FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » While we're on Satan... (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: While we're on Satan...
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom, to me, one of the unique things about Judaism is that we don't believe you have to be of our faith to be a good person and have a good afterlife. In fact, we discourage proselytes and believe that any non-Jew who fulfills the Noachide Laws gets "full membership" in the next world.

So I have no problem believing that the religious experiences of people of other beliefs are valid.

[Edit to clarify (twice, and it's still not quite saying what I want, but I give up!)]

[ January 02, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Robespierre said:
Do I need to bring out the dictionary again and explain the 2 definitions of faith? Please stop deliberatly confusing faith #1 with faith #2.

You know, you need to give that tired argument a rest. Entirely objective proof is impossible. Have you ever measured the acceleration of the earth’s gravity on a freely-falling body? Then how do you know what it is? Because you believe someone else’s account of it. How do you know it is constant? Because you believe a lot of other people’s account of it.

There’s no objective proof that Abraham Lincoln ever delivered the Gettysburg address. Do you believe he did so?

quote:
Robespierre said:
Expirimental evidence. Try it. Go outside and through a ball, then measure the results. Now go outside and say a prayer, then measure the results. See where this leads? Religion gives us no measurable standards by which to judge its value.

And if I believed that getting prayers answered was all religion was about, then your comparison might be valid. You’ve given no reason why something must be measurable to be true.

quote:
Robespierre said:
They have not changed since their discovery by Isaac Newton. There is no reason to believe that they will change tomorrow.

Um, no. They’ve changed quite a lot since then. For example, Newton’s laws are based on the assumption that gravity effects things with mass only. They predict that the effect of gravity is transmitted instantaneously throughout the universe. Further, the theory predicted the universe should collapse in on itself and offered no explanation as to why the universe it didn’t. They also failed to accurately predict the path of Mercury’s orbit, so scientists decided there must be an undetectable planet or moon that affected its orbit. Einstein created a theory that eliminated the need for an undetectable planet but also predicted light would be bent by gravity. Eddington proved him correct.

quote:
Robespierre said:
Delusion is a strong word for not understanding nature, but you are allowed to use it. Would you care to provide any objective evidence for the existence of miracles?

Um, Moses believed he talked to God in a burning bush. Are you saying that if he did not this would not be a delusion? Let’s define a miracle as “An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.” The mere labeling of an event a miracle implies that there is an understanding of natural law, else how would someone know the event is extraordinary.

That being the case, the only method of providing objective evidence of a miracle is by accounts from witnesses. This is the same level of evidence you have about almost everything you know.

quote:
Robespierre said:
THus sayeth the lord! Geez, why not? Why can't I look around myself, observe our world, and make a decision on what I want that world to be like in the future, then act accordingly? I wasn't aware that such an endeavor was impossible.

Of course you can do that. And once you’ve done that, all you’ve said is “I desire the world to be such and such” and acted accordingly. You haven’t justified why it is desirable for the world to be like that. You’ve provided no framework for evaluating in the future how a person ought to act in a particular situation. Which means you haven’t created an ethical system but simply a statement of your desires. You haven’t even provided a means for evaluating why your desired world is better than someone else’s.

quote:
Robespierre said:
Eyewitness accounts of supernatural events are not evidence. I can measure the tempurature at which ice melts. I can proove that it take X amount of calories to change the temperature of X amount of water X many degrees. I can write my findings down, and others can verify my results by repeating my expiriments. There is no such option for god or the supernatural.

History is a very subjective art. It consists of best guesses and some observational evidence, IE fields full of dead bodies, sunken ships, tombs of pharohs, etc.

But you’ve never stated why this measurability is necessary for something to be true.

Let’s turn the question around: Do you have any evidence that God does not exist? Is the existence of God incompatible with any experimental results? Do you have any idea at all why the parameters of this universe are such that it is possible for life as we understand it to exist?

We have a large unexplained mystery here: Why does the universe exist? How did life develop? I have an explanation that meets all observable data. Do you?

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
TomDavidson said:
Rivka, I believe that you, Hobbes, and Belle all say you've experienced subjective evidence. All three of you belong to different religions. Which one of you is right?

I would be very surprised if the subjective evidence as experienced by these three was contradictory. Unless one of them happened to receive a complete revelation, it probably didn’t touch on anything that contradicts any of the religions in question.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robespierre
Member
Member # 5779

 - posted      Profile for Robespierre   Email Robespierre         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Have you ever measured the acceleration of the earth’s gravity on a freely-falling body?

Indeed I have. Most people who have taken highschool or college physics have done so.

quote:

Because you believe someone else’s account of it.

I will point out again that science does not accept eyewitness testimony as evidence. No science consists of "believeing some else's account". Observations MUST be repeatable to full under the umbrella of science.

quote:

There’s no objective proof that Abraham Lincoln ever delivered the Gettysburg address. Do you believe he did so?

I sure do. I have faith #1 that he made that address. I have no reason believe he did not. Nothing he is supposed to have done is in conflict with my basic understanding of the universe. I cannot say the same for Jesus. He is supposed to have risen from the dead, that IS in conflict with a rational view of the world. The more outrageous the claim, the more vigorous the evidence behind it must be. It is not unreasonable to believe that a president gave a speech before a crowd of people during the civil war. It IS unreasonable to belive that a man rose from the dead by supernatural means.

quote:

And if I believed that getting prayers answered was all religion was about, then your comparison might be valid.

My comparison is valid, because indeed there is no aspect of religion that is measurable.

quote:

They’ve changed quite a lot since then.

The additions made since their creation make no noticable effect when calculating the trajectory of a thrown ball. However, you demonstrate the superiourity of science very well. It can adapt to our changing understanding fo the universe.

quote:

Let’s define a miracle as “An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.”

