helps your argument. To the Aztecs the arrival of Cortez and his conquistadors on horseback was miraculous, as they had no alternative explanation; in their eyes, it would have confirmed beliefs they already had. These 'miracles' did not cause the Aztecs (at least most of them) to convert to Christianity.
Originally posted by Mucus:
The most obvious is perhaps the quick conversion of much of the Aztecs. They thought Cortez was one of their fortold gods, the combination of the Spanish killing their leaders, and the smallpox which "miraculously" killed only the natives leaving the Spanish untouched proved to be a very potent combination, no evidence of "miracles" was required.
quote:Hitler took advantage of anti-Semitism that was already a prevalent undercurrent in Europe when he came to power. He was able to pin the blame for the 'stab in the back' (i.e. Germany's loss of WWI, and the subsequent economic catastrophes in the Weimar era) on the Jews because they were already somewhat hated by many Germans and as a people they were overrepresented in the more lucrative professions (which, ironically, was mostly the consequence of Middle Age racist restrictions on Jews which excluded them from the socially accepted professions of the day). The cultural differences within Germany between Christians and Jews were the result of a long history of primarily anti-Semitic prejudice which have their roots in discordant religious beliefs. I find your claim that the Holocaust would have happened anyway to be highly dubious, despite Hitler's chauvinism resulting in the genocide of other ethnic groups. You mentioned homosexuals. Where did he get his homophobia from?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The Holocaust, you'll remember, also slaughtered vast numbers of people not for religious reasons. The handicapped, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc. Given that, I think it is very possible the Holocaust might have happened if religion did not exist. The people killed were different, Hitler needed a scapegoat, and the Germans weren't willing to consider the issue to carefully or face up to it.
quote:Two tribes, which branched off because of different stances on how a leader of the Muslim community should be chosen after the death of Muhammad, the Shi'a believing that Ali ibn Abi Talib had a divine mandate. Religion and politics are inexorably linked there.
The civil war between Sunni and Shiite? Certainly that has a whole heaping helping of religious justification in it. But if you took religion out of the picture, they would still be two "tribes" (within Iraq, at least) who had a great deal of beef with each other.
quote:I did not say that religion was the cause of all divisive prejudice. I said it was the root of considerable divisive prejudice. Again, saying that there are other causes for it hardly defends religion against that claim.
Divisive prejudice? You don't need religion for that. Look to the PRC, the Soviet Union, and some of the less savory atheists. You'll find plenty of 'divisive prejudice' without it.
quote:I don't want to accuse you of condoning the Inquisition, because I sincerely doubt that anyone on this board would (and may anyone who does burn in hell).
quote:I don't worship the God of the Inquisition. I have decided not to get angry about the implication that I do, but please be aware it was extremely offensive to me.
Or otherwise (since you don't worship the Aztecs' gods), what about the Inquisition?
quote:Matthew 12:30-32
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
quote:The civil rights movement? It seems to me that that was a particularly secular humanist movement which often conflicts with religion (for example with respect to feminism). And who is to say what the state of human rights would have been in the latter 20th century if religion had not been a part of our history? I think the civil rights movement is the logical consequence of secular notions of egalitarianism, human empathy, and our evolutionary preference for life.
quote:Sure you do, but you don't go into detail, do you? From your posts on the topic here, it does not seem like you have considered what good religion leads to. Here's an easy example: divisive prejudice, the Civil Rights movement. Wouldn't have happened without religion.
As for the 'other things', I've said that yes, religion does lead to good. A lie can have good consequences. I've also said they're outweighed by the evils.
quote:I'm not ignoring them; I live surrounded by them. Irrational beliefs which cause no harm to others would be none of my concern, but the trouble is that they are part of a support base for a system of belief that causes much evil. Further, the moral precepts they derive from their religion are so often very similar to humanist precepts (which tend to be defensible by reason), that the justification of religion for that system of morality becomes superfluous.
As for why I skipped over that question, I made that clear. You're asking me why I'm "ignoring" all the peaceful, just, moral atheists in the world. I asked you why I should take that question seriously, when that is precisely what you're doing when it comes to peaceful, just, moral theists in the world.
quote:Then I have to ask, what is the benefit of religion? Would the humanistic atheist society be even better if it was religious?
But I'll answer your question first, even though you seem unwilling to consider mine. I do not believe that atheism automatically leads to immorality. I do not believe one cannot be a good person whose life is a benefit to humanity if one is a humanist. I do not even believe that one cannot build a society and government which is all those things, if it is rooted strictly in humanistic atheism.
quote:Well, that's what my question to TheGrimace was getting at. You don't think we would have these things without religion?
I do have to wonder just when you think "empathy and respect for life" would have come into vogue if religion had not been there.
quote:Please don't dismiss the question with sarcasm. At least tell me how it's not a legitimate question.
quote:Clearly it's because we're deluded, and religion is false, eh?
...well, I need one. Reason can be applied to virtually all human endeavours except theology. Why?
quote:I wasn't applying a 'revert to atheism' standard. The 'You would be surprised how many atheists there are among the intellectual elite' comment was based on the aforementioned statistical studies in Dawkins' book.
quote:Certainly, not if there is evidence to the contrary for people such as Einstein. I reject the "revert to atheism" standard you appeared to be applying, when there was no other evidence, however.
Not if there is evidence to the contrary, revealing that their beliefs were more accurately deistic or de facto atheist, which is the case for many scientists and thinkers like Einstein.
quote:Okay, here are some good things that religion does: provide a sense of security (given that one is not racked by the constant pressure to avoid sin), a sense of purpose, community spirit and group solidarity, the encouragement of certain virtues such as benevolence, forgiveness, and generosity, the maintenance of order in times of crisis (sometimes).
quote:You haven't "discussed the good". You've said, "I acknowledge religion does good, but it does more bad than good." That's one statement, not a discussion.
Yes, I've discussed the good. Religion is doing more harm than good; I think I've made my position on that issue clear.
quote:What do you mean by atheism being applied well or badly? It is not a moral philosophy, but a statement of disbelief in theism.
I'm having a difficult time taking your claims that you've discussed the good religion does seriously precisely because of quotes like this. What you say here is true. It is not, however, the way religion is applied. Like all human beliefs, even atheism, sometimes it is applied well and sometimes not.
quote:I agree. I wasn't sure what you were trying to argue using the Aztec example. Thanks for clearing it up.
Religious revelation, inspiration, and the like clearly play a back-seat role to factors such as destroying old religious buildings, repression of the old religion, an Islamic-like punitive policy for the converted ("once a Christian, always a Christian"), the use of military force, slavery, and so forth.
quote:Worship me! I create flame from a small box!
If your assertion is that these alleged "miracles" did not cause the Aztecs to convert to Christianity, this just confirms my argument that "miracles" are a poor motivator to conversion.
quote:Certainly the Holocaust regarding Jews had religious roots. However, I think the fact that Hitler's Germany targeted people for mass extermination without a religious motive is not something to be so blithely dismissed.
The cultural differences within Germany between Christians and Jews were the result of a long history of primarily anti-Semitic prejudice which have their roots in discordant religious beliefs. I find your claim that the Holocaust would have happened anyway to be highly dubious, despite Hitler's chauvinism resulting in the genocide of other ethnic groups. You mentioned homosexuals. Where did he get his homophobia from?
quote:Exactly! Succession crises also happen in secular contexts as well. Which is precisely my point.
Two tribes, which branched off because of different stances on how a leader of the Muslim community should be chosen after the death of Muhammad, the Shi'a believing that Ali ibn Abi Talib had a divine mandate. Religion and politics are inexorably linked there.
Succession crises also happen in secular contexts as well, but that doesn't vindicate religion.
quote:Exactly when did this become a discussion in which I was saying religion doesn't ever help to cause prejudice, hatred, murder, suffering, etc.?
I did not say that religion was the cause of all divisive prejudice. I said it was the root of considerable divisive prejudice. Again, saying that there are other causes for it hardly defends religion against that claim.
quote:I thoroughly disagree with your statement that the Inquisition is a logical application of the Bible's teachings for Christians.
The Inquisition is however a logical application of Christian doctrine as it stands in the bible, both in the new and old testament. Future Christian leaders, thankfully, have decided that the punishments for heresy described in the bible were either too severe or non-Christian, seeing excommunication as sufficient. There is after all a commandment against murder.
quote:*shrug* Dr. King, Malcolm X, Gandhi, among others, would certainly disagree that the civil rights movement conflicts with religion. Given the fact that some of the most prominent figures in the Civil Rights movement were prominently religious, I find it very strange to say the least that you label it a "particularly secular movement".
The civil rights movement? It seems to me that that was a particularly secular humanist movement which often conflicts with religion (for example with respect to feminism). And who is to say what the state of human rights would have been in the latter 20th century if religion had not been a part of our history? I think the civil rights movement is the logical consequence of secular notions of egalitarianism, human empathy, and our evolutionary preference for life.
quote:You have stated you would be concerned with them, given your preference for truth. However, I will agree that from a strictly scientific, humanist, and rational perspective, the reasons for endorsing and supporting religion are superfluous. You've answered my question: you believe that the good that moral, just theists do in the world is founded on a bunch of superfluous superstitions.
I'm not ignoring them; I live surrounded by them. Irrational beliefs which cause no harm to others would be none of my concern, but the trouble is that they are part of a support base for a system of belief that causes much evil. Further, the moral precepts they derive from their religion are so often very similar to humanist precepts (which tend to be defensible by reason), that the justification of religion for that system of morality becomes superfluous.
quote:That's not a question we can really discuss, because the only way a humanistic atheist society would be better was if a given religion was true, and was itself a just and moral religion. Obviously we're not going to get anywhere on that question.
Then I have to ask, what is the benefit of religion? Would the humanistic atheist society be even better if it was religious?
quote:I don't know. I suspect we would have them, but not to the extent we currently enjoy. As for "evolutionary reasons"...well, that's not a very compelling argument to me. Those "evolutionary reasons" not to live by naked force and power exist only in a society which explicitly condemns living that way. Show me a society on Earth that has arrived at such a system without religion in its past, I challenge you.
You don't think we would have these things without religion?
There are evolutionary reasons for us to have empathy and to love our children (the future generation of our species). As for a respect for human life, that's a logical extension of our preference for life and our knowledge that our fellow humans are alive in much the same way we are.
quote:I'm certain that to an outsider, who believes their beliefs to be founded on irrational superstition, it appears to be cherry-picking. But this is another issue where, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get much traction.
The other thing my question was getting at was that most moderate Christians seem to cherry pick the moral imperatives they follow from the Bible. I'm sure many of them find tracts of Deuteronomy to be reprehensible (and probably dislike them all the more because atheists tend to have a field day with them, and for good reason). So by what criteria are they choosing their morals?
quote:I can only answer your question by stating my belief that not every important question can or should be answered strictly by reason. It is not the only tool I believe humanity should use for solving problems. Nor do I believe that emotions can be explained strictly by sociological or biochemical imperatives.
Please don't dismiss the question with sarcasm. At least tell me how it's not a legitimate question.
quote:I do not share your opinions about what Christianity does and does not state.
As for religion not being applied the way I described, I'd say it is, just not universally. And the description I provided was not some twisted version of Christian doctrine. Christianity does link sensuality to guilt (and hence virginity is associated with moral purity), it does preach that sinners will go to hell for eternity, and the Christian god really is described as benevolent and loving while imposing a legalistic and remarkably unforgiving moral code on his people.
quote:Without German support for anti-Semitism and the history of religious bigotry, the Holocaust could not have been facilitated. Hitler, while entertaining the very twisted idea that he was on a divine mission to exterminate the Jews and exhibiting a tendency to purge anyone who disagreed with him, didn't commit the genocide alone. The fact that political ideology and religious persecution were combined doesn't vindicate religion.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Certainly the Holocaust regarding Jews had religious roots. However, I think the fact that Hitler's Germany targeted people for mass extermination without a religious motive is not something to be so blithely dismissed.
quote:Nope. Chauvinism isn't restricted to religion. Religion does institutionalise that kind of chauvinism and prejudice however; thus extending its shelf life considerably.
As for homosexuals, certainly there is religious motive for hating them. There is also religious motive for respecting their personhood and not murdering them, but apparently that part gets ignored. And are you suggesting that there would not be homophobia without religion?
quote:
If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
quote:The implication of the quote I referred to was that I believed religion was the root of all prejudice. I wanted to point out that this is not the case.
Exactly when did this become a discussion in which I was saying religion doesn't ever help to cause prejudice, hatred, murder, suffering, etc.?
Because I don't remember signing up for that discussion.
quote:Deuteronomy is quite clear on the issue of heresy, once again advocating the death sentence. If you reject this chunk of the old testament (the law vs grace debate over mosaic law), what grounds do you have for doing so? Even if mosaic law was only intended to apply in Israel, they were still imperatives laid down by god for the faithful of the day, were they not?
I thoroughly disagree with your statement that the Inquisition is a logical application of the Bible's teachings for Christians.
quote:Again, atheism is not a moral code, and does not advocate murder. The bible does.
To some Christians, yes, what you are saying is an unpardonable sin. To some atheists, my refusing to sign up for Communism means I should be killed for oppressing the working man.
quote:It's hardly strange considering the beliefs they espoused were sufficiently generalised to what is essentially a respect for human life and common sense egalitarianism, though tempered with a sense of spirituality. Ghandi was first and foremost the leader of the Indian independence movement, while Martin Luther King Jr was first and foremost a political campaigner (before a minister).
*shrug* Dr. King, Malcolm X, Gandhi, among others, would certainly disagree that the civil rights movement conflicts with religion. Given the fact that some of the most prominent figures in the Civil Rights movement were prominently religious, I find it very strange to say the least that you label it a "particularly secular movement".
quote:Yes, if the only reason a theist is moral is to be judged worthy in the eyes of god. I suspect this is not always the case however. Empathy is another good reason to be moral, and is not derived from (though it is encouraged by) religion. Another one is rational self-interest.
You've answered my question: you believe that the good that moral, just theists do in the world is founded on a bunch of superfluous superstitions.
quote:Then may I ask another question? Why are you a Christian and not a Muslim? Why do you believe Christianity is the right path?
That's not a question we can really discuss, because the only way a humanistic atheist society would be better was if a given religion was true, and was itself a just and moral religion. Obviously we're not going to get anywhere on that question.
quote:Yes, social evolution dictates that civilization is not possible in the absence of a rudimentary moral code.
quote:I don't know. I suspect we would have them, but not to the extent we currently enjoy. As for "evolutionary reasons"...well, that's not a very compelling argument to me. Those "evolutionary reasons" not to live by naked force and power exist only in a society which explicitly condemns living that way.
You don't think we would have these things without religion?
There are evolutionary reasons for us to have empathy and to love our children (the future generation of our species). As for a respect for human life, that's a logical extension of our preference for life and our knowledge that our fellow humans are alive in much the same way we are.
quote:Sorry, I don't accept that challenge. The fact that every culture I know of has fostered a religious belief system to give authority to its system of morality doesn't negate the fact that there are sound rational and evolutionary reasons for a civilization to adopt a moral imperative such as 'do not kill' (with the applicable exceptions of course). Most cultures at one time believed in a cosmological model that was entirely incorrect, too.
Show me a society on Earth that has arrived at such a system without religion in its past, I challenge you.
quote:There is plenty of evidence (which admittedly doesn't amount to watertight proof) for social evolution towards a rudimentary system of morality, such as in Dawkins' book. Chimpanzees for example (I think it was chimpanzees) form groups in which the leader will arbitrate disputes and break up fights before one chimp gets hurt or perhaps is killed.
