tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5037450037537031710..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Christian Faith Makes a Person Stupid (Part of a Series)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69310631448727804552009-07-08T11:49:57.638-04:002009-07-08T11:49:57.638-04:00Eric,
You tell me that you are not obfuscating, bu...Eric,<br />You tell me that you are not obfuscating, but are instead clarifying. I urge you to shine your clarifying light of philosophy on your own religious thinking and see what you come up with.<br /><br />I think if you are honest you will find at least a couple of curious facts. One is that there is no monolithic entity going by the name of Christianity. There are thousands, many of which you clearly do not want to be associated with, and many others which you quite likely would not recognize as a Christianity but for their having the name. The second curious fact is that the notion of a Christian deity is a similar fistful of smoke: vague, amorphous, and ungraspable.<br /><br />While you may have personally hybridized your very own species of Christianity to play with, your species is yours, and the species trotted about by others is theirs. Your desire to disassociate yourself from those other less domesticated Christianities - you said, "Also, I decidedly do not defend these forms of Christianity" - tells me you recognize and acknowledge the gross incompatibilities.<br /><br />Yet, in a most unphilosophical way you want to defend all things calling themselves "Christian." Essentially, you spend great effort coming to the aid of a very poorly defined thing, much of which you reject yourself. I find that quite curious.<br /><br />I'm certain that if I asked you to define that Christianity thing you seek to protect, you could per philosophical prescription lay down premises and assumptions specific to your version of Christianity, arguendo, in exactly the same way as those theologians rushing to the aid of those Christianities you reject. What have you and your theological colleagues done? You've concocted distinct Christianities.<br /><br />Adorn your phraseology with all the philosophy-speak you like, but what you're doing is reasoning about a Christianity you made up. You made it up. Your follow-on reasoning can be as meticulous, as precise as you like, but even perfect argumentation cannot create reality from your arbitrary - you could have chosen completely different starting points - intellectual fabrication. <br /><br />The same holds true for your god thing.<br /><br />Mull this over and envision what was happening when the Torah, the Old Testament, and New Testament were written. Think about later on when people were deciding on the Biblical canon, or the Codex Sinaiticus(1600 year old version of Bible, available online at http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/), or the Complutensian Polyglot. <br /><br />Realize this: seminaries, schools of divinity, and philosophy departments are idea mills, particularly well-suited to stamp out new religions and gods, precisely because no standards exist to constrain them. New Christianities and associated deities just pour out of these places. Many are brainstormed to life in pubs and taverns and are lost when the napkins go out with the peanut shells and cigarette butts. Some find greater longevity as an essay, term paper or a thesis, but eventually most disappear never having reached the pool of potential converts. Still, a good number take root as entirely new Christianities. Today, a thousand new Christianities pop up each year, all rooted in their own premises and assumptions.<br /><br />Eric, if anything characterizes the Christianities, it's variability. Some are atheist. Some reject miracles including virgin births and resurrections. Some reject hell. Some throw out all of the Old Testament. Others throw out everything in the Old Testament, except for original sin. Some claim to be Biblical literalists. Some view the Bible as nice metaphor and allegory. Some throw out the Bible altogether. Some of the theistic Christianities have a god that sends people to hell; others have a god that doesn't. They are all making it up. They're not the same. They're not logically compatible. There is no standard. There exist no constraints. Still, most claim to be the bearers of "THE TRUTH."<br /><br />So, Eric, when you switch on your philosophy light, do you only see the Christianity you've made up?Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23885156435019218952009-07-06T20:50:18.278-04:002009-07-06T20:50:18.278-04:00Russ, I'm not at HDS. As I said, I'm study...Russ, I'm not at HDS. As I said, I'm studying philosophy, and HDS doesn't have a philosophy program.<br /><br />Now, you basically said two things in your post: first, that I'm obfuscating the issues; and second, that I'm just playing with some fun toys.<br /><br />Let me ask you a few questions. Is it obfuscating an issue to point out irrelevancies, or is it clarifying the issue? Is it obfuscating the issue to point out confusions concerning necessary and sufficient conditions, or is it clarifying the issue? Is it obfuscating the issue to clarify the logical form of the reasoning we're using, or is it clarifying the issue? To me, the answers to these questions are manifest. And, given that if we look at my response to you we'll see that it comprises brushing away irrelevancies, elucidating problems with sufficiency and necessity, and clarifying the form of reasoning, it seems to me to be the case that I was engaged in precisely the opposite of obfuscation.