Lets not define miracle that way. Lets define miracle as "an event that consists of some action by the super natural". By your definition, one could define the rising of the sun as a miracle to primitive peoples, merely because they didn't undertant what it was. You raise the possibility that no miracles are the result of supernatural forces, that they may just be misunderstandings.

quote:

You haven’t even provided a means for evaluating why your desired world is better than someone else’s.

Would I have ot do that for it to be moral?

quote:

We have a large unexplained mystery here: Why does the universe exist? How did life develop? I have an explanation that meets all observable data. Do you?

Firstly, your explanation meets ANY evidence, since it does not rely on evidence. If it did, it could be tested, and you would quickly disbelieve because observible evidence is of little importance to you.

I don't claim to understand the origins of the universe, and you do. Where does the burden of proof lay? Explain to me how those things came about, and how this god did them. Then explain who or what created god, and where he/she was before the universe was created. You have explained nothing.

(edited for spelling and added a sentence)

[ January 02, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]

Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
I wouldn't. It is my understanding (of course to be corrected if I'm wrong) that the nature of the revelation Mormons receive is supposed to be that the LDS Church is the one true church.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Ed,

I wasn't angry, and while irritated I was otherwise calm.

You are free to claim that you aren't anti-religion...but one certainly wouldn't know it from your posts on Hatrack, or by talking to you online. You're welcome to prove me wrong by finding even one post or thread you've started that doesn't criticize or outright insult organized religion (note that I said organized again), and Christianity in particular.

I will be surprised if those types of threads aren't vastly outnumbered by threads and posts that are critical or insulting.
-----------
Tom,

quote:
Seriously, while an argument can be made that some kind of rebellion against God could be noble -- or even encouraged by God as a necessary part of his plan, as the comic suggests -- speculating on the motives of Satan as described in scripture is going to wind up extra-scriptural. In other words, people are going to assign him the attributes that make the most sense for the story they want to tell. *shrug*
Well said.
---
Robespierre,

quote:
Does it bother you that in all of christianity, there exists no measurable quantities? No objective way to determine the truth of the basic beliefs? This is my biggest problem. If there were some data, and the only dispute was in its interpretation, then fine. But there is zero observable data that there exists a God or a Satan or whatever else. No evidence for a supernatural has ever been found.
No proveable evidence, you mean. And I suppose many religious people might respond, as I will right now, that they do have evidence. It's just not evidence that you're willing to use, or give credence to, or is unequivocal.

----------

ssywak,

quote:
The noble slave, eh? Step'n Fetchit?
Servitude does not equal slavery, nor does freedom equal nobility. Service, like freedom, is noble or mean depending on how one serves or how one frees.

quote:
And what do you get to experience for eternity? Basking in the eternal glory of God? How long can that orgasm last for before you start to get all twitchy and jittery? Proclaiming God's eternal glory? You'd think he'd have that one figured out by now (talk about low self-esteem!).
The problem being that this is another misstatement of what Christians believe.

quote:
And I'm so glad that we can all discard objective proof. It can get soooo annoying at times to have to base beliefs on actual, observable data.
No need o be snide. What we call "objective proof" is discarded all the time. Modern science is built on an alpine landscape of past "objective proof". This isn't something most people think about, and in particular it's not something people who base their atheism on the subjective nature of religious people's evidence like hearing. It tends to get shluffed off.

quote:
Much better if we can make it all up, always go on hunches, and say that whatever we feel in our hearts to be true is true.
So Christians think you're going to hell, and you think they're either sheep or crazy or liars. Seems to balance out to me anyway.

quote:
Subjective evidence? Something is true because some minimum number of people believe that it is true? Is Allah the One True God because there are more Muslims than Christians? Will a thrown ball travel purely horizontally until it slows down enough, and then plummet straight down just because 74% of people questioned believe that's how it works?
You'll not find a person who says, "God exists because most people say so." That might be a part of their belief, but before that they'll probably include, "God exists because God speaks to me."

quote:
Or is it just true for the individual? In which case, you (not "you," personnaly--more "vous" than "tu") shouldn't be trying to convince other people of your belief--you should be trying to find a way to get them to experience the same subjective evidence.
Which is, ironically, precisely what most missionaries try and do. Get people to pray to God and get answers.

quote:
Final question: can we just respond subjectively from now on? Throw objectivity out the window? I wait with bated breath.
quote:
What you now espouse is what I have, many times in the recent past, predicted is the path that these arguments typically take.
This is something I'm guilty of myself more than a little, but when you've got answers to statements that are going to be made, you're not listening anymore.

quote:
Great--you're more than welcome to attempt to drag me down into the dirt of total ignorance; but I'm not willing to go there with you.
....
Is that the best that 2000 years of religious thought can provide?

After all, your views on this issue are objective.

Respond however you like, but I know a sneer or disdain or simple patronization when I hear it, be it from a priest or an atheist.

---

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Robespierre,

You’ve still given no reason why measurable observations are required for something to be true. Why is it “unreasonable to believe that a man rose from the dead by supernatural means?” Simply because it doesn’t happen often? None of the definitions I know of the term “reasonable” or “reason” contradict the idea of bodily resurrection.

quote:
Robespierre said:
I don't claim to understand the origins of the universe, and you do. Where does the burden of proof lay? Explain to me how those things came about, and how this god did them. Then explain who or what created god, and where he/she was before the universe was created. You have explained nothing.

But I didn’t set out in this thread to prove the existence of God or any of the other things you’ve demanded. This portion of the thread started because you said, “Atheism is the only logically consistent exit from this argument.” You’ve not refuted any of my arguments to that point, yet. You’ve simply stated I can’t objectively prove God exists.

I’ve acknowledged that – I can’t objectively prove God exists. But that’s a lot different than saying only atheism is logically consistent.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Rivka,

What are the "Noachide Laws?" Can you provide a link?

Thanks,

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Oops! [Blushing] Sorry, meant to do that.