I do not believe that humanity would have embraced to the extent we have-and we haven't yet, really-humanism, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, etc., without religion. I cannot prove that, of course, just as you cannot prove your claims either.
quote:I don't think it has to do with me considering the bible to be historical fiction. The fact of the matter is, most Christians don't follow the totality of Christian doctrine, and instead only choose a selection of its moral imperatives. I think it's important to ask, what criteria are they using to select them?
quote:I'm certain that to an outsider, who believes their beliefs to be founded on irrational superstition, it appears to be cherry-picking. But this is another issue where, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get much traction.
The other thing my question was getting at was that most moderate Christians seem to cherry pick the moral imperatives they follow from the Bible. I'm sure many of them find tracts of Deuteronomy to be reprehensible (and probably dislike them all the more because atheists tend to have a field day with them, and for good reason). So by what criteria are they choosing their morals?
quote:What part do you disagree with? I didn't make those things up; they come from scripture, and are apparent in the attitudes of many Christians.
quote:I do not share your opinions about what Christianity does and does not state.
As for religion not being applied the way I described, I'd say it is, just not universally. And the description I provided was not some twisted version of Christian doctrine. Christianity does link sensuality to guilt (and hence virginity is associated with moral purity), it does preach that sinners will go to hell for eternity, and the Christian god really is described as benevolent and loving while imposing a legalistic and remarkably unforgiving moral code on his people.
quote:That's fine. I understand; these posts do take a lot of time.
I can't promise I'll be able to respond to every single quote the way we've been doing, should the discussion continue.
quote:I just want to point out that these aren't equivalent statements. To some Christians, what he was saying was an unpardonable sin due to their understanding of Christianity. To some athiests, the refusal to sign up for Communism means you should be killed -- not due to their understanding of atheism, but of Communism. That's the major missing piece in any analysis of "atheist societies" that attempts to review Pol Pot, Stalinist Russia, etc.: that in all those cases, the societies were atheist not because they've moved beyond the need for an absolute moral authority, but because they'd replaced God as that authority with the State. Those so-called "atheists" hadn't actually shed religion; they'd actually become theocracies in all but name.
To some Christians, yes, what you are saying is an unpardonable sin. To some atheists, my refusing to sign up for Communism means I should be killed for oppressing the working man.
quote:Got anything to back that up?
Martin Luther King Jr was first and foremost a political campaigner (before a minister).
quote:His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Got anything to back that up?
Martin Luther King Jr was first and foremost a political campaigner (before a minister).
quote:The Bible endorses the Inquisition only if you ignore entire swaths of the New Testament, Euripedes. That is what I mean. The Bible endorses the Inquisition no more than US law prohibits interracial marriage, or buying alcohol on Sundays.
Deuteronomy is quite clear on the issue of heresy, once again advocating the death sentence. If you reject this chunk of the old testament (the law vs grace debate over mosaic law), what grounds do you have for doing so? Even if mosaic law was only intended to apply in Israel, they were still imperatives laid down by god for the faithful of the day, were they not?
quote:See above.
Again, atheism is not a moral code, and does not advocate murder. The bible does.
quote:I have little to nothing in common with the kinds of Christians who would execute the Inquisition, or murder someone because "God says so". On paper, we worship the same God to some extent...but that's all.
Militant Marxists don't believe in theism. Therefore they are atheists. I don't believe in theism. Therefore I am an atheist. That's about all we have in common.
quote:Like dkw, I wonder about this statement.
Ghandi was first and foremost the leader of the Indian independence movement, while Martin Luther King Jr was first and foremost a political campaigner (before a minister).
quote:If I made it a statement of fact, then I misspoke. I do not believe that is a fact. I do, however, believe it is the truth. And like I've said, in this discussion, so many of the things we're claiming can't be substantiated. You certainly cannot offer incontrovertible evidence that the entire world would be better off without religion, just as I cannot do the same about atheism (although to be fair, I've never advocated that). All either of us can do is point to a few examples, and then fall back on our beliefs.
You asserted that the movement "wouldn't have happened without religion." Please substantiate that, because while many leaders of the movement were religious, that correlation doesn't equate to religion being the cause. In a world where atheism is taboo and unpopular, people who are particularly interested in morality are encouraged to drift towards religious institutions.
quote:That's not a question I can answer on behalf of Christianity.
And yes, the movement does conflict with religion; Christian doctrine advocates many punishments contrary to its principles, and the Christian god is a Class-A war criminal responsible for a lengthy repertoire of human rights abuses. Once again, I'm glad that most Christians today have rejected the more unsavoury parts of Christian doctrine. I have to ask, if those parts are no longer valid, why are the others still absolute?
quote:Well, at least that's a simple question with a simple answer for this discussion
Then may I ask another question? Why are you a Christian and not a Muslim? Why do you believe Christianity is the right path?
I am not a Muslim because when I when I prayed as Muslims prayed, to Allah, I did not receieve any answers. This was not true, over a lengthy period (and remains true), of Mormonism. And after reviewing its precepts and beliefs and reading much of its Scripture, I also found some answers.quote:Even now. I am an intelligent, careful, man capable of making plans. In many cases, it goes against an evolutionary impulse and self-interest for me to be a moral person, and be a law-abiding citizen.
Yes, social evolution dictates that civilization is not possible in the absence of a rudimentary moral code.
quote:I would be very interested to hear such evidence with regards to humans of such a social evolution, without the bedrock of religion somewhere in the mix.
There is plenty of evidence (which admittedly doesn't amount to watertight proof) for social evolution towards a rudimentary system of morality, such as in Dawkins' book. Chimpanzees for example (I think it was chimpanzees) form groups in which the leader will arbitrate disputes and break up fights before one chimp gets hurt or perhaps is killed.
quote:I can only speak for myself.
I think it's important to ask, what criteria are they using to select them?
quote:See one of the first replies to a quote I made in this post.
What part do you disagree with? I didn't make those things up; they come from scripture, and are apparent in the attitudes of many Christians.
quote:This is a worthy point to make. I cannot help but wonder, though, if it's not a method of excusing anything an atheistic society does that is wrong. If it's alright to criticize an entire religion on the basis of some people who call themselves members of that religion--and in this thread, it is undeniably OK to do that--it seems strange to me that it's not OK to do so about atheists.
Those so-called "atheists" hadn't actually shed religion; they'd actually become theocracies in all but name.
quote:Wouldn't you say that religion was a big part of America's foundation?
His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
quote:"Worship me! Look in awe at my floating burning bush!"
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Worship me! I create flame from a small box!
If your assertion is that these alleged "miracles" did not cause the Aztecs to convert to Christianity, this just confirms my argument that "miracles" are a poor motivator to conversion.
quote:Not in the slightest. Why would you think it was?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Wouldn't you say that religion was a big part of America's foundation?
quote:Part of my point is that Stalinist Russia was not first and foremost an atheist society; it didn't even claim to be. It claimed to be a communist society, and regarded atheism as a prerequisite for communism. It didn't invade other countries to spread atheism; it invaded other countries to spread its version of communism. By contrast, the Holy Roman Empire invaded countries under the guise of spreading Christianity.
This is a worthy point to make. I cannot help but wonder, though, if it's not a method of excusing anything an atheistic society does that is wrong. If it's alright to criticize an entire religion on the basis of some people who call themselves members of that religion--and in this thread, it is undeniably OK to do that--it seems strange to me that it's not OK to do so about atheists.
quote:No, I would not agree. I say that having read many of his speeches, writings, and his "rules" for non-violent activism.
Originally posted by Euripides:
His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
quote:I'm not talking in a legal sense, or what made it into the Constitution. I'm talking about, for example, the Declaration of Independence, for example, which played a big part in our nation's creation.
Not in the slightest. Why would you think it was?
quote:I find this assertion a bit debatable, possibly due to your latter point about it being an odd thing for a society to advertise, but also due to definition problems.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I don't think there ever HAS been an "atheist" society, because there'd be no need for a truly atheist society to identify itself in that way. A society to whom supernaturalism is truly irrelevant would find it unnecessary to advertise how irrelevant supernaturalism is to them.
quote:I put atheism in quotes specifically because I wasn't speaking about the strict meaning of "does not worship a God," but rather the more commonly-used meaning of "without religion."
There have been societies that have been dominated by Buddhism (e.g. Tibet), which is essentially an atheist religion.
quote:*shrug* Well, I can't argue with that. That's completely guesswork, like so much of this conversation is-mine and Euripedes both.
I don't think the Declaration has a serious religious component. I think the appeal to God was merely an appeal to a moral arbiter other than the state, and they lacked the desire to come up with one that wasn't obvious or compelling to the people of the time.
quote:As I said, definition problems. I would not lump everyone who does not believe in a religion as being atheist since there are clear differences between someone who believes in strict agnosticism versus atheism, and between both of those and Buddhists or Confucians.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I put atheism in quotes specifically because I wasn't speaking about the strict meaning of "does not worship a God," but rather the more commonly-used meaning of "without religion."
I would consider both Confuscianism and Buddhism to be religions, mainly because they both appeal to a higher, unimpeachable moral authority and promise supernatural consequences for physical actions. I don't think all people who live by Confuscian or Buddhist philosophies are religious, but many are.
quote:As for the specific two points you listed, Confucianism would include the unimpeachable moral authority but explicitly does not promise supernatural consequences.
It is debatable whether Confucianism should be called a religion. While it prescribes a great deal of ritual, little of it could be construed as worship or meditation in a formal sense. Confucius occasionally made statements about the existence of other-worldly beings that sound distinctly agnostic and humanistic to Western ears. Thus, Confucianism is often considered an ethical tradition and not a religion. However the United Nations recognizes Confucianism as a religion.
...
Generally speaking, Confucianism is not considered a religion by Chinese or other East Asian people. ... Confucians maintain that Confucianism is not a religion, but rather a moral code or philosophic world view.
quote:I deny that it has a serious religious component. It barely mentions a creator, and only as a rhetorical device for backing up the assertion that we're all equal.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm not talking in a legal sense, or what made it into the Constitution. I'm talking about, for example, the Declaration of Independence, for example, which played a big part in our nation's creation.
Not in the slightest. Why would you think it was?
Or are you actually going to deny those two things? That the Declaration has an serious religious component, or that it played a major role in our nation's creation?
quote:You know it's just a rhetorical device how, exactly? You read his mind via seance?
It barely mentions a creator, and only as a rhetorical device for backing up the assertion that we're all equal.
quote:I don't think it was necessarily a rhetorical device. At that time, the consensus among philosophers was that there was no foundation for moral authority if there was no God; this was so accepted that it was actually being used as proof of God.
You know it's just a rhetorical device how, exactly?
quote:He was on the record as being a Deist. That's not a religion. It's a vague conception that the world didn't just happen. That there's a purpose.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:You know it's just a rhetorical device how, exactly? You read his mind via seance?
It barely mentions a creator, and only as a rhetorical device for backing up the assertion that we're all equal.
Look, I'm not suggesting that the Founding Fathers instigated the American Revolution for religious reasons, or even primarily religious reasons. I'm just saying that their faiths played a big part in their decision making, and this is demonstrated in documents such as the Declaration of Independence.
quote:By looking at a document such as the Declaration of Independence, and seeing a deliberate reference to a religious figure. That's how.
How do you know that? Did you read their minds via seance?
quote:This is quite possible, Tom. You may very well be right that appealing to the Creator was a cynical, clever method for justifying their oathbreaking. It involves reading a lot into the Declaration of Independence that isn't written there, though.
So when appealing to a higher authority than the king, it would have been extremely sensible for them to appeal straight to God -- but they're doing so in God's role as "Nature's God," that hypothetical Creator and natural arbiter. And IMO, they're only doing so because it was felt that an appeal to authority was necessary to justify the abrogation of their oaths (in many cases, under God) to their country of origin.
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
(Just a note, I'm going to treat the Age of Reason as part of the Enlgihtenment. Of course, if you know the difference between the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, you already the stuff I'm going to talk about.)
The Enlightenment (wiki) was a movement towards reason and tolerance and away from the magical thinking, submission to authority, and inflexible parochialism that had kept Christian Europe a place of ignorance, savagery, and internicine warfare.
The first revolution was one of the system of thought. During this period, thinkers developed a way of thinking and of proof that has led our modern ideas of science and systematic scholarship.
They looked at what we actually could say we know. This was done early on by Montainge and Descartes (he of the "I think therefore I am.") and later by Hume and Kant.
One of the central characteristics of this new system of thought was its reliance on the idea of immutable, underlying laws. No longer was "Just because." or (more importantly) "Because God (or some other person in authority) said so." considered an adequate answer. The Deist (and in many cases the Christian) god was seen as a watchmaker, who set the immensely complicated but understandable universe machine in motion and was now watching it play out according to the laws that the god set in place.
This orderly conception of the universe spread into other matters, such as politics. Rulers were now expected to be able to provide valid reasons for their decisions and action instead of rely solely on their authority as they had in the past. There was increasing emphasis on the rule of law instead of the rule of the privledged (meaning "private law") person. This eventually developed into the idea of "natural rights" (or, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "inalienable rights").
The Protestant Reformation had already raised the individual to the position of central concern, but it did so without humanism and tended to regard the individual as bascially evil who's basic duty was submission. The Enlightenment re-emphasized this pre-eminent focus on the individual but included the ideas of humanism, turning the picture of human history as one of a progression towards achieving the benefits of human freedom, instead of the static worlds of the communal relations then emphasized by the Catholic Church or of degraded, isolated individuals a la Luther and Calvin (and in my opinion, Ecclesiastes).
So the Enlightenment carried with it a call to revolution against those powers that opposed human freedom, namely the Church and the State, with the idea of setting up a new form of government. The ideas from the Declaration of Independence:quote:and the Constitution:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.quote:were not the often-ignored platitudes that they have become. They were a declaration of a new age, a near complete break from the world that had come before. Instead of being a matter of one ruling family wresting control from another or of one religion taking over from another, this was set forth as a revolution based on ideology and dedicated towards to extending justice and liberty to all it's citizens and not just those who had the right connections or religion. There are few things in human history as profound and far-reaching as this.
to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
The Enlightenment had at least three distinct factions, divided by geography and ideological focus. The intial Enlightenment thinkers (now excepting the Age of Reason) were French: Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, and d'Alembert, among others). They were know as the philosphes or the Encyclopedists (as they were contributers to Diderot's Encyclopedia - itself revolutionary in the idea that people should be able to have ready access to information and that this access would destory ignorance and led to drastic social change). They were the most ideologically centered thinkers and, as the forces they opposed - Church and State - were most entrenched, they were also the most negatively oriented. Anti-clericsm was very strong in France as was the idea that the old order needed to be destroyed before the new one could be built.
The Scottish Enlightenment (wiki), (sometimes considered the English Enlightenment due to the role of John Locke and the dissident groups of England such as the Puritans) on the other hand was influenced by Scotland's status as one of the poorest country in Europe and the background of Calvinist Presbeterianism and took on a much more pragmatic and productive bent. The Scottish formed a lot of the thought that made up Utilitarianism. Also, besides the more philosophical concerns, he Scots turned to pratical applications, such as economics. Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations and the granddaddy of systematic capitalism, was a member of the Scottish Enlightenment.
