Religions

[Henkie]

I see a little bit of inconsistency in your argument.

Do you know the context of the whole "Noah's Ark" and "Great Flood" stories? All the people of the earth were behaving immorally (to put it nicely) and had turned away from their God. Thus, he punished them by destroying all of them via the flood, except for Noah and his family because Noah found favor with God.
And yet you say that God isn't doing anything to stop "crime".

Or a focus of natural events caused a flood to happen, as has happened before in the past history of the earth... That is just I say A you say B.

If they could speak to us now, then they'd probably say that God certainly didn't find favor in their eyes for killing them, but they would probably admit that they realized (in retrospect) that what they were doing was wrong. The views of "right" and "wrong" vary from person to person; it's an opinion-based issue. With regards to what is defined as "right" and "wrong", the only opinion that matters in the end is God's.

First part here is just IF they could then thay would... Plain guessing.
The second part is common sense to me, although I disagree with the final opinion part. God does not decide what is right or wrong, it is opinion based, so MY opinion counts for me, not God's.

Another point I should make regarding the Christian beliefs: we exist to serve and glorify God, not the other way around. Unfortunately, not every Christian lives this fact, thus indicating that many Christians are hypocrites. But what religion doesn't have hypocrites? Anyway, moving on.

I see nothing here I should argue against, for it is all subjective.

If everytime somebody did something wrong God came in and dealt justice to that person (a.k.a. death), then He'd start gaining a very bad opinion amongst the people. "But, he only stole one fruit! Why'd you have to kill him?" (Parallels to Adam&Eve eating the fruit of the forbidden tree were unintentional; I just used the first example that came to mind.) Actually, there will come a time when that will become the justice system again, for 1000 years, but it won't happen until the Lord returns in his full glory.

Why should God care about what we think of him? Why do we on earth need to live for him? If that is true what's the point of our existence here? Why aren't we all in heaven having a jolly good time? And for the new system.. If it should ever arrive (which I do not believe), I have no fear, for I have lived by a good morality, and although I may not have believed in God, I did live a good life, better then some who do believe and honor him. Besides, 300 years ago people said God would be coming down, and he still hasn't, I'm pretty sure we'll all be dead by that time.

There are other sides to the story that you can't argue against until you understand them. Changed lives, for example. Sometimes God will take the 'worst' people, and bring them to their knees in order to get them to understand Him, and when the world sees their change(s), it glorifies God in a much brighter light than if he had just said, "Alright, let's kill all the rapists, the drug abusers, the adulterists, the murderers, the burglars, the liars, the jealous people, and the children who don't obey their parents." For some people it's mental, for others (like my father and my uncle) it's physical. Some people will allow God to change them. Others will harden their hearts and continue to their self-inflicted doom.

There is one thing that makes me doubt these 'changes by God's hand' so very much. Is it God who helped them, or is it the faith in God that helped them? One could say that is was God who showed them the path and made them righteous once again. Or one could argue that such a strong belief made them change themselves. They believed they were being helped so badly it felt like it is beatable, and so they did. I personally (because I do not believe in God) it is the latter, but this is once again, subjective.

Until you understand all sides of the debate, you'll never be able to properly support your own arguments against everybody else's arguments.

True as a whistle

As for the mother who lives righteously and is close to God, yet her son chooses to draw away from God.... It's not thought of in Heaven. She'll mourn for him on Earth, but when she gets to Heaven there is no more weeping, hurt, pain, darkness, sickness, shame, etc, but there will be eternal joy and peace and love forever. It's a difficult concept to grasp, really, but that's another conversation. The people who end up in Hell are there because of their own choices and actions.

Ugh, such a prospect, of such a good place, sickens me. These descriptions of Heaven and Hell, makes them both equally attractive to me.

One thing I'm inferring from your arguments that I could be wrong about based on the fact that you haven't brought Satan into the equation at all is that you understand that evil doesn't come from Satan, but from the human heart. Satan merely aggravates it, the great Tempter.