The short version
More Detail

A website of one B'nei No'ach (Noachide Law observers) group

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, rivka. [Smile]

quote:
Eddie, are you familiar with the Gnostic take on Yahweh and the serpent? If not you might find it interesting.
Good grief, Noemon, again you take the words right out of my mouth. Next it'll be the cheese and crackers.

*suspicious look

[Wink]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Ewwww! And she's got GERMS! [Wink]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Trying to find a link for Lalo, I ran across ...
The Reptilian Agenda!

Hey, Slash has been mighty absent lately.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Heck, rivka, given my sense of smell (or current lack thereof), who knows what I'm eating?

I tell you, it's a weight loss plan just waiting to happen.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I lost weight when I was sick the other week.

Sadly, it must have been mostly water, because it came right back as soon as I was properly rehydrated. *sigh*

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
But long-term, I'd waste away. No desire for food whatsoever. But I'm really pretty attached to my sense of taste, so it's be hard to give up smell.

However, of all the five senses, hearing would definitely be coolest to get out of the way. The others are harder to sort out.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Most of what I hear just irritates me. Car stereos with the bass cranked up, shrill stupid people, yowling cats insisting that they haven't been fed in years, and so forth. Ah, sweet silence. I could press my head to my husband's chest and Leonard to my bosom for all the vibrations of love I need. [Smile]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Maccabeus
Member
Member # 3051

 - posted      Profile for Maccabeus   Email Maccabeus         Edit/Delete Post 
Rob, you keep talking about repeatability, and I agree with you that it's important if you want to be as certain of something as possible. But in the end, you don't even really know that you're repeating anything, unless you did the previous experiments yourself. If someone else told you about the experiments, we're back to eyewitness testimony.

No matter how you slice it, you can't get away from depending on what other people are telling you. You can make judgements about who you're going to trust, but unless you intend to believe only what you directly experience, you're going to have to trust someone. And if not, well...I hope you don't suffer from hallucinations.

Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Rivka,

Thanks for the links. Very interesting reading, and it confirms my earlier statement about subjective experiences amongst believers of different religions not necessarily contradicting each other. Am I correct in my reading that the neither the idolater nor cursing the name principles can really be implemented without some core understanding of who God is, so even followers of the Noachide Laws have to have a serious overlap in their beliefs with the Jewish faith?

The last link, however, does a serious disservice to the Christian conception of “faith.” I hope this isn’t the idea held by most Jewish believers about what faith means to a Christian.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Promethius
Member
Member # 2468

 - posted      Profile for Promethius           Edit/Delete Post 
Robespierre-

Its called faith, people who believe in Christianity do not need evidence. The whole point of Christianity is faith, for instance, when Peter(I am pretty sure it was Peter) tried to walk to Jesus across the water, he started to sink because he started to have doubts about his faith. Their would be no freedom of choice if God came out and told us what to do, that was the whole purpose to the story of eden. God doesnt rule us like a tyrant because he gives us a choice to believe.

And about the story of Job, he was repaid more than 10 fold for what he had to go through, and he was happy to serve god. After he had those boils and his children died, he had many more children and received so much more than he ever had before. He was rewarded for his faith.

Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WheatPuppet
Member
Member # 5142

 - posted      Profile for WheatPuppet   Email WheatPuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

What’s that you say? Science has led to medicine to heal the sick, and food production, storage, and transportation technologies to feed the hungry? I agree – science has done wonderful things. But the reason we can call these things wonderful (or its excesses bad) is because there is an objective yet non-objectively-provable proposition that it is good to heal the sick and feed the hungry. Science can do nothing good without a means of deciding which ends are good and which bad.

After a long hiatus, I'm back. If anyone remembers [Roll Eyes] . Anyway... I'd like to point out that not all people belive that morality is something universal or comes from a diety. A good scientist would say that morality is based on the survival instincts of a social species. Horses have morals, but what god gave that to them? Dolphins have morals, where did those come from? I don't mean to be snide, because if you say, "God." I'd be cool with that. But an atheist cannot be thwarted by saying that morality is only a product of godly influence.

quote:

Its called faith, people who believe in Christianity do not need evidence. The whole point of Christianity is faith, for instance, when Peter(I am pretty sure it was Peter) tried to walk to Jesus across the water, he started to sink because he started to have doubts about his faith. Their would be no freedom of choice if God came out and told us what to do, that was the whole purpose to the story of eden. God doesnt rule us like a tyrant because he gives us a choice to believe.

But did Adam and Eve have a choice in what they belived? If they gave God the proverbial finger, what would he do? Isn't that what Lucifer did, and there was this epic war in heaven!

So if Lucifer han't sprung Adam and Eve from Eden, would the human race be truly free?

quote:

And about the story of Job, he was repaid more than 10 fold for what he had to go through, and he was happy to serve god. After he had those boils and his children died, he had many more children and received so much more than he ever had before. He was rewarded for his faith.

But you don't think it's scary that your god would do such a thing to an ordinary, happy person just to prove a point? Is that moral?

Here's a creepy way of thinking about it: Let's say you have a big bag of those plastic army men. I love those things. And let's say that they have some concept of dedication to you. Nothing like you feel towards other people, but they're only plastic, so you don't hold it against them. One day, you decide that you're going to test the faith of one of them, so you take him away from his platoon, melt him, burn him, throw him in the wood chipper. When you're left, all you have is a chunky plastic torso and a bunch of green plastic melted mulch. You spend some effort and get the poor guy back together, good as new, and you go out and spend some money and buy him a nice, spiffy Pershing tank and a spiffy four-engine C130 cargo plane. He's happy, and all the other army men realize that you'll take care of them, no matter what. You're a just and loving owner and you have a plan for each and every one of them. You can feel their dedication get a little stronger. That's touching, but they're just plastic guys. Who really cares anyway?