The American Enlightenment was directly influenced by the Scottish one, as the Scotch did a heck of a lot of teaching. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, among others, were pupils of members of the Scottish Enlightenment. America was presented with the problem of unifying a divided populace with extremely different concerns and ways of approaching the world. Thus, the American Enlightenment was even more pragmatic and concerned with application than the Scottish. It's no accident that two of the main, non-Enlightenment pupils, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were men with a driving concern towards practicality. The proto-Americans were faced with the problem that Franklin expressed as "We must hang together or, assuredly, we will hang separately." This was true not just in reference to the revolution against the British, but also as to the future of the nation as a whole. The Constitution (primarily authored by James Madison and defended in the Federalist Papers by Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay - see how those names come up again) achieved this by forming entrenching the Enlightenment ideas of the rule of law, liberty, and tolerance into the framework of the new nation.
---
There was plenty of Christian influence in the development of American. Judeo-Christian ethics formed the backdrop of the Revolution and the formation of the constitution. Heck, it even formed the backdrop of the French Enlightenment, which was against the Church as an institution, not necessarily the ideals of the Christian religion. However, at a time when most of the nations of Europe were "Christian" nations, America was different through the new ideas of the Enlightenment, which has as one of their effects America being much less a "Christian" nation than the countries of the old order.
When peopel talk nowadays about Americ being a "Christian" nation, they generally don't seem to understand the Enlightenment, its central role in our country's develpoment, or how while it's not contrary to religion, it does limit the legitimacy of what they want to do. They tend to want to force other people to live by their religions rules because we live in a "Christian" nation. On the other hand, however, many people seem to regard the strong anti-clericism of the French Enlightenment and the blatant and savage anti-religiousity of the French Revolution to be part and parcel of what it means to be an Enlightenment nation. They seem to want to get rid of all traces of religion and make religious people feel as if they should feel ashamed of their belief. Neither one of these is true to the spirit of the founding of our country. Neither the Christian bigotry of the Maryland Act of Toleration nor the exclusionary, positivist nonsense of Thermidor should be part of our national character.
---
Of course, since there's such astounding ignorance of the things I just wrote about, what really is true to this spirit these days?
quote:Didn't say this, either.
Were they lettign the prevelant religion of the time be their main guide, it seems unlikely that our nation would have taken the form it did.
quote:My opinion, for what it's worth here (probably not much): He's an admirable man and I respect him hugely. He's intelligent and makes clear support for all his arguments. He's genuinely concerned about supporting atheists, and we need support because we are a minority that is absolutely pooped upon in this country (and in other countries, of course). In short, he's an inspiration.
Originally posted by Euripides:
What are they?
Do you find fault with The God Delusion (preferably the book rather than the documentary), or with his arguments?
Is he doing a service to atheism and rationalism?
quote:The bible is a contradictory book, I know. Why did you choose to follow the new testament rather than the old? Was Moses not speaking the will of god when he gave the Israelites those laws?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:quote:The Bible endorses the Inquisition only if you ignore entire swaths of the New Testament, Euripedes. That is what I mean. The Bible endorses the Inquisition no more than US law prohibits interracial marriage, or buying alcohol on Sundays.
Deuteronomy is quite clear on the issue of heresy, once again advocating the death sentence. If you reject this chunk of the old testament (the law vs grace debate over mosaic law), what grounds do you have for doing so? Even if mosaic law was only intended to apply in Israel, they were still imperatives laid down by god for the faithful of the day, were they not?
quote:It's all about the degree of "some" in that case. They are deriving their ideology from the same holy book and doctrine.
quote:I have little to nothing in common with the kinds of Christians who would execute the Inquisition, or murder someone because "God says so". On paper, we worship the same God to some extent...but that's all.
Militant Marxists don't believe in theism. Therefore they are atheists. I don't believe in theism. Therefore I am an atheist. That's about all we have in common.
quote:Even with Ghandi? Are you sure?
quote:Like dkw, I wonder about this statement.
Ghandi was first and foremost the leader of the Indian independence movement, while Martin Luther King Jr was first and foremost a political campaigner (before a minister).
quote:In an online discussion forum, that probably is what we have to do. But given time and resources, it would be possible to mount a case based on evidence of the good and the harm religion has done, and what the likely consequences of atheism becoming widespread are today. Recent atheist literature mounts a pretty good case actually.
quote:If I made it a statement of fact, then I misspoke. I do not believe that is a fact. I do, however, believe it is the truth. And like I've said, in this discussion, so many of the things we're claiming can't be substantiated. You certainly cannot offer incontrovertible evidence that the entire world would be better off without religion, just as I cannot do the same about atheism (although to be fair, I've never advocated that). All either of us can do is point to a few examples, and then fall back on our beliefs.
You asserted that the movement "wouldn't have happened without religion." Please substantiate that, because while many leaders of the movement were religious, that correlation doesn't equate to religion being the cause. In a world where atheism is taboo and unpopular, people who are particularly interested in morality are encouraged to drift towards religious institutions.
quote:That's ok. Can you just give your own reasons, speaking purely for yourself?
quote:That's not a question I can answer on behalf of Christianity.
And yes, the movement does conflict with religion; Christian doctrine advocates many punishments contrary to its principles, and the Christian god is a Class-A war criminal responsible for a lengthy repertoire of human rights abuses. Once again, I'm glad that most Christians today have rejected the more unsavoury parts of Christian doctrine. I have to ask, if those parts are no longer valid, why are the others still absolute?
quote:If you don't mind, can you be more specific about the latter?
quote:Well, at least that's a simple question with a simple answer for this discussion
Then may I ask another question? Why are you a Christian and not a Muslim? Why do you believe Christianity is the right path?
quote:Certainly, the impulses of the individual often conflict with what is acceptable or legal. But for whatever reason (and as I've said, religion has performed a function in the past to imbue a moral code with authority), we resist those impulses. Often, it's in the interest of being a part of a successful community. That is the domain of social evolution and our ability to reason must be taken into account. Your intelligence and ability to make plans are just as much in the domain of evolution as your sensations of hunger. If my tribe had not developed some kind of code to order itself by, it would have been run over by other more organised neighbours.
quote:Even now. I am an intelligent, careful, man capable of making plans. In many cases, it goes against an evolutionary impulse and self-interest for me to be a moral person, and be a law-abiding citizen.
Yes, social evolution dictates that civilization is not possible in the absence of a rudimentary moral code.
quote:Like I said, in the absence of a developed moral philosophy, religion can provide a punishment and reward system which, if believed, lets its practitioners immediately and obviously see that it is in his/her own self-interest to abide by the code. If that code is just, there are secular long-term reasons to follow it. For example, it leads to a stable and productive society where life is not longer nasty, brutish, and short.
quote:I would be very interested to hear such evidence with regards to humans of such a social evolution, without the bedrock of religion somewhere in the mix.
There is plenty of evidence (which admittedly doesn't amount to watertight proof) for social evolution towards a rudimentary system of morality, such as in Dawkins' book. Chimpanzees for example (I think it was chimpanzees) form groups in which the leader will arbitrate disputes and break up fights before one chimp gets hurt or perhaps is killed.
quote:That's okay. Can I ask which criteria you use?
quote:I can only speak for myself.
I think it's important to ask, what criteria are they using to select them?
quote:As has been indicated, a resounding no. For the reasons Tom and Lisa have indicated, and because there is plenty of evidence to show that the founding fathers were deists with a sceptical bent; Jefferson very much included. If anything the foundation of America was about shedding the traditions and inequalities of Europe; about equal opportunity and not having one's labour exploited by a hereditary king.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Wouldn't you say that religion was a big part of America's foundation?
His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
quote:Religion in his key speeches tend to take a backseat. Despite the rhetorical structure remeniscient of a Baptist sermon and the biblical allusions, 'I Have a Dream' (to use an obvious example) appeals primarily to the secular notions of equality implicit in America's foundation. When I said that he was first and foremost a political activist, that is with respect to his role in the public; his role in the civil rights movement. I have no doubts that he was a devout Baptist himself.
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:No, I would not agree. I say that having read many of his speeches, writings, and his "rules" for non-violent activism.
Originally posted by Euripides:
His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
quote:As backup to these assertions, I submit his actual quotes. quotes
Originally posted by Lisa:
He was on the record as being a Deist. That's not a religion. It's a vague conception that the world didn't just happen. That there's a purpose.
quote:Only if you define religion to exclude the things that took the front seat in his speeches. Of course, if you did that you'd also have to throw out the Biblical books of Amos, Hosea . . . well, most of the prophets, actually. And a good chunk of Jesus' sermon on the mount/plain.
Religion in his key speeches tend to take a backseat.
quote:I have to ask: have you read the New Testament, any of it? That sounds pretty darn snarky, I know, but the question you're asking really does beg mine.
The bible is a contradictory book, I know. Why did you choose to follow the new testament rather than the old? Was Moses not speaking the will of god when he gave the Israelites those laws?
quote:Probably because it's an endeavor which involves human beings. Such systems tend to change in almost every case.
Mainstream Christianity though has adjusted itself to the times. I have to ask, why, and on what grounds?
quote:Well, if you clarify yourself to say, "He was acting primarily as a secularist," or somesuch in his work, then it becomes a much more subjective argument. I'm still sure, though, and very sure about Dr. King.
Even with Ghandi? Are you sure?
quote:You're hardly a good judge of whether or not it makes a good case, Euripedes. I mean no offense when I say that-but you do already buy into the premise.
But given time and resources, it would be possible to mount a case based on evidence of the good and the harm religion has done, and what the likely consequences of atheism becoming widespread are today. Recent atheist literature mounts a pretty good case actually.
quote:Speaking strictly for myself, it's because I am a Christian of a sect which a living Prophet, for one thing, and has had one for all my life. Also, among our beliefs is a belief that the Bible is accurate insofar as it has been accurately translated.
That's ok. Can you just give your own reasons, speaking purely for yourself?
quote:I don't mind your asking. I'm not sure how I could be more specific, though, or in what ways you're asking for more specificity...
If you don't mind, can you be more specific about the latter?
I don't mean to be snarky, but isn't that trial and error? Have you tried the other religions to see if they provide better answers?
quote:Reconsidering my position, I stand corrected on my comment about Dr. King being a political activist first and foremost.
Originally posted by dkw:
The decision to appeal primarily to the constitution and declaration of independence was a deliberate one, to intentionally redefine "American Values" to exclude racism. It doesn't mean he wasn't acting as a minister at the time.
quote:Parts, yes, in its totality, no. The latter question however was referring to mosaic law in the old testament, not the new.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:quote:I have to ask: have you read the New Testament, any of it? That sounds pretty darn snarky, I know, but the question you're asking really does beg mine.
The bible is a contradictory book, I know. Why did you choose to follow the new testament rather than the old? Was Moses not speaking the will of god when he gave the Israelites those laws?
quote:My point was that there are no such sects, and that there is necessarily some picking and choosing involved. The question I've repeated numerous times is 'according to what are they choosing their precepts?'
And anyway, I follow the New Testament and a few other scriptures, and the Old Testament-or I try to, anyway. This does not mean that I follow all parts of the Old Testament. In fact, I challenge you to find me a Christian sect which believes in and preaches total obedience to the OT.
quote:I stand corrected on my comment about Dr. King. On the other hand I'm quite certain about Ghandi. And I didn't talk about his motivations; I merely said that he was first and foremost the leader of the Indian independence movement.
quote:Well, if you clarify yourself to say, "He was acting primarily as a secularist," or somesuch in his work, then it becomes a much more subjective argument. I'm still sure, though, and very sure about Dr. King.
Even with Ghandi? Are you sure?
quote:I buy into the ideas in those books because of the evidence and logical arguments they put forth. Does my standing as an atheist make me unable to judge a poor or effective argument when I see one?
You're hardly a good judge of whether or not it makes a good case, Euripedes. I mean no offense when I say that-but you do already buy into the premise.
quote:I don't think that a prophet and biblical mistranslations account for all the changes mainstream Mormons (or any moderate Christians) have made to traditional Christian doctrine, so I'd appreciate it if you could give more detail.
Speaking strictly for myself, it's because I am a Christian of a sect which a living Prophet, for one thing, and has had one for all my life. Also, among our beliefs is a belief that the Bible is accurate insofar as it has been accurately translated.
There are other reasons, but that becomes a much longer and different discussion the further we delve into it. I believe those two answers should suffice for your question. If not, you can either ask here in more detail, or email me.
quote:
And yes, the movement does conflict with religion; Christian doctrine advocates many punishments contrary to its principles, and the Christian god is a Class-A war criminal responsible for a lengthy repertoire of human rights abuses. Once again, I'm glad that most Christians today have rejected the more unsavoury parts of Christian doctrine. I have to ask, if those parts are no longer valid, why are the others still absolute?
quote:What did you mean by "I also found some answers"?
I don't mind your asking. I'm not sure how I could be more specific, though, or in what ways you're asking for more specificity...
quote:How can you be certain that religion is an ultimate factor and not just a proximate factor for many of the things for which religion is blamed for or takes credit for? In other words, how do you know that certain religious traditions, ideas, or beliefs were not shaped by secular motives?
it would be possible to mount a case based on evidence of the good and the harm religion has done
quote:Not so contradictory. Not unless you start adding on pieces that contradict it.
Originally posted by Euripides:
The bible is a contradictory book, I know.
quote:So your argument is purely against Christianity, right?
Originally posted by Euripides:
My point was that there are no such sects, and that there is necessarily some picking and choosing involved. The question I've repeated numerous times is 'according to what are they choosing their precepts?'
quote:By applying to it the same careful and thorough methodology which social historians use to identify the causes of other social phenomena or historical events.
Originally posted by camus:quote:How can you be certain that religion is an ultimate factor and not just a proximate factor for many of the things for which religion is blamed for or takes credit for? In other words, how do you know that certain religious traditions, ideas, or beliefs were not shaped by secular motives?
it would be possible to mount a case based on evidence of the good and the harm religion has done
quote:Here are a few contradictions for starters. If you want to include things like dates and historical accuracy, then the bible is positively riddled with errors and/or fabrications. Apologist responses to the contradictions such as these are often evasive and take liberties with semantics to provide explanations for contradictions. It's usually enough for the authors that they cast doubt on the claims of contradiction. That doubt can be overcome with faith.
Originally posted by Lisa:quote:Not so contradictory. Not unless you start adding on pieces that contradict it.
Originally posted by Euripides:
The bible is a contradictory book, I know.
quote:That argument was against Christianity, yes. It would apply however to any closed religious system that is adjusted to suit the morality and information of the times. I don't know if Orthodox Judaism falls under that category.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:So your argument is purely against Christianity, right?
Originally posted by Euripides:
My point was that there are no such sects, and that there is necessarily some picking and choosing involved. The question I've repeated numerous times is 'according to what are they choosing their precepts?'
quote:Really? I thought this thread was quite civil and fruitful considering its subject matter, not least thanks to Rakeesh.
Originally posted by David Bowles:
In reading all of this, I can't help but come away with my basic assumption seeming verified: the problem isn't religion or science or politics or atheism... the problem is humanity. Nearly every action, belief, institution, etc. of ours is predicated on the idea of superiority, difference, otherness, worth versus worthlessness, and so on. I doubt seriously that any system containing human beings and created by them will be able to get beyond the horrors enumerated above...
quote:You know how some anti-evolutionists claim that the law of entropy and the theory of evolution contradict one another? That's based on a misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. But if someone doesn't really care what entropy and evolution really are, and prefers to look at whatever surface-level understanding they've gleaned casually, what can you do? The same thing applies to most of the "contradictions" in that link. I've seen thumpers claim that those who try and reconcile evolution and entropy are engaging in "apologetics". It's easy to dismiss arguments by characterizing them, rather than dealing with their content.
Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Here are a few contradictions for starters. If you want to include things like dates and historical accuracy, then the bible is positively riddled with errors and/or fabrications. Apologist responses to the contradictions such as these are often evasive and take liberties with semantics to provide explanations for contradictions. It's usually enough for the authors that they cast doubt on the claims of contradiction. That doubt can be overcome with faith.
Originally posted by Lisa:quote:Not so contradictory. Not unless you start adding on pieces that contradict it.
Originally posted by Euripides:
The bible is a contradictory book, I know.
quote:It doesn't. Our morality doesn't change.
Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:That argument was against Christianity, yes. It would apply however to any closed religious system that is adjusted to suit the morality and information of the times. I don't know if Orthodox Judaism falls under that category.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:So your argument is purely against Christianity, right?
Originally posted by Euripides:
My point was that there are no such sects, and that there is necessarily some picking and choosing involved. The question I've repeated numerous times is 'according to what are they choosing their precepts?'
quote:Could you point out where they are wrong? How about the misalignment of names/dates/details of historical events and the varied family genealogies of Jesus?
Originally posted by Lisa:
You know how some anti-evolutionists claim that the law of entropy and the theory of evolution contradict one another? That's based on a misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. But if someone doesn't really care what entropy and evolution really are, and prefers to look at whatever surface-level understanding they've gleaned casually, what can you do? The same thing applies to most of the "contradictions" in that link. I've seen thumpers claim that those who try and reconcile evolution and entropy are engaging in "apologetics". It's easy to dismiss arguments by characterizing them, rather than dealing with their content.
quote:How is that not more theoretical? Can you create a control group and a test group so that you can isolate individual factors to test your social theories? Can you replicate your results on a consistent basis? Can you even know all of the factors that are involved in your social theories? I don't see how you could determine anything conclusively regarding something like this, at least not in the same way that you would for say chemistry or physics.
By applying to it the same careful and thorough methodology which social historians use to identify the causes of other social phenomena or historical events.
...
The discussion then moved on to the harm and good religion has done, which is less theoretical and perhaps harder to discuss in detail on a forum.
quote:I don't think there's any need to apologize. I was just pointing out what I believe is your misunderstanding.
Originally posted by Euripides:
I apologise for the misunderstanding. My knowledge of Jewish holy texts is too limited for me to make specific criticisms of it, and doing so was not my intention.
quote:It's less theoretical than talking about the concept of faith.
Originally posted by camus:quote:How is that not more theoretical? Can you create a control group and a test group so that you can isolate individual factors to test your social theories? Can you replicate your results on a consistent basis? Can you even know all of the factors that are involved in your social theories? I don't see how you could determine anything conclusively regarding something like this, at least not in the same way that you would for say chemistry or physics.
By applying to it the same careful and thorough methodology which social historians use to identify the causes of other social phenomena or historical events.
...
The discussion then moved on to the harm and good religion has done, which is less theoretical and perhaps harder to discuss in detail on a forum.
quote:The only ones I'm concerned with are the ones that have nothing to do with the Christian Bible. As far as I'm concerned, all of those contradictions probably really are.
Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Could you point out where they are wrong? How about the misalignment of names/dates/details of historical events and the varied family genealogies of Jesus?
Originally posted by Lisa:
You know how some anti-evolutionists claim that the law of entropy and the theory of evolution contradict one another? That's based on a misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. But if someone doesn't really care what entropy and evolution really are, and prefers to look at whatever surface-level understanding they've gleaned casually, what can you do? The same thing applies to most of the "contradictions" in that link. I've seen thumpers claim that those who try and reconcile evolution and entropy are engaging in "apologetics". It's easy to dismiss arguments by characterizing them, rather than dealing with their content.
quote:I agree that humanity's atrocities aren't the fault of religion or lack thereof, but I don't like placing the blame on human nature. It's not inevitable that we create continuous atrocities. We have a pretty good idea of how to avoid them- treat other people and nations (especially those that disagree with you) with respect. I think this is something of which humans are capable. I don't think there will ever be a utopia, but I do think we could avoid repeating the worst of our atrocities.
When we begin first pointing fingers at religions' atrocities, and then religious folk start listing the atrocities of atheist institutions, the mental ball starts rolling and leads me to suspect it isn't religion or atheism that's causing the problem... it's human nature/society.
quote:I don't see anything simplistic about Dawkins' case against religion, which is very specific and point-by-point.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
That's one of the big problems I have with Dawkins and people like him. They gloss over the real problem with their simplistic anti-religion crusade. There are causes for the bad behavior they note. There are beliefs and structures which encourage atrocities or just plain old not goodness. And these things are present in religious and in atheists and their organizations. They are also relatively absent from both.
The religious/non-religious split isn't the proper place to focus on for the seat of these issues. But they don't understand (and generally have near as much contempt for as they do religion) the fields that actually study these sorts of things.
quote:It was not put forth as a claim that atheism led to that sort of violence, it was put forth as evidence that people do not need religion for horrible violence-which is a big part of what you're claiming.
And as Tom has taken pains to clearly point out, religion throughout history has been the direct cause of much violence and bloodshed, while Pol Pot and Hitler were acting on their understanding of their respective political ideologies, not "atheism."
quote:No, but it does mean that its influence is only one of many factors that contribute to the construction of people's ethical systems... I was the child of a pastor, but my personal ethics as a child were also molded by the books I read, the teachers I had, the shows I watch, the friends I frequented, and on and on... not to mention simply my own impulses and natural understanding of the universe.
does that mean that religion has no significant influence on the moral integrity of people?
quote:The latter does not depend on the former. This goes back to what I was trying to say earlier about religion being a proximate cause, not an ultimate or root cause. Amanecer is correct in saying that such tragedies are not inevitable and that humans can overcome and avoid them, but it would require us to try to get a better understanding of the root causes instead of just stopping half way there.
If the religion/atheism split is not the proper place to focus for the seat of moral issues, does that mean that religion has no significant influence on the moral integrity of people?
quote:I never claimed that people need religion to do evil, and I've explicitly stated this many times.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It was not put forth as a claim that atheism led to that sort of violence, it was put forth as evidence that people do not need religion for horrible violence-which is a big part of what you're claiming.
quote:I have not swept them under the rug. I have said that atheism itself is not the cause of those atrocities.
If some of the worst violence in the past century has been committed by people without religious justification, in a time where people are generally more 'enlightened' than they were in the past, it should certainly not be swept under the rug as you're doing, or ignored.
quote:There is truth to that. Unfortunately, it doesn't vindicate religion. Religion has been the direct cause of violence and hurt (of course you're free to refute the above).
Not surprisingly, there are commonalities between the religious and non-religious groups that tend to commit atrocities.
quote:I know, and that's why I used the qualifier "a big part". You are claiming that religion does more harm than atheism, that people are more violent under religion than they would be under atheism.
I never claimed that people need religion to do evil, and I've explicitly stated this many times.
quote:Given that violence is explicitly condemned in all but cases of self-defense by Christianity, the case can be made that the same is true of Christianity as well.
I have not swept them under the rug. I have said that atheism itself is not the cause of those atrocities.
quote:I think one could argue that a person's moral and ethical values influence the beliefs that he accepts rather than the beliefs dictating the morals. Of course, I don't know enough about that to argue one way or the other, but I suspect it is a combination of both.
When a suicide bomber sacrifices his/her and other people's lives in honour of a set of beliefs, are those beliefs not the cause or a main cause of the act?
quote:I think it's more complex than that. In addition to pychological tendencies, I think there are social and political factors that help shape and influence religious ideas. Thus, those social and political factors would be further up the causality chain and would be the more important factors to address.
If you want to be particularly esoteric and technical, you could also say that religion is never the root cause; the root cause is the psychological tendency which allows religion to survive.
quote:Any ideology that separates people into "us" and "them" is guilty of that. Religion is just one very big one. Or rather, one very big set of them.
Originally posted by Euripides:
There is truth to that. Unfortunately, it doesn't vindicate religion. Religion has been the direct cause of violence and hurt (of course you're free to refute the above).
quote:No, it hasn't. Some forms of religion have been so (as you point out in the suicide bomber example). Others have not. It is not "Religion" that is the culprit here, but rather forms and structures of thought that constitute certain religions and mythologies. These forms and structures of thought are not specific to religion, however, and are in evidence in non-religious and atheistic thought structures that have also led to the people holding them to do bad things.
Religion has been the direct cause of violence and hurt
quote:The truth is, the world doesn't work like this. It would be helpful if we could have solid, absolute evidence of things, but reason alone simply cannot give it to us. We could argue for days over whether this pen in my hand exists and you would never be able to solidly prove to me that it does. There are many people who claim they have solid proof for the things they believe (people like Dawkins, religious leaders, politicians, Hatrackers on this board, etc.) but the truth is that in almost all of these cases what they are calling "solid" is actually not.
If solid evidence for the existence of a deity is put forth, which can't be explained away using a simpler hypothesis and which brings the probability of god existing to a level higher than the probability of him not existing, I'll seek baptism right away.
quote:My view on this is that that religion probably was justified at one point simply from a pragmatic POV. In the early days of civilization, the first leader was probably just a guy with the most strength or the pointiest stick. However, as leaders got tired of fighting off challengers they developed the simplest justification, that the leader was justified by some higher power. This would have developed into a religion.
Originally posted by Lisa:
The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.
quote:To which I answer: Sywak's Third Law
The truth is, the world doesn't work like this. It would be helpful if we could have solid, absolute evidence of things, but reason alone simply cannot give it to us. We could argue for days over whether this pen in my hand exists and you would never be able to solidly prove to me that it does. There are many people who claim they have solid proof for the things they believe (people like Dawkins, religious leaders, politicians, Hatrackers on this board, etc.) but the truth is that in almost all of these cases what they are calling "solid" is actually not.
quote:And there is faith, and then there is FAITH. My faith that the pencil is a solid enough object in my hand, and that the sun will rise tomorrow are simple beliefs, simple matters of faith.
RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding. Typical responses are, "How can we ever really know anything," and "God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it). More importantly, do not try and understand it yourself, as your head may actually explode. Your opponent may respond to your first statement by asking, "then how do you know if anything is true?" To which you simply respond, "I just know."
quote:Indeed! And were we to somehow humanely eradicate all religious thought, all concepts of God, as well as any evidence they ever existed, I am completely confident that SOMEBODY would be contacted by God, and the whole cycle would start all over again. The initial movement would encounter persecution from our atheistic society, we'd probably say it was for their own good. It would survive, people would form offshoot groups, and even people within the original religion would stray from the original doctrines and attempt to make the religion better with their own intelects without consulting God. Heinous acts would be committed against other human beings in the name of that God who never approved such actions and people would say that is reason enough to discard all religion.
Originally posted by David Bowles:
Blackblade,
Since, as you point out, religion is inextricably tied up to everything around us through the people that create or cause the things, then it is impossible to tease out religion as the cause of anything either... you can't have a control group of human society totally untouched by any religion, because it will at very least have been established by people reacting against religion and at worst be peopled largely with individuals who are reacting against religion.
In a nutshell, I think it's a pointless, unprovable argument. You make dislike religion, you may believe people would be better off without it, but you haven't anything other than your own anecdotal evidence to support that claim... and you never will.
quote:I heartily agree, mutual understanding can only improve our situation as it stands if you ask me.
Better, I think, for atheists and agnostics is for us to come to grips with the fact that religion isn't going anywhere, and to try to work to improve its tolerance of us and other "outside" groups... perhaps even, through our own tolerance of religion, help it to evolve and grow so that the negative aspects of it are gradually purged. [/QB]
quote:Unless it's true.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:My view on this is that that religion probably was justified at one point simply from a pragmatic POV. In the early days of civilization, the first leader was probably just a guy with the most strength or the pointiest stick. However, as leaders got tired of fighting off challengers they developed the simplest justification, that the leader was justified by some higher power. This would have developed into a religion.
Originally posted by Lisa:
The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.
Religion would have acted as a unifying force for small tribes, or in the modern equivalent, communities. In a way, this is almost a necessary step. One would hardly expect cavemen to jump directly to representative government.
The only problem is that today with pluralistic societies, religion no longer acts as a unifying force because society is too large to force everyone into the same belief.
Thus it is my view that while religion was justified in the past, it is time to move past it and recognize it as a harmful anachronism .
quote:There are many other exceptions to the no violence rule other than self-defense.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:quote:Given that violence is explicitly condemned in all but cases of self-defense by Christianity, the case can be made that the same is true of Christianity as well.
I have not swept them under the rug. I have said that atheism itself is not the cause of those atrocities.
quote:In the example of the suicide bomber, US (cultural or more direct) imperialism and the poverty of the average citizen of many Middle Eastern countries would be a key factor. Without the belief in martyrdom and the virtue of their understanding of jihad however, most suicide bombings would not be possible.
Originally posted by camus:quote:I think it's more complex than that. In addition to pychological tendencies, I think there are social and political factors that help shape and influence religious ideas. Thus, those social and political factors would be further up the causality chain and would be the more important factors to address.
If you want to be particularly esoteric and technical, you could also say that religion is never the root cause; the root cause is the psychological tendency which allows religion to survive.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Lisa:
The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.
quote:Where do you want to stop along the causality chain?
Originally posted by MrSquicky:quote:No, it hasn't. Some forms of religion have been so (as you point out in the suicide bomber example). Others have not. It is not "Religion" that is the culprit here, but rather forms and structures of thought that constitute certain religions and mythologies. These forms and structures of thought are not specific to religion, however, and are in evidence in non-religious and atheistic thought structures that have also led to the people holding them to do bad things.
Religion has been the direct cause of violence and hurt
quote:Please, find me some that aren't frequently prohibited by the New Testament. I won't say all examples will be, but most certainly will.
There are many other exceptions to the no violence rule other than self-defense.
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Unless it's true.
quote:How many will it take?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:quote:Please, find me some that aren't frequently prohibited by the New Testament. I won't say all examples will be, but most certainly will.
There are many other exceptions to the no violence rule other than self-defense.
quote:The inability to have concrete assurance of causation doesn't make correlations any less important or insightful. It's easy, for instance, to observe what role religion had in, say, 'the crusades.'
Since, as you point out, religion is inextricably tied up to everything around us through the people that create or cause the things, then it is impossible to tease out religion as the cause of anything either...
quote:So...um, Christians shouldn't "choose to err" as you put it on the side of the New Testament?
You've conceded that there is a conflict, and you've chosen to err on the side of the NT passages (which to me are much more congenial). I don't see how that isn't cherry picking from a conflicting set of statements.
quote:Yes. And there can be a great deal of legitimate debate over which colors of unicorn are acceptable and which are unacceptable. But no matter what we decide, it is still true that unicorns exist in almost every one of our beliefs - and thus it is not wise to reject a belief solely because you cannot figure out how to support it without resorting to unicorns.
And there is faith, and then there is FAITH. My faith that the pencil is a solid enough object in my hand, and that the sun will rise tomorrow are simple beliefs, simple matters of faith.
But to ask a person to believe that there is some all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, time-transcendent invisible all-father somewhere out "there"...well, that's a unicorn of a different color.
quote:Perhaps, but I would never deny the validity of reason. But I would also not deny that it has inherent limitations too.
When you feel the need to deny the validity of reason to defend your theory, you're in sorry shape indeed.
quote:That's not the OT God. That's the NT reimagining of the OT God.