Great story, and I agree, though I don't call it Satan.

I'd say more, but my mom is whisking me away to eat.

Don't you just hate that? Lolz

Anyway, I hope I exceeded your expectations

[RedQueen.exe]

Edited: Was taking sole credit for a point Chris and I had shared.

I like you, gejyspa, because we can do this without it becoming a personal thing. I'm willing to let the "morality guide" point rest, since I'm not sure I feel comfortable enough arguing that he should have given them the final moral guide up front. It certainly would have saved a lot of people continuing to justify slavery, etc. in later historical eras by pointing to old testament passages.

That said, I believe the earlier points still stand:
Chris: You can still let someone exercise their free will while ensuring that their goals fail. God could have ensured that the holocaust failed, and Hitler still would have expressed his will just by attempting it.
Chris & Mine: The desire to commit such evil acts are not held by everyone. God still must answer for them getting those impulses to begin with. Even if he didn't program them in explicit, he designed the nature of mortal existence that gave it to them or however you believe that some people got them
Mine: It does not answer the question of natural evils such as natural disasters, women dying in mass numbers during child birth, infants dying young from disease, etc.

2. the bible is not a scientific pursuit, and therefore shouldn't be read through a scientific lens... that is. the arguments of falsifiability and refutation do not apply.

As soon as it makes a claim about the observable universe, it opens itself to scientific criticism; however, this thread has not focused on scientific claims. It has focused on logical consitency. Whenever you can establish a set of mutually-agreed upon premises, such as "letting babies die through callous indifference is wrong", you can then argue from them. This is the reason I don't feel I can continue to argue the point over slavery - mine was based on the premise that permitting slavery is always immoral. When it was found that we do not share that premise, then we could not continue unless I find a new premise that we both accept.

An example of a irrefutable statement might be:
Some of the reasoning on these pages is very weak.
This is debatable, and yes, granted, it may coincide with a fact... but you can't know it.

The only reason that statement is irrefutable, is because it is vague and does not define what you mean by weak. If you added, "weak defined to mean committing at least two informal logical fallacies in a given post", then it is absolutely refutable.

[curious]

Interesting.
Gegyspa... I don't take issue that the bible, or any other scripture may be looked at 'systematically'. There are many systems in the world, and many of them existed long before the days of logical positivism.

There is a flaw of logic being used here, and by those who are trying to dismiss non-logical claims, using a logical system.

The error:
Science is systematic
Scrutinising text is systematic therefore scrutinising text is scientific.

if P then Q
Q therefore P

(I forget the names of the logical argument sets off the top of my head... sorry... 'affirming the consequent springs to mind?)

RedQueen... all statements that do not have absolute validity in logic are considered 'vague'... you miss the point.
Statements about slavery are vague, at best. You may not like the idea, but that doesn't affirm it to the extent whereby it can be examined via a logical scientific enquiry. Get you argument straight... use one system or the other.
Are you suggesting that knowledge of slavery somehow comes under the banner of a synthetic a-priori? I would like to see your adventures in determining that one.

[Henkie]

if P then Q
Q therefore P

It's philosophical. It handles the difference between truthful and valid sentences (or premises).
It was the great (and completely mental) Aristotle

[curious]

Yes, I know what it is.
I just wasn't sure I could remember the names of the different arguments based on this set.
It's been a long time.

[RedQueen.exe]

RedQueen... all statements that do not have absolute validity in logic are considered 'vague'... you miss the point.
Statements about slavery are vague, at best. You may not like the idea, but that doesn't affirm it to the extent whereby it can be examined via a logical scientific enquiry. Get you argument straight... use one system or the other.
Are you suggesting that knowledge of slavery somehow comes under the banner of a synthetic a-priori? I would like to see your adventures in determining that one.

By vague I mean "poorly defined".

And no, I am not. We are not arguing anything from first principles here. The whole reason I abandoned that thread of discussion is because I am not interested in having that argument with anyone that won't take "permitting slavery is always wrong" as a premise.