*shudders*
I'm not religious, and it creeps me out. I don't want to be a plastic soldier. I'd rather spend all of my plastic existence in that wood chipper than suffer the false affection of a shallow diety.

[edited for a bit of clarity]

[ January 03, 2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]

Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
They have not changed since their discovery by Isaac Newton. There is no reason to believe that they will change tomorrow.
There is also no reason to believe they won't change.

You are using the assumption that things will remain like they alway have been to prove the conclusion that things will remain like the always have been. That's circular.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WheatPuppet
Member
Member # 5142

 - posted      Profile for WheatPuppet   Email WheatPuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
There's no proof that the laws of physics won't change, so there is no reason to think that that will. Isn't that what science is based on? Disbelief until a body of evidence presents itself to change scientific interpretations?

Specifically, this logic does not follow: You can't prove* that the laws of physics won't change, which means that they will (or could).

It's more correct to say: You can't prove* that the laws of physics are going to change because there is no evidence that they have ever changed during humanity's existence, so it's a good assumption that they aren't going to (at least not any time soon).

*or present a body of evidence to indicate that...

It plays into one of the few constants in the universe: You can't prove a negiative.

Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Promethius
Member
Member # 2468

 - posted      Profile for Promethius           Edit/Delete Post 
Wheat Puppet-

I believe Adam and Eve could have given God the perverbial figner, it is their choice. Their one restriction was, "Do not eat this apple." Yet Eve ate it. She did what God asked her not to do. God wanted the best for the human race, yet also wanted them to be able to choose.

The story of Job was not God testing Job's faith, it was Lucifer testing Job's faith. Lucifer said he could make Job renounce God. God was like, "Try, but dont hurt him or his family" So lucifer didd all this shit but didnt hurt his family, and then Lucifer said, "of course he wont renounce you if his family is okay." So God was sad but said that it was okay to hurt his family but not Job, and still Job did not renounce God for allowing his family to be hurt, then Lucifer
said, of course he wont renounce you if he cant be hurt. So God said it was okay to hurt Job but not kill him, so Lucifer did all this crap to Job but did not kill him. Finally the devil said, "Of course he wont renounce you if I cannot kill him" But God stopped it and said, that you have done enough to Job(dont ask me why I just wrote that story out, I had a purpose in the beginning, and now i just cant bring myself to erasing it). It wasnt God hurting Job, it wasnt God testing Job, it was Lucifer testing Job. God knew Job would have faith, and now the story of Job has inspired alot of people. Maybe God knew this and thats why he allowed it to happen? I am not sure. Did you read The Worthing Saga? By good old OSC? It addresses alot of issues of why God would allow suffering and pain.

About the army men-which mad me crack the hell up, especially when you said, "I love those things" cause I was thinking the same thing when I read, "Plastic army men." My only logical response is that you do not feel this way towards the army men because you didnt create them(I am not insinuating that if you actually melted a bunch of plastic down and cast and army of green army men that you would feel sad if they got torn apart in the shredder) But the Bible says how that when someone goes to hell, it hurts God like a parent losing a child, or somehting along those lines. So when comparing our relationshuop to God, we arent just little green men, we are Gods children.

Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WheatPuppet
Member
Member # 5142

 - posted      Profile for WheatPuppet   Email WheatPuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
Wheat Puppet-

I believe Adam and Eve could have given God the perverbial figner, it is their choice. Their one restriction was, "Do not eat this apple." Yet Eve ate it. She did what God asked her not to do. God wanted the best for the human race, yet also wanted them to be able to choose.

quote:

It wasnt God hurting Job, it wasnt God testing Job, it was Lucifer testing Job. God knew Job would have faith, and now the story of Job has inspired alot of people. Maybe God knew this and thats why he allowed it to happen? I am not sure. Did you read The Worthing Saga? By good old OSC? It addresses alot of issues of why God would allow suffering and pain.

I havn't read The Worthing Saga, no.

Lucifer did all those things with God's consent, and, regardless of God's feelings about it, he did it to prove a point. He wanted to prove that Job's faith was unwavering. Job kept his faith--which is the important point to Christians, I guess--but what did he lose just to settle a dispute? He lost everything and nearly died. Sure, he may have been rewarded, but I can't get anywhere close to a point where that's cool. I find such apathy towards life--any life--very, very scary. I don't see it as an inspirational thing, I see it as a little boy playing with toy soldiers. I don't want to live in a universe where death and pain can come so cheaply, especially when handed out (indirectly or directly) by the very being that brought about this universe.

quote:

About the army men-which mad me crack the hell up, especially when you said, "I love those things" cause I was thinking the same thing when I read, "Plastic army men." My only logical response is that you do not feel this way towards the army men because you didnt create them(I am not insinuating that if you actually melted a bunch of plastic down and cast and army of green army men that you would feel sad if they got torn apart in the shredder) But the Bible says how that when someone goes to hell, it hurts God like a parent losing a child, or somehting along those lines. So when comparing our relationshuop to God, we arent just little green men, we are Gods children.

I used the army men example because it fit with how God was using humanity in that story, like toys. So substitute army men for sons. You let one of your sons be stripped of everything and nearly killed, but you give it all back and more. How is that okay? He's supposed to say, "I love you dad. Let's built a fort in the couch tomorrow." If I were that son, I'd stab my dad in the chest with a big, rusty, boning knife! I don't understand how inspiration is supposed to be gleaned from a story about how God cast his/er morality into the wind, but fixes it at the end to make it all better.

I don't remember, but does God even say sorry, or, "Maybe that wasn't such a good idea."? And if God was in the same room as Lucifer, why didn't he bash his head open with a godly rock and say, "I don't play games like that with my children. I prefer to kill them outright, like you, or not kill them at all."

Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Promethius
Member
Member # 2468

 - posted      Profile for Promethius           Edit/Delete Post 
God allows suffering because thats what makes us what we are. If we didnt have pain and suffering how would we ever understand what was great in life? We wouldnt understand sacrifice, dedication, or many other virutes because life would be disgustingly easy if God made all of our decisions for us. The problems and issues of morality and such are what make us human. What would any of us be if there was no struggle in the world? You may say happy, but I think you would feel like you were without purpose.

Maybe God knew Job would be happier in the end and therefore allowed him to go through with the suffering? In your original question you asked why you shouldnt pray to the devil, and the answer is that the Devil causes people to suffer where as God watches and does not cause suffering. God does not actively search out our pain and suffering as does Lucifer. Lucifer wanted to cause Job pain, without Lucifer God would not have chosen that path for one of his followers. The Devil is evil, and wishes harm and chaos upon human society.

I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, But I think Lucifer originally turned against God because God had such compassion for humans. Lucifer was jealous of humans because were and are given the opportunity to be imperfect yet still loved by God, where as angels are supposed to never waiver from their faith. I could be wrong about this whole Lucifers rebellion thing, im not so up to snuff on that portion of the bible.

Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"Tom, to me, one of the unique things about Judaism is that we don't believe you have to be of our faith to be a good person and have a good afterlife."

Rivka, the problem here is not that you're disputing the nature of the afterlife with three religious people; it's that three religious people claim to have actually communed with God and received three different answers. In one of those cases, they DO believe that their religion is exclusive; the other one doesn't even believe in the same kind of afterlife that you do.

So unless you're talking to a different God than THEY'RE talking to, or unless one or more of you are mistaken about talking to God, God is either lying to you or giving you messages customized to your faith, which seems a little contrary to the intent of scripture.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HenryW
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for HenryW   Email HenryW         Edit/Delete Post 
I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, But I think Lucifer originally turned against God because God had such compassion for humans. Lucifer was jealous of humans because were and are given the opportunity to be imperfect yet still loved by God, where as angels are supposed to never waiver from their faith. I could be wrong about this whole Lucifers rebellion thing, im not so up to snuff on that portion of the bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe most interpret the writings to mean that Lucifer attempted a 'coup'. The most commonly mentioned is that Lucifer (who was generally depicted as one of two angels that had a spot on God's throne) persuaded and led a third of the angels in an attempt to place Lucifer in the Throne. They were defeated and cast out of heaven. Here I get a bit fuzzy, but I think they were sent to a wasteland earth prior to God's seven day extravaganza.

As in all cases we have to be cautious of translations and the time of the translation - it is translated in the 'makes the most sense to me' way. The concept that leaders and rulers were devinely annointed could well have influenced the translations. Your devine appointment was quite often validated by your victory in battle. Thus, God's success in stopping the coup was another sign of legitimate control of the seat of power.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Henry, almost all description of a "rebellion" in Heaven, including Lucifer's motivations, is completely extrascriptural.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
:murmurs: 'Extrascriptural' in terms of traditional Judeo-Christianity.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WheatPuppet
Member
Member # 5142

 - posted      Profile for WheatPuppet   Email WheatPuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

God allows suffering because thats what makes us what we are. If we didnt have pain and suffering how would we ever understand what was great in life? We wouldnt understand sacrifice, dedication, or many other virutes because life would be disgustingly easy if God made all of our decisions for us. The problems and issues of morality and such are what make us human. What would any of us be if there was no struggle in the world? You may say happy, but I think you would feel like you were without purpose.

I don't expect a diety to prevent pain and suffering on a genral level, it is both undesireable and infeasable to stop every act of cruelty. On the other hand, Job's story is not genral-level. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the story if Lucifer had said, "I'm gunna do all this stuff anyway, so let's make a wager on the results." But it seems to me that Lucifer had to ask God for permission.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's more correct to say: You can't prove* that the laws of physics are going to change because there is no evidence that they have ever changed during humanity's existence, so it's a good assumption that they aren't going to (at least not any time soon).
That's not a valid argument at all. You can't prove X, therefore it's a good assumption that not X? You can't prove terrorists will attack in 2004, therefore it's a good assumption that they will not? That form of argument doesn't work.

A better argument is this: You can't prove or justify X, therefore you don't know X for sure.

[ January 03, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HenryW
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for HenryW   Email HenryW         Edit/Delete Post 
Henry, almost all description of a "rebellion" in Heaven, including Lucifer's motivations, is completely extrascriptural.

************

Well Tom, It probably is easy to see that I am not a biblical scholar and will not be putting the effort into being one. You are correct that there is no specific references in the Old/New Testament Bible to this rebellion. I was simply relaying what I remembered about the logic used to identify Satan as Lucifer. It was (at least partially) part of a long standing , centuries old definition of Satan.

I also seem to remember that if you take a literal approach with that scripture, Lucifer is not mentioned as a name for Satan.

I'll not attempt discourse as a scholar. However, I do stand by the point of my ending paragraph - translations of highly allegorical text results in a snowball effect of interpretation. For me, that makes literal application of the Bible a very difficult task.

Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Wheatpuppet,

Sure, `member you fine [Smile] .

quote:
A good scientist would say that morality is based on the survival instincts of a social species.
The problem with this is that many of our moral "laws" most people live by-or claim to live by-are quite contrary to the survival or at least the ease, comfort, or safety of human beings. While this does not completely negate your statement, it does to me at least cast some doubt on purely scientific explanations concerning morality. Much as I tend to disagree with people who see God in everything (I'm going to praise Jesus for letting me make that green light, and thank Buddha that I won that coin toss), I similarly tend to disagree with people who try and find scientific explanations in everything.

Well, strike that. Who insist that everything is explained by science.

quote:
Horses have morals, but what god gave that to them? Dolphins have morals, where did those come from? I don't mean to be snide, because if you say, "God." I'd be cool with that. But an atheist cannot be thwarted by saying that morality is only a product of godly influence.
They do? Howso? You're going to have to do better than pack behavior.

quote:
But did Adam and Eve have a choice in what they belived? If they gave God the proverbial finger, what would he do? Isn't that what Lucifer did, and there was this epic war in heaven!