Originally posted by Mucus:
If you take God from the Old Testament alone, the best I can say about him is that at least he's a step up from Zeus/Jupiter. He kept it in his pants and only impregnated one human female
quote:At a place where there is a legitimate discriminating criteria. This is really not hard.
Where do you want to stop along the causality chain?
quote:
A theistic person will accept a heck of a lot more stuff, with a lot less meaningful proof.
quote:No, neither of those. What I mean is that you can't reject a belief just because you can't prove it. Accordingly, if you demand absolute proof for a belief and nobody can offer it, that doesn't mean the belief is the wrong thing to believe. I think many beliefs are well-suppored by evidence, yet cannot be proven.
"...and thus it is not wise to reject a belief solely because you cannot figure out how to support it without resorting to unicorns."
Meaning...what? That if I can refute a belief without needing to resort to unicorns, then I can reject it? or that if I have to bring unicorns into the picture, then you will reject my attempts at refutation?
quote:Rather, I have noticed that theists and atheists disagree on what constitutes meaningful evidence. Theists tend to count religious texts, personal experiences, other authoritative sources, etc. as meaningful evidence - whereas atheists often do not.
I tend to agree with you on that. I have noticed, however, that a theistic person's level of acceptance of "evidence" is far different than a atheistic person's. A theistic person will accept a heck of a lot more stuff, with a lot less meaningful proof.
quote:No, I didn't say that.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
So...um, Christians shouldn't "choose to err" as you put it on the side of the New Testament?
quote:Why? Pure logic doesn't demand that you do nothing until there is proof; that would be highly illogical.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
Faith or trust beyond the limits of pure logic is a necessity.
quote:Oh? So where does it apply and where doesn't it?
quote:Perhaps, but I would never deny the validity of reason. But I would also not deny that it has inherent limitations too.
When you feel the need to deny the validity of reason to defend your theory, you're in sorry shape indeed.
quote:The example regarding your pen is superfluous. It's possible that you and everyone in the room with you is hallucinating and imagining a pen, and that the ink on the paper isn't really there.
The truth is, the world doesn't work like this. It would be helpful if we could have solid, absolute evidence of things, but reason alone simply cannot give it to us. We could argue for days over whether this pen in my hand exists and you would never be able to solidly prove to me that it does. There are many people who claim they have solid proof for the things they believe (people like Dawkins, religious leaders, politicians, Hatrackers on this board, etc.) but the truth is that in almost all of these cases what they are calling "solid" is actually not.
quote:So we can't overcome our subjectivity and employ deductive logic to reach a conclusion we can be certain of beyond all reasonable doubt? Does 1 + 1 really = 2? Does the house I'm in really exist?
But instead we have to rely on what "we THINK the evidence most supports", a judgement call that differs from person to person.
quote:Then most religions are built almost entirely out of glue.
Faith, or trust in unproven beliefs if you prefer to call it that, is a necessity for us. It is the glue that allows us to construct firm conclusions upon incomplete evidence.
quote:There are very good reasons for that. Religious texts have been known to be historically inaccurate and often contradictory. The miracles contained in them, and personal experiences, can be explained in much simpler terms than by god influencing human affairs. You know, Occam's Razor.
Theists tend to count religious texts, personal experiences, other authoritative sources, etc. as meaningful evidence - whereas atheists often do not.
quote:The thing is, moderate religion supports a belief system which, when put into practice fully, brings about much evil (not just violence, but the cognitive dissonance, the association of worldly sensuality with sin, the inherited guilt from the concept of original sin, et cetera as discussed on previous pages). I think a lot of Christians are reasonable people who don't practice everything their doctrine teaches. But by supporting Christianity they are obfuscating the truth and supporting a belief system which isn't reasonable at all.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
This isn't a matter of going down the causal chain. It's about your incorrect attribution of causality to a wider context than is warranted. The statement that Religion as a whole causes these things is wrong and not merely at a high level on the causal chain.
quote:Sorry, my terminology is confusing.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:That's not the OT God. That's the NT reimagining of the OT God.
Originally posted by Mucus:
If you take God from the Old Testament alone, the best I can say about him is that at least he's a step up from Zeus/Jupiter. He kept it in his pants and only impregnated one human female
quote:I've been evading it because--and this sounds snarky, but I was genuinely baffled--I didn't imagine you actually were wondering why Christians "choose the NT" rather than the OT. The New Testament is the portion of the Bible which contains the story of Jesus, His sermons, philosophies, and that of the Apostles. Christians worship Christ as the Son of God.
No, I didn't say that.
The question you've been evading is; why have they chosen the new testament rather than the old? Based on what criteria are they selecting certain passages while not others?
quote:Why, oh why, is Occam's Razor brought up in religious discussions? Ultimately it comes down to a question of, "Which is the simplest explanation? That the entire universe, including intelligent life, sprang into being entirely on its own, or that it was somehow made by the will of something?"
You know, Occam's Razor.
quote:No it's not; that just puts the question at a further remove. Why choose Jesus over Jehovah?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[Isn't this self-evident? You're asking why a Christian, who by definition worships Christ, selects the New Testament, over* the Old Testament. Pardon me for saying so, but that's a pretty darned ridiculous question.
quote:No it's not self-evident, and I don't think my question was ridiculous. Especially since the new testament is also beset with contradictions, Jesus himself has contradicted his words, and he has said that god's law is unchanging:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Isn't this self-evident? You're asking why a Christian, who by definition worships Christ, selects the New Testament, over* the Old Testament. Pardon me for saying so, but that's a pretty darned ridiculous question.
quote:Matthew 5:18
I can guarantee this truth: Until the earth and the heavens disappear, neither a period nor a comma will disappear from Moses' Teachings before everything has come true.
quote:This is exactly the kind of discussion Occam's Razor is best suited for. Positing that god, who must be unfathomably complex to have created the universe, exists, and further that he is interested in and interferes with human affairs, is hardly a simpler explanation than that the bible is historical fiction. Who or what created god? That's an even bigger question. 'Outside of time' and 'always existed' are convenient rhetorical devices.
Occam's Razor does not seem well-suited to this sort of discussion at all.
quote:Not all Christians believe the Bible is perfectly translated.
Especially since the new testament is also beset with contradictions, Jesus himself has contradicted his words, and he has said that god's law is unchanging:
quote:Given that I have said at least three or four times in this thread, not all Christians believe the Bible is perfectly translated, this argument does not really hold much water with me.
There is actually another good reason for a theist to evade my question, which is that acknowledging any cherry-picking of biblical passages and laws obliges the theist to explain what criterion for selection is so important that it may overrule god's law.
quote:I did not bring into the question a God who is interested and interferes with human affairs. I was pretty specific about why I had a problem with Occam's Razor being applied to this sort of conversation.
This is exactly the kind of discussion Occam's Razor is best suited for. Positing that god, who must be unfathomably complex to have created the universe, exists, and further that he is interested in and interferes with human affairs, is hardly a simpler explanation than that the bible is historical fiction. Who or what created god? That's an even bigger question. 'Outside of time' and 'always existed' are convenient rhetorical devices.
quote:You are still brought back, as I said originally, to the question, "Which is simpler? The universe somehow...ummmm...created itself from nothing? Or it was created by something?"
Similarly with scripture and other miracles; Occam's Razor can dispense with all evidence for Christianity.
quote:Tell me what can possibly be simple about the entire freaking universe amazingly just creating itself from nothing. Please.
It is extremely well suited, because you can point out that if a complex universe 'must have' a creator, then that complex creator must likewise have a creator; there is nothing about this explanation that can possibly be simple.
quote:The point is that this, while not simple, is still simpler than a being capable of creating the "entire freaking universe" amazingly creating itself from nothing, and then creating the universe. You're stuck with one amazing self-creation in either model, but the religious model adds a second (and possibly unnecessary) step.
Tell me what can possibly be simple about the entire freaking universe amazingly just creating itself from nothing. Please.
quote:You've got a point, Tom, but we're still left with trying to gauge the simplicity of the universe self-creating. Since we have no real idea how that could have happened, how can we judge if it's simpler than anything else or not?
The point is that this, while not simple, is still simpler than a being capable of creating the "entire freaking universe" amazingly creating itself from nothing, and then creating the universe. You're stuck with one amazing self-creation in either model, but the religious model adds a second (and possibly unnecessary) step.
quote:I've already asked you that question and you responded to it. I honestly was asking; why do Christians only follow some of the precepts of Christianity?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well, now you're actually asking the question I was pretty sure you were going to jump to in the first place. You weren't really asking why a Christian would choose to place more importance in the NT than the OT, you were asking why someone would choose any given religion at all.
quote:What part of my post was a trap?
That's a bit frustrating, I'll be honest. I'm not a fan of such obvious traps.
quote:Has Matthew 5:18 been accurately translated? Are all the moral imperatives being ignored by most Christians today the result of poor translation?
quote:Not all Christians believe the Bible is perfectly translated.
Especially since the new testament is also beset with contradictions, Jesus himself has contradicted his words, and he has said that god's law is unchanging:
quote:Wouldn't you consider sending Jesus to Earth to be "interfering with human affairs"? I didn't say for better or for worse.
I did not bring into the question a God who is interested and interferes with human affairs. I was pretty specific about why I had a problem with Occam's Razor being applied to this sort of conversation.
quote:No, I really don't.
You are still brought back, as I said originally, to the question, "Which is simpler? The universe somehow...ummmm...created itself from nothing? Or it was created by something?"
You do not know the answer to that question. Nobody does.
quote:I addressed your question, which I interpreted as meaning; How can you know which hypothesis is simpler?
It's also frustrating to have my point re: Occam's Razor be so blatantly sidestepped, and twisted into a statement I didn't make at all.
quote:The self-creation of an entity capable of creating this universe and who has taken an active part in human history is a bigger question mark; we really don't know how such a thing could happen either.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
You've got a point, Tom, but we're still left with trying to gauge the simplicity of the universe self-creating. Since we have no real idea how that could have happened, how can we judge if it's simpler than anything else or not?
quote:OK then how about the premise that God was not always the complex being he is today and was also created by his own father/god ad infinitum.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The point is that this, while not simple, is still simpler than a being capable of creating the "entire freaking universe" amazingly creating itself from nothing, and then creating the universe. You're stuck with one amazing self-creation in either model, but the religious model adds a second (and possibly unnecessary) step.
Tell me what can possibly be simple about the entire freaking universe amazingly just creating itself from nothing. Please.
quote:How is creating an infinitely long string of created gods simpler? It's actually infinitely more complex.
OK then how about the premise that God was not always the complex being he is today and was also created by his own father/god ad infinitum.
quote:
An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite series needed to provide such support could not be completed.
quote:Boothby, your ridicule isn't needed here. It seems there are people trying to have a serious conversation about an important topic. Do you intend to contribute anything other than snide comments?
Originally posted by Boothby171:
Simple, yes...
Depending on which definition of "Simple" you wish to use...
(strokes grey beard thoughtfully)
quote:Okay, almost completely.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
*The NT does not completely 'overwrite' the OT.
quote:Yup, you're right, using the same standards of evidence used for the Big Bang Theory, adding God into it is more complicated, if you pursue the question back into the infinite past. But then again, that's not really what I was comparing, now was it? I was comparing the proposition that this universe was created, versus it not being created...but be honest. What possible rational evidence do you have for stating that it is simpler that the universe somehow stemmed from nothing, than it involves, at least somewhere along the line, a supernatural creator-figure?
On the other hand, the big bang theory, based on solid but not flawless evidence, derives the origin of the universe to a singularity which doesn't break the known laws of physics. As Tom said, the origin of that singularity is already a big question mark, and adding god to the mix just adds another one. In fact conflating rather than explaining the origin of the universe.
quote:I think a truly scientific mind, Tres, will freely admit that this is a possibility, and then proceed on the assumption that it is not -- since, after all, it makes all further science moot. In other words, Occam's Razor isn't concerned purely with "simplicity," but also with a certain level of predictive utility.
Unless you believe the above absurd scenario is truly the best explanation for the universe, it is wrong to say the simplest explanation for the universe is the best.
quote:Yes, and it so happens that the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions is the most nihilistic one. By simply asserting that nothing exists beyond what we absolutely know to exist, and that no additional explanation is needed for anything, we reduce the number of assumptions down to just a few.
To dispel the confusion: Occam's Razor is a scientist's rule of thumb which states that in hypothesising an explanation for a certain phenomenon with an unknown cause, one should make as few assumptions as possible.
quote:Which means the absolute simplest explanation is not really always the best, right? At least in this one case, a far more complicated yet more useful theory is better than an extremely simple yet mostly useless theory.
I think a truly scientific mind, Tres, will freely admit that this is a possibility, and then proceed on the assumption that it is not -- since, after all, it makes all further science moot. In other words, Occam's Razor isn't concerned purely with "simplicity," but also with a certain level of predictive utility.
quote:That is not the "simplest explanation" but a refusal to offer an explanation. Occam's Razor does not preclude you from waiting on more evidence before answering; it just states that as a rule of thumb, the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct. As Tom said, our entire existence could possibly be some kind of illusion, and the world around us might not actually exist. But we are bombarded every day with information that requires us to behave as if the world does exist; since there is no way to disprove a perfect illusion, we are compelled to move on.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
By simply asserting that nothing exists beyond what we absolutely know to exist, and that no additional explanation is needed for anything, we reduce the number of assumptions down to just a few.
quote:Not at all. You are operating under the assumption that at one instant there was nothing and in another something. I just do not see how that could ever be possible.
Originally posted by King of Men:
You're still putting in an additional set of quite un-necessary entities; the evolved god still had to come from somewhere, so at some point you get back to the uncreated universe. Since that's exactly what you started with, why bother with the intermediate steps of gods?
quote:It doesn't state this. Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about what is or is not likely to be true.
it just states that as a rule of thumb, the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct.
quote:That's what you are debating about. I've tried to make clear that, for this particular question, I was not stipulating a Christian God for the sake of the argument, but any supernatural being. I'm not sure why you keep drawing it back to that, since it was not a point I was trying to make. I may have failed to communicate myself adequately, though...I'm not sure. I don't have time to go back and review my posts to see if I did.
Yes, I have no theory as to what created the conditions necessary to set off a big bang. That doesn't mean that a sentient supernatural creator figure isn't a highly complex premise which sets the question off into an infinite regress. If you take that supernatural creator figure to be the Christian god, which we were debating about, the specificity of the deity makes the premise even more complex and unlikely.
quote:Thank you for not trying to use Occam's Razor to prove anything. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Someone watches Contact and think Occam's Razor is a scientific theory or something.
Just to note again: I am not trying to use Occam's Razor as 'proof' that god does not exist. I am defending its applicability to the question of god's existence.
quote:So what was there, then?
What reasons do you have for wildly guessing that there was nothing to apply reason to before the big bang?
quote:My particular faith adheres to the Bible, and believes it is God's word insofar as it has been accurately translated. Given that most Scripture is-for my faith-thousands of years old, subjected to unknown (but very large) numbers of translations, arguably by at least some of those translators with an axe to grind...well, I don't view the Bible as an immutable moral authority is all I'm saying.