You're making hasty generalizations about slavery and the bible in your statements. You assume because they contain vague statements, that you can't have arguments over any specific parts.

If people agree to the premises that:
"slavery can only have one color"
"slavery is purple"

and the statement under dispute leads us to conclude that "slavery is green", then either the statement being disputed is false, or one of the premises is false. IF someone agrees that the premises are all true, then they MUST conclude that the statement that lead to the conclusion that slavery is green MUST be false. Everything else about slavery is immaterial to the discussion.

This is precisely why I find philosophy so unimpressive. It tends to lump things into conceptual groups, and from then on ignore the fact that those abstractions are still made up of component parts.

To say that

"the bible is not a scientific pursuit, and therefore shouldn't be read through a scientific lens... that is. the arguments of falsifiability and refutation do not apply."

is a meaningless statement. If the bible makes statements such as "all swans are white", or if people make statements about the bible such as "all bibles contain 5000 letters", then it is making factual claims which absolutely CAN be refuted. Of course you can't "refute" or "falsify" the bible - that's not even a coherent statement.

If the bible made no such factual claims, and if people made no factual claims ABOUT the bible, then and only then would they be outside the purview of argument - but then, it would also be what the skeptical community often refers to as "worse than wrong".

[curious]

Coating simple arguments in pretentious nonsense won't make any difference to me.
My points are solid. I am nor joining or abandoning any position here... you are. I don't need to. My initial point stands. Read it again.

You really are missing the point, and are really quite tiresome. You're like a struggling student. Rephrasing what you missed with terms like... "By vague, I mean poorly defined"... How, pray... dos this differ from my definition, except that mine effectively splits the 'world views' of science and religion, and you are yet to.
You are putting words into my mouth and I resent it, I really do... none of the content of the bible is important here... what is is your attempted dissolution of it... and as logically flawed.

Remember... it was you who decided to use a logical positivist device to cast doubt on what could be falsified here, not me, so stop bleating and say something useful for a change. Consistency is everything in a debate, and the only thing you have consistently done with me on these boards is (and i use the word, because it has been used already here) cherry-pick that you think you can answer with convoluted crap.

It's because of strategies like yours on forums, that people get frustrated, and then, no doubt you will cast me out as flaming..?
So be it... Your responses are stupid, and disregarding, and if you think that's flaming... I am guilty, but, I will not sit here, knowing fine well what the fuck I am talking about and someone with their goal set on looking clever, change the simple truth that you are not answering the question.

Whether or not slavery is purple or green, or any other colour does not change the scope of your methodology for critique... if it is a fact one way or the other... it is a fact you cannot determine, and determining it by stating thty your chosen colour is the right one is an ontological no-no.
(this said... I don't expect you to read this far anyway)

[curious]

For the record... this is what my whole parade here takes issue with, lest I be driven into some corner as either a moral crusader or religious nut:

You actually don't have to read the whole thing to see if it contradicts itself. Finding one example of contradiction that stands as contradiction under scrutiny is sufficient. That's the thing about absolutist statements like saying god or the bible is infallible, it only takes one example of imperfection to prove wrong. But, having been raised catholic, I have read much of it.

[gejyspa]

Interesting.
Gegyspa... I don't take issue that the bible, or any other scripture may be looked at 'systematically'. There are many systems in the world, and many of them existed long before the days of logical positivism.

There is a flaw of logic being used here, and by those who are trying to dismiss non-logical claims, using a logical system.

The error:
Science is systematic
Scrutinising text is systematic therefore scrutinising text is scientific.

(it's gejyspa, btw I didn't claim that it was science. I merely pointed out that, like science, it has an axiomatic first principle ("the Torah is God's word, and as such, non-contradictory, eternal, and all-encompassing" vs. science "Nothing that is not observable can be proved, and the universe is internally consistent and rule-driven"), and methodologies to derive further truths (R' Ishmael's hermeneutics vs the scientific method (Hypothesize, experiment to deny or lend credence to the hypothesis, rinse and repeat)). Note that rule 13 specifically talks about verses that are(appear to be) contradictory. That of course was anethema to the Rabbis, who viewed the Torah as monolithic.