So if Lucifer han't sprung Adam and Eve from Eden, would the human race be truly free?

First, it should be said-again-that Lucifer was acting as God's agent-whether he knew it or not-according to a great many Christians. So to insist that it was Lucifer who gave us freedom and not God won't score many points with such people.

As to Adam and Eve, it's pretty clear they did have a choice what to believe and what to do. They were permitted the freedom to do what was forbidden, if they chose to do so. If God had really created puppets, mindless automatons designed soley to stroke his ego...then why were they programmed with the ability to thwart his will? Is that what you would do if you wanted to create a race without freedom of choice?

According to Christians, humanity had freedom from the very start.

quote:
But you don't think it's scary that your god would do such a thing to an ordinary, happy person just to prove a point? Is that moral?
I'd say sticking it to Satan, proving to Job just how righteous he was, and giving a story to comfort billions worldwide is more than just "proving a point". Nevertheless, I do understand your point as well. Insofar as I believe in a God, I've always had a beef with that particular story. I (personally) would be mighty pissed at God, but then Job wasn't. Who am I to judge how angry someone should be at something done to them?

quote:
You can feel their dedication get a little stronger. That's touching, but they're just plastic guys. Who really cares anyway?

*shudders*
I'm not religious, and it creeps me out. I don't want to be a plastic soldier. I'd rather spend all of my plastic existence in that wood chipper than suffer the false affection of a shallow diety.

First off, we're not plastic soldiers. Neither literally nor in the sense that you described their free will and abilities.

Second, it is a common practice of atheists to label the affection the Christian God has for his children "false" and "shallow". Once again, I pose the question: who are you and I to tell another adult that what God is doing to them is false or shallow? The problem is that once you do so, you've set yourself up as the enlightened, wise, and benevolent-mentally superior, in other words-big brother, and the believer is just a chump. This is true for any motivation, and if you get irritated when a missionary does it, it should be similarly irritating when you do it.

quote:
I find such apathy towards life--any life--very, very scary. I don't see it as an inspirational thing, I see it as a little boy playing with toy soldiers. I don't want to live in a universe where death and pain can come so cheaply, especially when handed out (indirectly or directly) by the very being that brought about this universe.
Apathy how, exactly? Apathy from your perspective, certainly. This is the problem. You are applying your own morality to God and since you would find it abhorrent to do such things, it must be an abhorrent, scary thing to do. You're also missing-or ignoring-one of the most basic facets of existence to most religious people, which is simply that life and death on Earth simply isn't the most important thing. It might not even make a top ten list to many of them.

quote:
I used the army men example because it fit with how God was using humanity in that story, like toys.
The difference is, the toy made a covenant with its owner essentially signing up for many things, one of which being the thing that he got.

quote:
I don't understand how inspiration is supposed to be gleaned from a story about how God cast his/er morality into the wind, but fixes it at the end to make it all better.
Incorrect. Your morality.

quote:
I don't remember, but does God even say sorry, or, "Maybe that wasn't such a good idea."? And if God was in the same room as Lucifer, why didn't he bash his head open with a godly rock and say, "I don't play games like that with my children. I prefer to kill them outright, like you, or not kill them at all."
Then again, according to Christians Job is in Heaven right now, having been thoroughly repaid uncountable times over for his suffering. Christians also believe that if it weren't for Satan, we'd still be in the Garden of Eden, looking at shiny objects and being impressed.

And isn't that what you were objecting to in the first place?
-----

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kerinin
Member
Member # 4860

 - posted      Profile for kerinin           Edit/Delete Post 
Dagonee's right, the basis of scientific inquiry is that the world we experience behaves according to a set of unchanging laws. if the laws we observe today change tomorrow, we can of course attempt to explain that scientifically, but we would have to do so by postulating a deeper order which was controlling how the laws were changing, leaving us in much the same boat.

so yes, even athiests (such as myself) are forced to take certain things on faith (although this can be somewhat avoided by postulating that while we experience things in a temporally linear fashion the entire world is determinate and therefore exists as a single "object" in some dimension).

i think the issue at hand here is how much we take on faith. the assumption that the world behaves predictably is unavoidable; without we are completely paralyzed. the assumption that there is a benevolent god who sent his only begotten son to die for our sins and heaven everlastin's our reward is NOT unavoidable, as is demonstrated by those billions of people who aren't christian.

it really comes down to this: people attempt to direct their actions using the least assumptions possible, with the least amount of faith. that is why even religious people insist on 'objective' proof of science. the more assumptions we make, the more we take on faith, the less able we are to explain things. assumptions are limiting, they propose a certain way of processing information at the expense of others, and if we are to be able to process as much information as possible we must have an understanding of the world which is as flexible as possible.

on a slightly related topic, how is it that the assumption that a dichotomy must exist between the natural and supernatural world gone unchallenged? if the definition of the supernatural is that which cannot be explained logically then the assertion that a supernatural world must exist is basically an assertion that logic cannot explain certain things. here i must draw a line between the belief that logic CAN'T explain something and the belief that logic HASN'T explained something. look around you at all the things which we consider part of the natural world: the movement of the stars, the tides and seasons, the variety of life, the process of procreation. what do these all have in common? they were once considered inherently mystical, determined by unforseen forces, the hand of God if you will. i'm not saying that we can explain everything, perhaps we can and perhaps we can't, i'm simply saying that it's silly to simply assume we can't.

[edit] didn't realize there was a second page to this thread, sorry if this seems off topic...