Also, could you clarify your point on biblical mistranslations? I don't see how they account for the cherry-picking of moral imperatives by Christians. And specifically, is the above quoted translation of Matthew 5:18 somehow deeply skewed, so that the original text somehow excluded mosaic law from that clause?
quote:Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the truth value of your claims. Before learning about gravity and air pressure, it made far more sense to my brain that a bowling ball would fall faster than a feather in a vacuum.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
It makes far more sense to my brain that there has never been a beginning to the universe, rather it has always existed.
quote:It does very clearly by implication. Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity; don't make untried assumptions when trying to explain something. Obviously, because it renders you less likely to be accurate. Not a law, just a rule of thumb.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:It doesn't state this. Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about what is or is not likely to be true.
it just states that as a rule of thumb, the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct.
quote:What predictive utility does a theory regarding what happened before the Big Bang have?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think a truly scientific mind, Tres, will freely admit that this is a possibility, and then proceed on the assumption that it is not -- since, after all, it makes all further science moot. In other words, Occam's Razor isn't concerned purely with "simplicity," but also with a certain level of predictive utility.
Unless you believe the above absurd scenario is truly the best explanation for the universe, it is wrong to say the simplest explanation for the universe is the best.
quote:None of us know what preceded the big bang, so please don't write as if you do: "do those two tools apply to guessing what happened before there was anything to apply them to?"
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So what was there, then?
What reasons do you have for wildly guessing that there was nothing to apply reason to before the big bang?
quote:Not all mosaic law conflicts with those commandments. Do you observe the ones that don't?
As to Matthew 5:18, I am no biblical scholar, all I've got is what my faith enlightens me towards, and that is that we should love God, and love our neighbors as we love God. That's a simplistic way of looking at it anyway, and it's also-to me-the two most important Commandments we've got. Those two, for me, come in ahead of Mosaic law.
It's 3am after a 12 hour day at uni on 3 and a half hours of sleep. I'm buggered.]quote:It depends entirely on what that theory predicts, I'd say.
What predictive utility does a theory regarding what happened before the Big Bang have?
quote:Note that I said something. It doesn't need to be a specific god of a specific religion, and it doesn't need to be all-powerful. Although, I realize that ruins much of your argument.
Originally posted by Euripides:
camus, what are these explanations which are more complex than an all-powerful god creating the universe?
quote:So (and I'm not ridiculing anybody here...Tresopax!) if "all you've got" is that God is to be loved, and your neighbors are to be loved as you love God, then there's nothing in your belief system about the creation of the universe, evolution vs. creationism, etc. and so forth. Is that correct?
As to Matthew 5:18, I am no biblical scholar, all I've got is what my faith enlightens me towards, and that is that we should love God, and love our neighbors as we love God.
quote:So your belief system is based on the KJV (or the New Word, or whatever) until it is sufficiently challenged, at which point, you refer to the ancient pre-translated biblical texts. It also seems from what you wrote (in other words--I assume) that you have not personally read those pre-translated ancient texts, and that is why your belief in God boils down to those two previously mentioned precepts.
adheres to the Bible, and believes it is God's word insofar as it has been accurately translated
quote:Your total lack of imagination does not an argument make. In any case, why bother with the gods? You can just as easily have an infinite series of universes with no creators.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Not at all. You are operating under the assumption that at one instant there was nothing and in another something. I just do not see how that could ever be possible.
Originally posted by King of Men:
You're still putting in an additional set of quite un-necessary entities; the evolved god still had to come from somewhere, so at some point you get back to the uncreated universe. Since that's exactly what you started with, why bother with the intermediate steps of gods?
quote:(Sings) And where did this go-od come from?
I'm not sure how the idea of something spontaneously appearing out of nothing and then organizing itself into elements that also previously did not exist is somehow to be considered a "simple" explanation. You would then need to explain how something could arise from absolutely nothing, which we don't really have a precedent for.
quote:Errr...no, they're not.
And where did this go-od come from?
Could you please pay attention? By putting in a god you have not solved this problem. You have moved it to a different place. That's why it's simpler not to assume a god; not because the explanation is simple in and of itself, but because it doesn't add any unnecessary complexity.
quote:The reason the answer to this question is "no" has been answered many times, at length here. I'm always amused when people point this out as if no one noticed it for 2,000 years.
Not all mosaic law conflicts with those commandments. Do you observe the ones that don't?
quote:Not when Christ himself told us that on those two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.
Are those commandments the essence of Christianity to you (only asking about your own views here)? If so, isn't your belief system is a highly selective and convenient mutation of Christian doctrine?
quote:I'm sorry, but this is meaningless noise, and also a composition fallacy. All the individual parts of the Universe are bound by time and causality, but the universe as a whole is not necessarily so bound. If your god doesn't have to come from somewhere, then neither does the universe. Exactly the same rules apply in either case.
The supernatural force that answers the "Where did the universe come from?" question is not necessarily bounded by space, time, or causality. As such, it doesn't have to come from anywhere.
quote:Explain how. What does that even mean?
All the individual parts of the Universe are bound by time and causality, but the universe as a whole is not necessarily so bound.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by 'my belief system', but I do not believe the Bible has a specific, definitive answer to the question of what mechanisms the universe, and life on Earth, were created.
So (and I'm not ridiculing anybody here...Tresopax!) if "all you've got" is that God is to be loved, and your neighbors are to be loved as you love God, then there's nothing in your belief system about the creation of the universe, evolution vs. creationism, etc. and so forth. Is that correct?
quote:Obviously I have not read the pre-translated ancient texts. It becomes difficult to take your claims of no mockery seriously when you make a statement like that. And you're wrong about my belief system re: the KJV of the Bible.
So your belief system is based on the KJV (or the New Word, or whatever) until it is sufficiently challenged, at which point, you refer to the ancient pre-translated biblical texts. It also seems from what you wrote (in other words--I assume) that you have not personally read those pre-translated ancient texts, and that is why your belief in God boils down to those two previously mentioned precepts.
So you'll argue for what you believe, until you're challenged, and then you don't know what you believe except for those two things. (A derivative of the "How can we ever really know anything?" defense)
quote:Like hell! You're the one who introduced entities which are "not bound by causality"; you can explain what it means. I called it "meaningless noise", and am therefore entitled not to explain it at all.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Explain how. What does that even mean?
All the individual parts of the Universe are bound by time and causality, but the universe as a whole is not necessarily so bound.
quote:Each individual element of the universe is in a causal chain. The whole universe is not in a causal chain, since by definition it includes everything that exists; there is nothing 'outside' to affect it. That's what I meant by the fallacy of composition; in effect you are saying that because humans are composed of cells, humans are cells.
There has to be something to start a causal chain. Since the universe operates in a causal chain and it is sequential in both time and causality, it must, logically, have a starting point to these chains. This starting point cannot itself be caused or else the cause of that would be the starting point. I don't see how that works in a materialistic view. But perhaps you can explain.
quote:I have to agree with KOM here. Sure, if we accept Lisa's statement that God==Existence, then we can all pretty much agree that there is a god. Heck, I imagine that KOM could even agree to this as long as that was the entirety of the definition.
Originally posted by King of Men:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrSquicky:
[qb]
Finally, you should note that theists do not merely postulate a prime mover "outside of time", they give that prime mover intentions and highly anthropomorphic qualities. Now, that is un-necessary.
quote:You are distinguishing between "creation" and "creationism" in a way I have not seen before. Could you explain? Generally I have seen them used such that belief in "creation" means any belief that God created the universe, (which may or may not be compatible with current scientific understandings of evolution, etc.), and "creationism" as a specific set of beliefs that are incompatable with current scientific understandings of evolution, etc.
Originally posted by Boothby171:
the atheist's view of evolution (creationism) and the birth of the universe (creation)
quote:We do not have a single precedent for a supernatural entity; especially one so complex and powerful that it could create the universe. Also, by positing the existence of a creator, you are just pushing the question farther away. This has been explained by KoM.
Originally posted by camus:
I'm not sure how the idea of something spontaneously appearing out of nothing and then organizing itself into elements that also previously did not exist is somehow to be considered a "simple" explanation. You would then need to explain how something could arise from absolutely nothing, which we don't really have a precedent for. Whereas the idea of something creating something else is pretty well documented.
quote:What KoM said.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
This comes up every time Tom and you and others do this, but you just keep ignoring it. The supernatural force that answers the "Where did the universe come from?" question is not necessarily bounded by space, time, or causality. As such, it doesn't have to come from anywhere.
quote:Actually, ecumenical councils have not yet been brought up in this thread at all. Maybe by "here" you meant Hatrack.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The reason the answer to this question is "no" has been answered many times, at length here. I'm always amused when people point this out as if no one noticed it for 2,000 years.
Not all mosaic law conflicts with those commandments. Do you observe the ones that don't?
It was the subject of the very first ecumenical council and is described in detail in the Bible.
quote:It was applicable to the early Christians when Moses handed them down, and according to Jesus' statements in the verse in Matthew I've quoted above, still applies. Again, this depends on what parts of the bible one wishes to follow.
There was never a time when all people were commanded to obey Mosaic law.
quote:I assume you're referring to Matt 22:37-40. "Hang on" is more accurately "directly contradicts much of". This is in the same book where Jesus states that mosaic law applies forever (or "till heaven and earth pass"), and "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)
quote:Not when Christ himself told us that on those two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.
Are those commandments the essence of Christianity to you (only asking about your own views here)? If so, isn't your belief system is a highly selective and convenient mutation of Christian doctrine?
quote:I love. Therefore god exists and Jesus died for our sins et cetera?
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
Love is like that. It transcends science and reason all of the time, in everyday situations. You don't have to love something fake to laugh in the face of scientific evidence, you just have to experience a little chemical reaction in your brain called 'love,' and science will fly right out the window.
quote:The "amendment" as you put it is in the word of God. It's in the Bible, right after the Gospels.
Do you recognize the authority of an ecumenical council to alter or append clauses to the word of god?
quote:The council of Jerusalem - which was overseen by Peter and attended by the Twelve (including the replacement of Judas) plus Paul. Based on everything Mormons have posted about their beliefs here, I think this is recognized as authoritative. Rakeesh can confirm.
The question was also asked of Rakeesh. It is curious that he would consider your argument applicable to his position, because the Church of LDS does not recognize the validity of any of the seven ecumenical councils. In fact, Mormons use the council as evidence of apostasy; of the fact that much of Christendom has fallen.
quote:No, it doesn't. You have almost no idea what you are talking about. Mosaic law was given to the Jews to follow. There is absolutely nothing to support your contention that anyone who wishes to follow Jesus needs to follow Mosaic Law. At most, it would only apply to Jews who wish to follow Jesus. Yet the person who was explicitly given the keys to Heaven, by Christ himself, used the authority given to him by God to declare that your interpretation is inaccurate. Why on earth would I take yours over his, when yours is riddled with errors?
It was applicable to the early Christians when Moses handed them down, even though that conflicts with Jesus' statements the verse in Matthew I've quoted above. Again, this depends on what parts of the bible one wishes to follow.
quote:Yes, the law is unchanging. Yet it never applied to everyone. To have it apply to everyone would be to change it.
In fact, if that means 'Christ's teachings', it would include his statement that the law is unchanging.
quote:No, it's not.
I assume you're referring to Matt 22:37-40. "Hang on" is more accurately "directly contradicts much of".
quote:The mosaic law applies forever. That doesn't mean it applies to all. It never did.
This is in the same book where Jesus states that mosaic law applies forever (or "till heaven and earth pass"), and "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)
quote:A lot of theists I know argue that the bible is a collection of human stories and interpretations which help to reveal the word of god but aren't exactly. If the ecumenical councils gain divine mandate by virtue of being in the bible, then yes, the councils can overrule any conflicts.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The "amendment" as you put it is in the word of God. It's in the Bible, right after the Gospels.
Do you recognize the authority of an ecumenical council to alter or append clauses to the word of god?
quote:The less than clear implication of that council is that sects within the church deemed it unnecessary to observe mosaic law. If the ruling is considered authoritative by Mormons (and I think you're correct that it is generally accepted), their stance on the seven ecumenical councils which often revolve around the same issue of mosaic law - that they were human deviations from god's word - runs counter to it.
quote:The council of Jerusalem - which was overseen by Peter and attended by the Twelve (including the replacement of Judas) plus Paul. Based on everything Mormons have posted about their beliefs here, I think this is recognized as authoritative. Rakeesh can confirm.
The question was also asked of Rakeesh. It is curious that he would consider your argument applicable to his position, because the Church of LDS does not recognize the validity of any of the seven ecumenical councils. In fact, Mormons use the council as evidence of apostasy; of the fact that much of Christendom has fallen.
quote:Yes, god did give the law to the Israelites through Moses. I know that. Yet Christian doctrine is very much based on parts of that law; the ten commandments being the first set of imperatives laid down among Moses' teachings. I did not say that observance of mosaic law is requisite for following Jesus. Furthermore, if the bible is the word of god, Christians are more than just "followers of Jesus."
quote:No, it doesn't. You have almost no idea what you are talking about. Mosaic law was given to the Jews to follow. There is absolutely nothing to support your contention that anyone who wishes to follow Jesus needs to follow Mosaic Law. At most, it would only apply to Jews who wish to follow Jesus. Yet the person who was explicitly given the keys to Heaven, by Christ himself, used the authority given to him by God to declare that your interpretation is inaccurate. Why on earth would I take yours over his, when yours is riddled with errors?
It was applicable to the early Christians when Moses handed them down, even though that conflicts with Jesus' statements the verse in Matthew I've quoted above. Again, this depends on what parts of the bible one wishes to follow.
quote:The reason Occam's Razor suggests entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity is not because complex theories are more likely to be inaccurate. Rather it is because those complicated theories are harder to work with yet add nothing to the predictive power of the theory. Like saying "(3-2)^5 + 8/4-1 = 2" instead of "1+1=2". The latter is not more likely to be true, but it is much easier to use.
quote:It does very clearly by implication. Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity; don't make untried assumptions when trying to explain something. Obviously, because it renders you less likely to be accurate. Not a law, just a rule of thumb.
It doesn't state this. Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about what is or is not likely to be true.
quote:That was what Ockham meant when he wrote it down, but not the way the Razor is usually used or applied today. I was using it the way Jerrold Katz put it:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
The reason Occam's Razor suggests entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity is not because complex theories are more likely to be inaccurate. Rather it is because those complicated theories are harder to work with yet add nothing to the predictive power of the theory. Like saying "(3-2)^5 + 8/4-1 = 2" instead of "1+1=2". The latter is not more likely to be true, but it is much easier to use.
quote:If to you that is no longer Occam's Razor but a different theory, that's technical hair you could split. In the context of science most would disagree; when we say Occam's Razor, the above is what we mean.
If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G.
quote:Firstly, the scenarios you used were not necessarily effective counterexamples. Take the 'earth is solid and doesn't move' hypothesis. 'The continents don't move' definitely sounds simpler than 'the earth's crust is divided up into tectonic plates which move over a layer of molten rock called the mantle...' But that is a matter of wording and narrow scope. If the continents don't move, there must be an alternate explanation for earthquakes and fossil records showing similarities between animals on different continents, to name a couple of things. So another way to write your hypothesis is 'The continents don't move, and earthquakes are caused by __________ while the similarities in fossils are explained by __________' as opposed to 'the earth's crust is divided into tectonic plates which move over a layer of molten rock, occasionally causing earthquakes when the plates rub against each other and causing continents to move over long periods of time.'
Thus I don't see any evidence to conclude that simple theories are more likely to be true than false ones. Do you have any such evidence?
quote:I would argue that this is only because many people today use Occam's Razor wrongly. And this isn't just technical hair splitting, because if Occam's Razor means "complex theories are more likely to be false" then it is no longer a useful rule of thumb - because it would be false, or at least totally unproven!