[RedQueen.exe]

Consistency is everything in a debate, and the only thing you have consistently done with me on these boards is (and i use the word, because it has been used already here) cherry-pick that you think you can answer with convoluted crap.

If you meant that as an insult, I don't take it as one. If I don't challenge a particular part of an argument, it's because I don't take issue with that particular part of it. If an argument rests on five different statements and each one is necessary, then I'm going to attack the weakest - otherwise conversations quickly branch out of control unnecessarily.

Whether or not slavery is purple or green, or any other colour does not change the scope of your methodology for critique... if it is a fact one way or the other... it is a fact you cannot determine, and determining it by stating thty your chosen colour is the right one is an ontological no-no.
(this said... I don't expect you to read this far anyway)

Again, gejypsa and I are not arguing from first principles, we are taking certain assumptions as premises. I won't take part in an argument that doesn't take certain things as premises, because the ones that don't are tedious.

You said yourself that the statement "all swans are white" is a falsifiable one, so if the bible makes the statement "all swans are white", or one like it - then the statement is falsifiable, period, and whether it came from a bible or somewhere else is completely irrelevant.

You're wrapping crap up into packages and then pretending that the contents are homogeneous. They aren't. Statements such as "the earth was created in seven days" are in direct contradiction with science, and therefore falls into science's purview. The whole idea of "non-overlapping magesteria" which you are dancing around, only applies if people accept that religion/the bible does not contain factual claims.

[gejyspa]

Edited: Was taking sole credit for a point Chris and I had shared.

I like you, gejyspa, because we can do this without it becoming a personal thing. I'm willing to let the "morality guide" point rest, since I'm not sure I feel comfortable enough arguing that he should have given them the final moral guide up front. It certainly would have saved a lot of people continuing to justify slavery, etc. in later historical eras by pointing to old testament passages.

Might've. But given human nature, it might've led to worse problems -- people not able to live up to those ideals, and physically endangering them at the hands of their neighbors (look how much trouble they got into by simply asserting there was only ONE God! And yet, slowly but surely, that idea gained ground amongst the nations of the world).

That said, I believe the earlier points still stand:
Chris: You can still let someone exercise their free will while ensuring that their goals fail. God could have ensured that the holocaust failed, and Hitler still would have expressed his will just by attempting it.
Chris & Mine: The desire to commit such evil acts are not held by everyone. God still must answer for them getting those impulses to begin with. Even if he didn't program them in explicit, he designed the nature of mortal existence that gave it to them or however you believe that some people got them
Mine: It does not answer the question of natural evils such as natural disasters, women dying in mass numbers during child birth, infants dying young from disease, etc.

If you harbor a desire to kill me for debating you in this forum, have you commited a culpable act? I hear what you are saying, that culpability isn't the issue, free will is. But think of complaints by people here (and not just Jaxon and his brother) how boring "potato paradises" are. Did you ever stop to ask why that should be so? The Rabbis of old have said that despite its name, our "Evil Inclination" isn't all bad. "Were if not for the Evil Inclination, no man would build a house, marry a wife, or beget children." (Gen. Raba 9:7) It's our discontent that drives us to improve ourselves, and indeed, led to establishment of science. Not a bad thing at all. We could all be sitting around, navel-gazing, eternally happy, and achieving nothing, but really, that wasn't God's plan. But one must not give in ONLY to the Evil Inclination (and really, we might call it Id in modern parlance), because that way lies the destruction of civilization, when the world's importance is only "what can it do for ME?"