[ January 03, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: kerinin ]

Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryan Hart
Member
Member # 5513

 - posted      Profile for Ryan Hart           Edit/Delete Post 
In my opinion, Satan acted as a catalyst. Since humans have free will, sin is the natural product of this inherent human tendency. Sataan did not "spring" Adam and Eve from Eden. He just "bailed" them early than their natural sentence.

And Lalo, why does it not suprise me you empathize with Satan.

Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WheatPuppet
Member
Member # 5142

 - posted      Profile for WheatPuppet   Email WheatPuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

A better argument is this: You can't prove or justify X, therefore you don't know X for sure.

Right. It's a good asumption that they aren't going to, though, since they show no trend of changing in the past.

Rakeesh, well said. I'm going to bow out of this discussion with the firm belief that we live in different worlds. And that's cool. That always amazes me, people can be so different in some ways, but be cool enough to chat about such things in civil ways. Makes me happy.

Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
It's also a matter of probability.

Probability of sun coming up, tomorrow:
99.9999999999999%

Probability of physical laws NOT changing tomorrow:
99.9999999999999%

All based on physical evidence, mind you.

Probability of physical laws changing within a time period of a few milliseconds after the creation of the universe:
90%

Based on indirect evidence.

Probability of the existence of Leprecahuns? Invisible Pink Unicorns? Zeus? Talking Dogs? Winning the lottery?

[ January 03, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's a good asumption that they aren't going to, though, since they show no trend of changing in the past.
No, that's circular logic. You are using induction to prove induction.

After all, just because there has been no trend of changing in the past does not mean there will be no changing in the future - not unless you already assume that things true in the past will continue to hold true in the future, which is the very thing you are trying to prove. The conclusion cannot be an assumption of it's own proof.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Probability of sun coming up, tomorrow:
99.9999999999999%

Probability of physical laws NOT changing tomorrow:
99.9999999999999%

All based on physical evidence, mind you.

Probability of physical laws changing within a time period of a few milliseconds after the creation of the universe:
90%

Based on indirect evidence.

What possible physical evidence allows you to know what such probabilities will be tommorrow? There is no such evidence, because any probability that held true in the past could very well not hold true tommorrow. Any use of probabilities is based on the assumption that we already know the future will be like the past, which we've already said is a unjustified assumption.

Therefore, it is not a matter of probability at all.

[ January 03, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
kerinin,

Like your post!

However, I find myself too cynical to agree with one of the tenets of your post:

quote:
it really comes down to this: people attempt to direct their actions using the least assumptions possible
I find that in reality, most people are too stupid or lazy to care about that. They'll just say things, without thinking, or without worrying about the consistency or sense of their beliefs.

Dialogues like we're all having here are a great opportunity to get ideas down "on paper" (as it were) and to examine them for consistency and accuracy--but I have to think that we represent no more than 20% or so of the general population.

And, as we've all acknowledged (I think we've all acknowledged this), people can hold consistent sets of beliefs that do not necessarily agree with each other. Facts--or percptions of facts-- may be wrong (accuracy is off).

Are our beliefs consistent?
Are the facts supporting those beliefs correct?
What assumptions do we hold? Of those, which ones may be verified (and so changed from assumptions into facts)?

How many people do you think care enough to challenge themselves this way on a consistent basis?

--Steve

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
Treso,

Probability that any probability that holds true in the past will hold true tommorrow:

99.9999999999999999%

What sort of world do you live in? What in that world has led you to think that things can or will just randomly change?

How do you live, from day to day, in such a world? Is this what your religion has given you? We are all here at God's capricious whim?

On Monday, is there a finite possibility that my wife will turn into the color blue? Or that my briefcase wil become a fish? I should just walk into the hills and grab onto a rock and hold on for dear life. On Monday, I may turn into a teapot, two adjectives and the rules for "capturing en passante."

--Steve

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, by the same logic, how can you know that the past has stayed constant?

How can you know that the laws of physics and of reality haven't changed, repeatedly, in the past week, or month, or year?

You can't.

In fact, you can't even know that there was a past.

How do you know that every fraction of a second, you are changing from person to flower, from noun to verb, and back to person? How do you know that you even exist as a person now, and that you're not some detached brain, in a vat, being fed nonsense from some great machine-god?

How do you know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Or, in more direct terms: what is the value of a belief system that holds that nothing is predictable or constant?

Or does the arguement go like this: since knowledge is inherently unreliable, all we have is faith. Since belief is nothing more than faith with the addition of supposed facts (which we now know, of course, to be totally unreliable), again--all we really have is faith. And since we have no proof that anything really exists, or can continue to exist, therefore we must have faith in God.

Maybe there are some people whose ancestors never really ate from the tree of knowledge, after all.

[ January 03, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Maccabeus
Member
Member # 3051

 - posted      Profile for Maccabeus   Email Maccabeus         Edit/Delete Post 
Steve, that's right--we can't.

It isn't worth going on the assumption that things will change radically, as you (or someone on your side) pointed out, because such a world wouldn't be livable anyway. For the sake of convenience, we assume that the world will continue to follow the laws it appears to be following now.

But if I hear that something unexpected has happened, whether it's a man rising from the dead or a man turning into a cupcake, I can't dismiss it purely on the grounds that "That's unscientific." Scientists accept what actually happens and deal with it. If the laws change, science will adjust.

Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
Mac,

But you open yourself up to charlatans that way.

If someone claims that a man has risen from the dead, or a statue is bleeding from the eyes, or if this poorly wrapped box contains a brand-new Sony VCR and I can have it for only $15, then I really need to see proof.

You seem to be implying (please note that phrase) that one should be more wiling to accept the unlikely, just so as to not show some prejudice towards expecting the physical world to continue on as it has in the past.

UFOs
Aliens and anal probes
Cow mutilations
Crop Circles
Bleeding statues
The Bat Boy
Giant fat mutant siamese twins
Fatima
Stigmata

I don't automatically dismiss any of those things purely on the grounds that they're "not scientific" (well, maybe Bat Boy). But in the total lack of any scientific evidence, I do dismiss them.