That was what Ockham meant when he wrote it down, but not the way the Razor is usually used or applied today. I was using it the way Jerrold Katz put it:
quote:The "continents don't move" one still sounds simpler to me. Earthquakes can be caused by uneven heating and movement in deeper layers of the earth, and fossil similarities can be explained by the evolutionary neccessity of developing certain similar yet useful characteristics. This seems much simpler than developing a whole theory of moving plates, which then needs additional mechanisms to explain how and why they move, etc.
Firstly, the scenarios you used were not necessarily effective counterexamples. Take the 'earth is solid and doesn't move' hypothesis. 'The continents don't move' definitely sounds simpler than 'the earth's crust is divided up into tectonic plates which move over a layer of molten rock called the mantle...' But that is a matter of wording and narrow scope. If the continents don't move, there must be an alternate explanation for earthquakes and fossil records showing similarities between animals on different continents, to name a couple of things. So another way to write your hypothesis is 'The continents don't move, and earthquakes are caused by __________ while the similarities in fossils are explained by __________' as opposed to 'the earth's crust is divided into tectonic plates which move over a layer of molten rock, occasionally causing earthquakes when the plates rub against each other and causing continents to move over long periods of time.'
quote:"If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G."
Originally posted by Tresopax:
Katz's definition says nothing about G being more likely to be true than H.
quote:Your theory involves the mechanisms of evolution and requires another explanation for the 'uneven heating'. Sorry, I don't see how your version is simpler.
The "continents don't move" one still sounds simpler to me. Earthquakes can be caused by uneven heating and movement in deeper layers of the earth, and fossil similarities can be explained by the evolutionary neccessity of developing certain similar yet useful characteristics. This seems much simpler than developing a whole theory of moving plates, which then needs additional mechanisms to explain how and why they move, etc.
quote:I don't have a statistical study at hand.
Note that although you didn't like my counterexample, you also didn't give me any evidence that complicated theories are more likely to be false than simple theories. Is there any such evidence to support a claim that more complicated theories are likely to be disproven in favor of more simple theories?
quote:Says who? Just because we say that God/Existence has attributes such as Will and Intent doesn't mean that's not God. Or that it's not Existence.
Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:I have to agree with KOM here. Sure, if we accept Lisa's statement that God==Existence, then we can all pretty much agree that there is a god. Heck, I imagine that KOM could even agree to this as long as that was the entirety of the definition.
Originally posted by King of Men:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrSquicky:
[qb]
Finally, you should note that theists do not merely postulate a prime mover "outside of time", they give that prime mover intentions and highly anthropomorphic qualities. Now, that is un-necessary.
Of course, this isn't the definition of God.
quote:And again, this says nothing about G being more likely to be true than H.
"If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G."
quote:Why do you think that more assumptions would make it less plausible? Note that in your example the "very plausible" example involving your friends has no fewer assumptions than the possibility involving the poltergeist (since your friends also have specific names, a specific agenda, etc.) I'd say the reason you consider the poltergeist to be less plausible has nothing to do with the complixity of the theory, but rather because it involves a supernatural entity. And even more likely scenarios are far far more complicated than any of the three options you gave - for instance, the chance that a fusion reaction in the sun generated light which reflected off the moon into the window of your room, while being partially reflected by a cloud whose movement cause a shift in the amount of light entering your room, which in turn created an illusion in your mind that made you think something moved when in fact it was just a shift in the light. I'd say this scenario is far more likely than the one involving your friends, yet it is also far more complicated.
A small thought experiment is possible though. If I walk into a dark room and think I see something move without anything pushing or pulling it, there are many explanations I could advance. One would be that I imagined it, that my friends were pulling a trick on me and using strings, (so far very plausible; few assumptions) or maybe a poltergeist or a spirit of some kind. Maybe the spirit that moved the object has a specific name, and a certain agenda, et cetera. The more assumptions that are piled on, the less plausible the explanation appears
quote:As a rule of thumb, yes. The more a theory is supported by evidence, the more stock I put in it. The more you assume, the farther you depart from known evidence.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
You seem to be assuming that if evidence gives proportioniately less "support" to a theory then the theory is less likely to be true,
quote:The kind of assumptions that the friend scenario requires are trivial; e.g. that my friends would have had access to the room, that they would find such a prank funny, etc. The poltergeist scenario involves profound assumptions like 'supernatural entities exist' and 'supernatural entities can manipulate matter or exert force in the physical world.'
Why do you think that more assumptions would make it less plausible? Note that in your example the "very plausible" example involving your friends has no fewer assumptions than the possibility involving the poltergeist (since your friends also have specific names, a specific agenda, etc.)
quote:Again, you worded the sunlight scenario to include a lot of science that the other scenarios would also have to explain. Further, that science has been tested and corroborated. To guess that it was a trick of the light makes trivial assumptions about circumstances.
I'd say this scenario is far more likely than the one involving your friends, yet it is also far more complicated.
quote:That is not the same as saying "if evidence gives proportioniately less support to a theory then the theory is less likely to be true". The key word is "proportioniately".
As a rule of thumb, yes. The more a theory is supported by evidence, the more stock I put in it.
quote:
The kind of assumptions that the friend scenario requires are trivial; e.g. that my friends would have had access to the room, that they would find such a prank funny, etc. The poltergeist scenario involves profound assumptions like 'supernatural entities exist' and 'supernatural entities can manipulate matter or exert force in the physical world.'
quote:Based on both the above quotes, it sounds like it is not the NUMBER of assumptions that determines whether you find explanations plausible, but rather the degree to which you find the assumptions themselves plausible that determines whether you find the explanation plausible. A theory based on one unproven supernatural assumption is less plausible than a theory based on ten tested and corroborated assumptions, no?
Again, you worded the sunlight scenario to include a lot of science that the other scenarios would also have to explain. Further, that science has been tested and corroborated. To guess that it was a trick of the light makes trivial assumptions about circumstances.
quote:Except that God put no such conditions on the Law when He gave it to us. Instead, He said they were eternal statutes. And in fact, He even anticipated someone coming in His name and trying to claim that the Law had been abrogated. We were instructed to put such a one to death as a false prophet.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Euripides: It honestly strikes me as ironic that you believe Jesus said something that is vehemently argued against in the New Testament.
YMMV but when Jesus speaks of "fulfilling not destroying." he is stating that he is the end of the law. The law was designed to prepare the Jewish people for the coming of the messiah, all things pointing to his coming.
quote:A lamb is a lamb. And incidentally, the pascal offering wasn't necessarily a lamb. It was a lamb or a kid. It certainly was not a person. The episode of the binding of Isaac was God's demonstration to us that He does not view the death of a person as a good thing, even if it's a sacrifice to Him.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The sacrifice of the lamb without blemish being the most striking symbol of what God did when he sacrificed Jesus (a sinless man) to save mankind.
quote:Violating the Sabbath and excusing it with "The Sabbath was made for man -- not man for the Sabbath" is not following the Law. Saying that what comes out of a person's mouth is more important than what goes in, and using that aphorism to excuse violations of the Law... that's another example. Vandalizing the property of businessmen at the Temple, even if out of a sense of personal outrage, is yet another.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Jesus followed the Law of Moses his entire life, he encouraged his followers to do the same.
quote:Would you like me to sit down with a concordance and give you an exhaustive list of God's counterclaims on that point?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If Jesus was trying to destroy the law then he would be saying it was wrong or incorrect. By fulfilling it his ministry was more or less the concluding chapter to that law. The Law of Moses is by no means eternal.
quote:How does that follow? Sorry, that's a leading question. It doesn't follow. God gave it as an eternal statute. That means it has to be kept by us forever. From that point forward. Prior to Sinai, no one was bound by it.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Every righteous man prior to Moses, men such as Abraham Isaac and Jacob (Israel) all had commandments that they followed and were unrelated to the law of moses. Were the law eternal God would have required righteous men and women in all ages to live it.
quote:"If". But the concept continues to exist, and the Law continues to be binding. God gave many criteria for many laws. In no place did He ever give any laws conditioned to expire when the Messiah comes.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If there was no concept of clean or unclean the Law of Moses was clearly no longer in effect.
quote:I'm considering them as separate, like "Spokes on a wheel and how many fish I caught last Sunday" I'm not looking for any great relationship between them.
the atheist's view of evolution (creationism) and the birth of the universe (creation)
quote:And you got 'im good, too! Quit yer bitchin'!
And in fact, He even anticipated someone coming in His name and trying to claim that the Law had been abrogated. We were instructed to put such a one to death as a false prophet.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:In other words, the more "complicated" version of Occams Razor that you are proposing is false, while the simpler version that Euripides is promoting is true.
I would argue that this is only because many people today use Occam's Razor wrongly. And this isn't just technical hair splitting, because if Occam's Razor means "complex theories are more likely to be false" then it is no longer a useful rule of thumb - because it would be false, or at least totally unproven!
quote:It was difficult for me to understand what you mean here. If I'm interpretting it correctly, assumptions like evolution or 'supernatural entities exist' are 'heavy' while assumptions like 'my friends would find this prank funny' are light.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
If the proportion of evidence to "weight" is what matters (rather than just the amount of evidence itself), then you must not only assume that more evidence = more likely to be true, but you must ALSO assume that more weight = less likely to be true.
quote:That passage seems only to apply to food. Why does it extend to all notions of purity and impurity (eg. the ritual impurities of coming into contact with semen or menstrual blood, or a chair if a menstruating woman sat on it)?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The lesson was in part a correction to Peter that the gospel should be extended to the Gentiles, but it was also a lesson that there was no such thing as clean and unclean anymore as God had "cleansed" them. If food could no longer be considered clean or unclean why should people be clean or unclean?
If there was no concept of clean or unclean the Law of Moses was clearly no longer in effect.
quote:Honest question, because I don't know the answer: is Luke 24:44-45 the only passage that explicitly supports this interpretation? It seems vague at best to me on that point, and so much hinges on what exactly is meant by 'fulfilled'. I'd appreciate it if any one of our resident experts could shed light on it.
Jesus clearly explains that he has fulfilled all that the prophets including Moses stated he would do, the law that was designed to prepare people for Christs coming was finally fulfilled. Jesus' mission complete he proceeded to ascend into heaven.
quote:Is there anything in the bible to corroborate the following?
The Book of Mormon has some masterfully crafted passages on the nature of the Law of Moses and the messiah but Ill keep my comments limited to the Bible. But if you are interested,
Mosiah 13:27-35
quote:The passage seems to read intent into the words of god (or perhaps Jesus); and conlcudes that observing mosaic law was a matter of expediency; that the reason mosaic law does not apply to king Noah and his people is because it's not expedient in their situation.
29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;
30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.
quote:No, if you read back in the thread it was Euripides who suggested Occam's Razor implies complex theories are more likely to be false. I don't agree with that.
In other words, the more "complicated" version of Occams Razor that you are proposing is false, while the simpler version that Euripides is promoting is true
quote:No I was referring to the quote you gave from Mr. Katz, which introduced a concept of the "weight" of a theory. Katz said that the more assumptions a theory entailed, the greater the "weight" of a theory. So a "heavy" theory would be one that has more assumptions.
It was difficult for me to understand what you mean here. If I'm interpretting it correctly, assumptions like evolution or 'supernatural entities exist' are 'heavy' while assumptions like 'my friends would find this prank funny' are light.
quote:But here's the thing: Occam's Razor is not about whether assumptions are plausible or not. Rather it is just about the NUMBER of assumptions, or entities, a theory entails. It says more entities equals an inferior theory.
The reason I say that a theory which relies on evolution as its premise is not rendered implausible by Occam's Razor is that evolution is so well supported by evidence.
quote:Come on, that's not what I said. If you posit highly specific untried assumptions to explain a phenomenon, it tends to be less likely to be true. In the case of the poltergeist, if I posited that the spirit was in fact an angel, my theory would be even less plausible.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
No, if you read back in the thread it was Euripides who suggested Occam's Razor implies complex theories are more likely to be false. I don't agree with that.
quote:Sorry, but I think you need to read the quote again.
No I was referring to the quote you gave from Mr. Katz, which introduced a concept of the "weight" of a theory. Katz said that the more assumptions a theory entailed, the greater the "weight" of a theory. So a "heavy" theory would be one that has more assumptions.
quote:Technically, yes. Yet the more profound assumptions like 'there is a poltergeist in this house' tend to be shorthand for a whole set of 'entities' with far-reaching implications which also demand explanation.
But here's the thing: Occam's Razor is not about whether assumptions are plausible or not. Rather it is just about the NUMBER of assumptions, or entities, a theory entails. It says more entities equals an inferior theory.
quote:I interpret "assumptions" as hypothetical, unproven entities. In that case, an explanation based completely on well proven steps is "simpler" than one that relies on miracles (despite having perhaps more total steps or entities), because there are less unproven entities or assumptions. Granted, that may not be your definition, but communication is generally easier and clearer if everyone uses the same definition when discussing things.
Occam's Razor is not about whether assumptions are plausible or not. Rather it is just about the NUMBER of assumptions, or entities, a theory entails. It says more entities equals an inferior theory.
quote:"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NIV).
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Lisa: If you really want to join this conversation Ill have to politely decline to answer your excellent points until tomorrow.
But could I ask you to before then provide the passages you said that state the eternal nature of the Law of Moses. Particularly the passage you said states that if anybody were to come and say the law was concluded that they should be stoned.
quote:I didn't. I probably will, but you do realize that there's a lack of parity here, right? You do recognize Ezekiel and Leviticus and the like as holy scripture, while I don't recognize the Book of Mormon as being such. So while I may find the passages you cited interesting (which is why I'll probably read them), I don't consider them relevant to the issue at hand.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Did you perchance read any of the passages I linked from the Book of Mormon?
quote:Take seriously, yes. But maybe not in the sense that you mean. I hope you understand, though, that I had to post what I did. You posted statements phrased as a matter of fact which referred to Jews and to the Torah that God gave us. You did so without the caveat that what you were saying was only according to Mormonism. I felt a need to correct your statements, since they were misstatements about me and mine. I wasn't making statements about you and your religion.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
edit: Also in retrospect I am not sure there is much point conversing unless you actually care to converse. I am not sure I am up to just trading carefully crafted point to point posts that do absolutely nothing. I greatly respect your knowledge of Judaism, and you have already helped me understand much of that religion. I can honestly say that you may very well say something that gives me something to think about if not actually accept, but I am not sure if there is anything I could say that you would actually take seriously.
quote:You said that Occam's Razor states "the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct." That is a quote from your post earlier.
quote:Come on, that's not what I said.
No, if you read back in the thread it was Euripides who suggested Occam's Razor implies complex theories are more likely to be false. I don't agree with that.
quote:Katz said "If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G." The entire argument is built around this concept of "weight", which stems from postulating more entities.
quote:Sorry, but I think you need to read the quote again.
No I was referring to the quote you gave from Mr. Katz, which introduced a concept of the "weight" of a theory. Katz said that the more assumptions a theory entailed, the greater the "weight" of a theory. So a "heavy" theory would be one that has more assumptions.
quote:How is "the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct" the equivalent of "complex theories are more likely to be false"?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
You said that Occam's Razor states "the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct." That is a quote from your post earlier.
quote:Ah, okay. I see what you mean, sorry.
quote:Katz said "If a hypothesis, H, explains the same evidence as a hypothesis G, but does so by postulating more entities than G, then, other things being equal, the evidence has to bear greater weight in the case of H than in the case of G, and hence the amount of support it gives H is proportionately less than it gives G." The entire argument is built around this concept of "weight", which stems from postulating more entities.
quote:Sorry, but I think you need to read the quote again.