"Natural Evils" is of course a loaded term. It presumes "evil". But let's overlook that. Yes, deaths from natural occurrences are difficult for understand. It seems to be that is there is no justice. Little baby suffocating in its crib? How can that possibly be just? For the faithful, we just have to accept that we cannot know God's reasons for all things. For those that don't have a belief in God, that is unremarkably unsatisfying. Especially with no belief in an afterlife. There are anecdotal stories in the Talmud of people being shown the underlying reasons behind seemingly capricious deaths, but they are just that-- anecdotal, so not useful for this discussion. So of course I understand, on the hand, those who are believers, but who are angry at what they perceive as an unjust God, and, on the other hand, those who can't conceive of a God that is supposed to be just that allows such things to happen, therefore conclude God must not exist. But that's why neither side can ever convince the other of the veracity of their viewpoint. It's outside the realm of the provable/falsifiable. And that's why I would never try. *Shrug* Sorry if this answer is unsatisfying, but it's the nature of the beast.

[curious]

Yes, I see your point, and apologies for speling your name wrong.

It's interesting in that (aside from any religious views) that current methodology in 'soft' research is, and has been for a little while starting to embrace more and more concepts like Hermeneutic principles. Certainly a more qualitative bent would have to make a significant shift from the scientific wash cycle... and still treat the product of such research as being beyond a 'reasonable doubt'. Enough to act on, at the very least.

I am not religious at all, but that's not so say I have no belief system. The belief system I choose to 'value' however, I simply do not understand vis a 'mixed methodology' It is what it is, and in that sense, I can also see the value in holding any such method to live... that is... self contained, and not requiring the external critique of a scientific lens.
In truth, attempts to understand the world are becoming increasingly reliant on faith (perhaps common sense?), and I am not here to pillage any religious faith... just to make my point that you should not use one dogma to judge another, if that makes sense?

Basically... the rationalists, in their slaying of a God, cannot resurrect him, just to complain about how he writes.

[curious]

I used the statement 'all swans are white' as an example of a falsifiable statement only, not because it is the 'word of God'
Just like i chose the bible one' as a statement that is not... not because it is the 'word the Snick'

Please... look at the debate, not the person.
If you uphold parts of an argument and not others... do you not think it common sense to repression this too? You are after all promoting a system here, and parts of a system need to be outlined along with their 'neighbours' Even beginninf with... 'i accept X Y and Z, but have you considered... 1 and 2?

[gejyspa]

Yes, I see your point, and apologies for speling your name wrong.

It's interesting in that (aside from any religious views) that current methodology in 'soft' research is, and has been for a little while starting to embrace more and more concepts like Hermeneutic principles.

Interesting assertion. Can you expand upon that with examples?

Basically... the rationalists, in their slaying of a God, cannot resurrect him, just to complain about how he writes.

[Chris]

It's also worth noting that God in days of yore was, according to Biblical stories, active in overt ways. He visibly and with great force promoted the causes he favored, not just sitting back and avoiding interference with free will. What explains the change from this (supposed) period of active partisanship to a subtlety indistinguishable from nonexistence? Ingersoll had a great insight:

Miracles belong to the far past and the far future. The little line of sand, called the present, between the seas, belongs to common sense, to the natural.

If you should tell a man that the dead were raised two thousand years ago, he would probably say: "Yes, I know that." If you should say that a hundred thousand years from now all the dead will be raised, he might say: "Probably they will." But if you should tell him that you saw a dead man raised and given life that day, he would likely ask the name of the insane asylum from which you had escaped.

Thus, we have a single principle that explains the situation, not only in the Abrahamic religions, but also in other religions with personal gods: some circumstances make supernatural claims easier to get away with than others. The far past and the far future are removed enough to make investigation difficult. The gullible can be convinced of overt miracles today (e.g., Benny Hinn and other faith healers). There are warnings against testing God, so people don't jump off cliffs with the faith that God will catch them. I doubt that it's often a self-conscious scam on the part of the clerics, but this principle of avoiding scrutiny works its way into the fabric of religion because it has such great synergy.