Science will adjust in the face of evidence contrary to held beliefs. And relatively quickly, too (for the most part).

Does religion? Does it even acknowledge things (I don't dare say "evidence") contrary to held beliefs?

Johnny is deathly ill--pray to God for his recovery. Johnny dies. Oh, God must have wanted Johnny for his own heavenly choir.

God saved my husband from 9/11--He kept him home that day. But what of the almost 3000 who died? Oh, um, God must have had his reasons...

Apparently, there is no contradictory evidence on the "other side" (since, Mac, you called it "My side.")

I'm starting to hate these discussions, I can feel my heart hardening in my chest.

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Treso,

Probability that any probability that holds true in the past will hold true tommorrow:

99.9999999999999999%

Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that probability won't become 0% tommorrow either, since as I said, probabilities are useless without first assuming the future will be like the past. Furthermore, you just made that number up. [Wink]

quote:
How do you live, from day to day, in such a world? Is this what your religion has given you?
No, actually this is what reason and logic has given me - Hume's reasoning and logic to be specific - a line of reasoning generally accepted by most of the philosophers who spend their lives studying these sorts of things.

I live in this world simply by choosing and having faith in the beliefs that seem best, and because I fortunately get enough of them right to survive (so far.)

quote:
Oh, by the same logic, how can you know that the past has stayed constant?
I can't.

quote:
How can you know that the laws of physics and of reality haven't changed, repeatedly, in the past week, or month, or year?
I can't know that either.

quote:
In fact, you can't even know that there was a past.
Yes. (I've made that argument many a time [Wink] )

quote:
Or, in more direct terms: what is the value of a belief system that holds that nothing is predictable or constant?
I believe in many constants and in predictability. I just don't know them. There's a degree of faith that is necessary.

quote:
Or does the arguement go like this: since knowledge is inherently unreliable, all we have is faith. Since belief is nothing more than faith with the addition of supposed facts (which we now know, of course, to be totally unreliable), again--all we really have is faith. And since we have no proof that anything really exists, or can continue to exist, therefore we must have faith in God.
No - God's got nothing to do with it. And we have more than faith. We have observations which, although possibly unreliable, still count for something.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post 
The good thing about philosophy is that there are so many different definitions and ideas about reason and logic that they all cancel each other out into a big, jumbled mess of rat droppings.

It's my personal philosopy that there's some sort of contest going on to see who can get the most people to believe the most retarded concept. The bar is being raised every day.

Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Maccabeus
Member
Member # 3051

 - posted      Profile for Maccabeus   Email Maccabeus         Edit/Delete Post 
Ssywak, I would want to see proof of claims like the ones you mentioned too. But proof isn't always available when and where you want it to be. And even if you have a proof, it isn't always transferrable to other people. Suppose you saw a man rise from the dead--with plenty of life-support monitors attached so you know it's for real--but I'm not around to see it. How are you going to prove it to me? Can you make it happen again? Does your inability to prove it to me mean it didn't happen?

All tests have this problem--the only way to be certain of avoiding false positives is to risk false negatives, and vice versa.

Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
ssywak said:
What sort of world do you live in? What in that world has led you to think that things can or will just randomly change?

How do you live, from day to day, in such a world? Is this what your religion has given you? We are all here at God's capricious whim?

You’re continuing to make the same mistake in thinking that we believe the world will change from day to day. We have not.

All we have said is that there is no proof that it will not, pointing out that there are some things you choose to believe without objective proof. In fact, that there are things you believe that are not objectively provable.

The odds of the universe developing in such a way as to produce human intelligence are staggeringly small. Yet despite this small probability you choose to believe that this event occurred by chance, not by someone’s design.

quote:
ssywak said:
Or does the arguement go like this: since knowledge is inherently unreliable, all we have is faith. Since belief is nothing more than faith with the addition of supposed facts (which we now know, of course, to be totally unreliable), again--all we really have is faith. And since we have no proof that anything really exists, or can continue to exist, therefore we must have faith in God.

Maybe there are some people whose ancestors never really ate from the tree of knowledge, after all.

Snarkiness aside, our arguments here have not been to say that “we must have faith in God.” Rather, it has been to state that your beliefs are founded on unprovable principles at least as unlikely as ours. I hope I’m not speaking out of turn by saying those on this side of the argument here all believe in the stability of physical laws that the usefulness of the scientific method relies on. We just acknowledge the method’s limitations, both in explaining the universe and in its utter inability to answer the question “Why?”

Our belief in the stability of the physical laws is just one part of the set of beliefs we hold that are objectively unprovable. You put yourself in a false position by claiming to not believe anything objectively unprovable, but failing to objectively prove underlying assumptions.

Remember, this whole line of discussion came from someone making the bald claim that only atheism is logically consistent, with no backup. This is all a refutation of that claim, not a proof of Theism.

All the counterarguments from your side have been attempts to show why Theism is illogical. So far no one has even attempted to explain how Atheism is logically consistent.

Dagonee

[ January 04, 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Atheism is not logically consistent or rational. When confronted with unknowable questions concerning time beyond recorded history and beyond any evidence other than scientifically-based speculation, the only purely logical recourse is agnosticism.

Of course, if you do that there's less room to sneer and patronize those chumps who believe in God.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Atheism is not logically consistent or rational. When confronted with unknowable questions concerning time beyond recorded history and beyond any evidence other than scientifically-based speculation, the only purely logical recourse is agnosticism.
On the other hand, agnosticism only achieves this by being a largely useless belief. After all, the fact that God may or may not exist doesn't really help you decide how to live your life.

Along these lines, if you really want to be a perfectly logical person you could always refuse to believe in anything whatsoever. In this way, you will never make an error. However, it also means you'll have no beliefs to base decisions upon, and thus forced to act blindly in everything you do.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2