No I was referring to the quote you gave from Mr. Katz, which introduced a concept of the "weight" of a theory. Katz said that the more assumptions a theory entailed, the greater the "weight" of a theory. So a "heavy" theory would be one that has more assumptions.
quote:No, not really.
Since we cannot calculate the probability of the existence of a creator nor the probability of a universe appearing from the middle of nowhere, both of these explanations would be equal in terms of assumptions.
quote:Why would we have to answer those questions?
A Creator is just another mechanism. If we assume a Creator, we STILL have to answer questions about the mechanism: how did the Creator do it? What's the Creator like? Was the universe a conscious act of creation? And so forth.
quote:My point is that the idea of some supernatural force is neither the most simple nor the most complicated theory out there. I'm able to accept the existence of an impersonal god/creator, if that is indeed what exists.
Saying that asserting the supernatural makes something "simpler" is only true if you don't really think about the supernatural much.
quote:Complex theories = Theories that entail more assumptions
How is "the more assumptions you make, the less likely your hypothesis is to be correct" the equivalent of "complex theories are more likely to be false"?
quote:Nope. Theories that posit more premises, perhaps. That doesn't mean those premises are assumptions; they could be verified facts.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
Complex theories = Theories that entail more assumptions
quote:Perhaps my summary was a little weak. In The God Delusion, Dawkins (not so much Dawkins as it was Bertrand Russell) describes a Celestial Teapot that exists somewhere between the Earth and Mars and is too small to be detected by our strongest telescopes. He explains that the odds of the Celestial Teapot existing are not equal to the odds of this Teapot *not* existing. Since the Celestial Teapot is something we can’t detect, there is a possibility it is real, but probability tells us that, odds are, it is not real.
Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:I love. Therefore god exists and Jesus died for our sins et cetera?
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
Love is like that. It transcends science and reason all of the time, in everyday situations. You don't have to love something fake to laugh in the face of scientific evidence, you just have to experience a little chemical reaction in your brain called 'love,' and science will fly right out the window.
You should point out to these people who try to use love as evidence for religion, that the two statements have nothing to do with each other. I can't say I've met anyone who's used such a weak argument.
quote:Feel better.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Lisa/Euripides: I have been struck down by a sore throat and I got approximately 2 hours of sleep last night. Ill probably save the extensive posts for tomorrow as they can help pass the time at work.
My Apologies.
quote:To be more specific, the space of all things that could possibly exist is much larger than the space of things that actually do exist, and therefore, for any given entity in the first space, it is not actually very likely to be in the second space unless you have actual proof of it. In a similar vein, the space of all possible gods is plainly much larger than the space of gods that actually exist, whether or not that latter space is empty.
He explains that the odds of the Celestial Teapot existing are not equal to the odds of this Teapot *not* existing. Since the Celestial Teapot is something we can’t detect, there is a possibility it is real, but probability tells us that, odds are, it is not real.
quote:Thanks for clarifying.
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
I was saying that faith itself is not the sacred impediment to logic, but that love is what really messes things up. From a personal standpoint, I have seen people irrationally love many things, and I think it is both beautiful and terrible that they do this.
quote:The species of the sacrifice was not as important as the fact it had to be unblemished. The lamb/kid aspect of it denotes innocence, as Jesus was innocent of any crime/sin and he was sent to die.
A lamb is a lamb. And incidentally, the pascal offering wasn't necessarily a lamb. It was a lamb or a kid. It certainly was not a person. The episode of the binding of Isaac was God's demonstration to us that He does not view the death of a person as a good thing, even if it's a sacrifice to Him.
quote:And how again according to the law did Jesus violate the sabbath? I do not recall healing being a violation of the sabbath.
Violating the Sabbath and excusing it with "The Sabbath was made for man -- not man for the Sabbath" is not following the Law. Saying that what comes out of a person's mouth is more important than what goes in, and using that aphorism to excuse violations of the Law... that's another example. Vandalizing the property of businessmen at the Temple, even if out of a sense of personal outrage, is yet another.
quote:I was not making statements germane to Mormonism, I was making statements that The Bible itself makes. If other Christians disagree with me it has nothing to do with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and everything to do with how they are reading the Bible. I only linked the Book of Mormon verses as an aside for people who are interested in reading the Book of Mormons well written and clear POV. I noted that I would refrain from using it and restrict myself to the Bible.
Take seriously, yes. But maybe not in the sense that you mean. I hope you understand, though, that I had to post what I did. You posted statements phrased as a matter of fact which referred to Jews and to the Torah that God gave us. You did so without the caveat that what you were saying was only according to Mormonism. I felt a need to correct your statements, since they were misstatements about me and mine. I wasn't making statements about you and your religion.
quote:You have not established the eternal nature of the law at all IMO.
How does that follow? Sorry, that's a leading question. It doesn't follow. God gave it as an eternal statute. That means it has to be kept by us forever. From that point forward. Prior to Sinai, no one was bound by it.
quote:On the contrary, God has clearly stated in even the OT why he established the law. Isaiah 48:3-4 (read the following 3 chapters to get context) Isaiah 48:3-4 the follow 3 chapters all discuss the nature of the messiah to come and what his mission will be. He will bring salvation to everyone, and salvation is not found in the Law, but in God. Surely the law of moses in of itself saves nobody.
t's a mistake to assume that you know the reason or reasons why God gave the Law. Some of the laws are moral issues, such as not murdering or stealing. But some have no inherent moral aspect to them at all, that we know of. Not eating pork, for example.
quote:COMPLETELY AGREE! And since you do not acknowledge Jesus, I am glad you continue to observe the law. But if God himself came down and said, the purposes of the law are fulfilled and now I will give you a new law, I still don't think you can find anything in the scriptures where God said the Law of Moses will be followed forever and ever without end. You can only find statements where God says that he must always be obeyed.
There were indeed laws that God gave to mankind even before Sinai. Laws which were binding on all men (not just Jews) from the time of Adam onwards. And which are still binding on all men today. The many additional requirements in the Law given at Sinai were given to a specific people, who did not exist as a people prior to that time. There were no Jews to be bound by the Law before Sinai. God created us at Sinai as He gave us His Law.
quote:Context context. Peter was asked to teach the gospel and baptize a gentile, something he was reluctant to do because he thought it was wrong to admit an unclean gentile into the church. The vision was given to him EN ROUTE to the gentiles house and Peter cites it as the reason why he knows that no man or woman can be rightly called clean or unclean from now on.
hat passage seems only to apply to food. Why does it extend to all notions of purity and impurity (eg. the ritual impurities of coming into contact with semen or menstrual blood, or a chair if a menstruating woman sat on it)?
And wouldn't considering mosaic law moot for that reason be skipping a whole lot of other laws?
quote:My apolgies, more context. King Noah and his people were all very wicked, and Abinadi was called of God to call them to repentance. The priests of King Noah argued that they taught the law of Moses to the people, (a lie) Abinadi not only showed that they did not keep the law of Moses, but that they did not even understand the purpose of the law in the first place, the priests of Noah certainly did not teach the people to look forward to the coming of the son of God, their redemption, they spent more time with harlots and gluttony then they did teaching, if we are to believe Abinadi.
The passage seems to read intent into the words of god (or perhaps Jesus); and conlcudes that observing mosaic law was a matter of expediency; that the reason mosaic law does not apply to king Noah and his people is because it's not expedient in their situation.
quote:See the Isaiah verses I linked for Lisa.
Is there anything in the bible to corroborate the following?
quote: 29 And now I say unto you that it was expedient that there should be a law given to the children of Israel, yea, even a very strict law; for they were a stiffnecked people, quick to do iniquity, and slow to remember the Lord their God;
30 Therefore there was a law given them, yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.
quote:According to your interpretation.
The species of the sacrifice was not as important as the fact it had to be unblemished.
quote:I was not particularly happy with my statement there. I'd like to revise it, but I am not sure exactly how.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:According to your interpretation.
The species of the sacrifice was not as important as the fact it had to be unblemished.
Actually, just take that sentence and apply it to most of your objections.
quote:I am sorry you felt mmost of my post could be effectively responded to with just those few words, I am confident I said many things that were not just a matter of opinion but explicitly stated in the texts I am quoting.
Actually, just take that sentence and apply it to most of your objections.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
quote:Not really. Predicting the future wasn't enough, and in any case, even if we posit (for the sake of argument only, because I don't think it's the case) that the predictions which came true were written before the fact, there were others which didn't come true.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
That certainly seems to leave open the possibility of Jesus being right.
quote:Nope. God Himself says that He may send a prophet who can do signs and wonders, but as a test. Saying and doing things in God's name which violated the Torah qualifies.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
He predicted several things one of which we know happened (Jerusalem being destroyed, and its people scattered.) and his own death on the cross + ressurection. Assuming all those things occurred, does that validate his remarks concerning the law?
quote:<shrug> I knew a Wiccan who performed actual magic. Magick, rather. Not all miracles come from God. Or... are you claiming that all miracles come from God? Because that opens a whole pandora's box, and you'd have to contend with a lot of things that you'd probably rather not.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Jesus many times said to the pharisees in effect, "If ye believe not my words, then look at my works, how can I perform these miracles if I do not have God's approval?"
quote:Sez who?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:The species of the sacrifice was not as important as the fact it had to be unblemished.
A lamb is a lamb. And incidentally, the pascal offering wasn't necessarily a lamb. It was a lamb or a kid. It certainly was not a person. The episode of the binding of Isaac was God's demonstration to us that He does not view the death of a person as a good thing, even if it's a sacrifice to Him.
quote:God didn't say anything about innocence. He said "seh", which is a sheep or goat. You can say, "This is what God really meant by that", but I don't get what your basis is for making such a claim. I mean, we have God's explanations of the text of the Torah. He gave them to us along with the rest of the Torah, way back at Sinai. But reinterpreting an unblemishes kid or lamb as being merely a symbol that could be filled as well by a human being... I don't get how you can say that.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The lamb/kid aspect of it denotes innocence, as Jesus was innocent of any crime/sin and he was sent to die.
quote:God didn't command the symbol. He commanded what He commanded. How can a symbol cancel out God's commandments?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The sacrifice is a type or shadow of what Christ did, that does not mean its a literal reenactment.
quote:Which you'll agree is a fairly easy claim to make, no? The only real way to substantiate such a claim is not to be killed.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Jesus allowed himself to die, but he was certainly condemned to death by men. He himself stated he had the power to maintain his life, and no man could take it from him.
quote:Harvesting is. Reaping is. He used David as an excuse, but David was on the run, and required food to stay alive. That didn't apply at all here.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:And how again according to the law did Jesus violate the sabbath? I do not recall healing being a violation of the sabbath.
Violating the Sabbath and excusing it with "The Sabbath was made for man -- not man for the Sabbath" is not following the Law. Saying that what comes out of a person's mouth is more important than what goes in, and using that aphorism to excuse violations of the Law... that's another example. Vandalizing the property of businessmen at the Temple, even if out of a sense of personal outrage, is yet another.
quote:Matthew 21:12 says he "cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves". Vandalism. Assault, probably, as well. And you assume that they were violating the sanctity of the Temple. I disagree. They were there for a reason. But even if they were, he took the law into his own hands, and acted as a violent vigilante.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Vandalized? He did no such thing, he insisted the men who were violating the sanctity of the temple leave immediately. He ejected them, he did not molest their persons or even the animals.
quote:Assuming they did (again, for the sake of argument), what's the matter with asking someone to give a defense of his acts? Even if the acts seem to be indefensible, it's proper to give a person the opportunity to speak in his own defense.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If Jesus was in the wrong why was the question posed by scribes/scholars "What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?"
quote:Excuse me? Where do you get this from?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If Jesus was wrong in what he did wouldn't they have objected to him doing it at all? No they complained that Jesus did what they should have ALREADY been doing.
quote:That's right. And the law comes with rules for how it is to be applied. They do not include someone who finds it distasteful turning over tables and chasing people out.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
It was not personal outrage it was outrage at such a blemish on the house of the very God who gave the law in the first place.
quote:In your opinion.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Your quotations of Jesus, "what goes out of the mouth.... and "Sabbath for Man not Man for..." were not Jesus excusing sabbath desecration.
quote:I wouldn't call the restrictions God gave us "arbitrary".
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
His sabbath comment was meant to apply the proper context to why the sabbath existed in the first place, it was a time set aside to benefit mankind, not place arbitrary limitations on what they could or could not do.
quote:No, sir. Most Christians don't observe anything on the Sabbath that God ordained. Which is actually good, as they were never commanded to do so, and aren't actually permitted to do so.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I read your scriptural references Lisa and I just do not see the conclusions you are drawing in them. The Leviticus verse is the only thing discussing something of an eternal nature as it has to do with the Sabbath. I fully agree the concept of a sabbath is eternal in nature, Christians still observe it.
quote:"The people" means the Jews. And God's laws are what He told us they are.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Every other scripture merely extols the excelency of God's law and his statues, something I whole heartedly agree is true. God's decisions and laws are all just and perfect. The scripture in Ezekiel clearly states that while David is king the people will follow God's laws, again something that is completely true.
quote:It's a permanent and binding set of laws.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The Law of Moses is God's law, but its not the only law God's got, as mentioned before plenty of righteous men were given laws by God long before Moses.
quote:Sorry. God did that at Sinai.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:You have not established the eternal nature of the law at all IMO.
How does that follow? Sorry, that's a leading question. It doesn't follow. God gave it as an eternal statute. That means it has to be kept by us forever. From that point forward. Prior to Sinai, no one was bound by it.
quote:You're confusing "a reason" with "the reason".
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:On the contrary, God has clearly stated in even the OT why he established the law. Isaiah 48:3-4 (read the following 3 chapters to get context) Isaiah 48:3-4
It's a mistake to assume that you know the reason or reasons why God gave the Law. Some of the laws are moral issues, such as not murdering or stealing. But some have no inherent moral aspect to them at all, that we know of. Not eating pork, for example.
quote:In obeying God, and walking in His ways. Which doesn't include discarding His laws.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
the follow 3 chapters all discuss the nature of the messiah to come and what his mission will be. He will bring salvation to everyone, and salvation is not found in the Law, but in God.
quote:There's that "saves" again. You're starting from the view that people need to be "saved". That's a concept that didn't even exist prior to Christianity. The law of Moses absolutely does say how individuals may repent of their sins and have them wiped away. That's not being "saved" from some kind of "Original Sin", or even some state of sin. People screw up. God provided the means for people to make it up. The idea of needing "saving" other than saving from foreign armies or the like has no roots in the Hebrew Bible.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Surely the law of moses in of itself saves nobody.
quote:"Eternal statute for your generations". Over and over. That means forever. How do I know? God told us so. What you have of the Law and Lore God gave at Sinai is a trifling bit of the whole.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:COMPLETELY AGREE! And since you do not acknowledge Jesus, I am glad you continue to observe the law. But if God himself came down and said, the purposes of the law are fulfilled and now I will give you a new law, I still don't think you can find anything in the scriptures where God said the Law of Moses will be followed forever and ever without end.
There were indeed laws that God gave to mankind even before Sinai. Laws which were binding on all men (not just Jews) from the time of Adam onwards. And which are still binding on all men today. The many additional requirements in the Law given at Sinai were given to a specific people, who did not exist as a people prior to that time. There were no Jews to be bound by the Law before Sinai. God created us at Sinai as He gave us His Law.