<br /><br />Now for your second claim. Let's suppose that I am just playing with some logical toys; would this in any sense render my arguments invalid? Obviously, it would not. As John frequently says, you can point to this or that personal or biographical detail, *but that doesn't obviate your duty, if you wish to engage with me on these issues, to deal with my arguments*. Indeed, given this latter point, I find it hard to understand John's praise for your response. <br /><br />"Frankly, I fail to find triviality in Christian Scientists allowing their children to die or African Pentecostals maiming or killing their own children, but it is you, Eric, who defend these Christianities, not me."<br /><br />Now you know very well that that's not what I meant when I said it's trivial. I meant that if X can lead to A, but it also can lead to Z and to everything in between, then the fact that it leads to A, taken in isolation, is true, but trivially true. This is especially true when the specific examples of A you advert to are the exceptions, not the rule.<br /><br />Also, I decidedly do not defend these forms of Christianity. See my post on the thread concerning whether atheism is rationally coercive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43934669491219161732009-07-06T12:03:23.555-04:002009-07-06T12:03:23.555-04:00Russ, you're good. Thanks for hanging around h...Russ, you're good. Thanks for hanging around here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27738103642891072602009-07-06T11:45:00.211-04:002009-07-06T11:45:00.211-04:00Eric,
[Personal aside: are you at Harvard Divinit...Eric,<br /><br />[Personal aside: are you at Harvard Divinity? One of my younger brothers - atheist with PhD in Philosophy of Religion, now at Brown - studied there decades back and applied there for a faculty position a few years ago.]<br /><br />Your analysis of my comment saddens me, Eric. Apparently, when faced with clear factual information about the world, your philosophy does nothing more for you than permit you to obscure and confuse. It appears to me that you see philosophy not as a tool for reaching a better understanding of the world, but simply as a weapon for wiping the field of anyone not inclined to rephrase all of human experience in the language of formal logic or analytical philosophy. You have a new toy and you insist that all those wanting to play must play by your rules. Know what? Even if you are studying philosophy, even if during this short fragment of your life you are completely immersed in philosophical formalism, you do not live in a world of formal logic and analytical philosophy.<br /><br />No doubt, Eric, if one were to employ you to compose a formal philosophical defense of atheism, you would choose data which you would then call facts, convert those to premises, and, then, using the same arsenal of philosophy with which you defend the Christianities - many of which you must entirely reject if you adhere to a particular brand - you would formally defend atheism.<br /><br />In a previous comment, Eric, you conceded the point of John's post, "The Christian Faith Makes a Person Stupid" when, in reference to my comment which demonstrated how the Christianities cause stupidity, you said, "In short, what you said is true, but trivially so when all the data is considered." Frankly, I fail to find triviality in Christian Scientists allowing their children to die or African Pentecostals maiming or killing their own children, but it is you, Eric, who defend these Christianities, not me. The content of the minds of these Christian Scientists and Pentecostals which permits and promotes these decidedly stupid acts, is what it is precisely due to Christian teachings.<br /><br />You respond with the completely irrelevant and completely unjustifiable reciting of universal human characteristics which you then plant a Christian flag in, as if to take ownership. You stake a claim to Western science for Christianity(notably you do not specify which one - the Pope's Christianity, Jerry Falwell's Christianity, Mormon Christianity, Christian Science's Christianity) when in reality, Western science arose, in much the same way as the plague, merely in the presence of Christianity. You want to claim that science was caused by Christianity. It wasn't. That science arose in Christian dominated countries where not professing to be Christian was equivalent to signing one's own death warrant, is not equivalent to Christianity causing science.<br /><br />The Christianities did not cause science in the same way that they did not cause winemaking, shipbuilding, fishing, archery, the Black Death(no Christianity caused it per se, but forced congregation certainly hastened its spread and added lots of extra millions to its death toll), mathematics or quantum mechanics.<br /><br />I'm sure you'll be off like a philosophical pin-ball banging and bouncing from flipper to flipper. Formal cause. Bing! Material cause. Bang! Efficient cause. Boing! Final cause. Ding! Ding! Ding! I know how Christianity caused quantum mechanics! Isaac Newton - curiously, one of those Christians who lived in fear of being executed by other Christians for his unorthodox religious thoughts - exhaled a Christianity-infused carbon dioxide molecule that remained aloft in the atmosphere for a couple hundred years, then became part of a tomato which was eaten by Neils Bohr. Thus, Christianity caused quantum mechanics. QED.<br /><br />Philosophy enslaved to the bidding of a pedantic sophist becomes charlatanism, another of the highly effective, and thus revered, weapons for perpetuating Christianity-induced stupidity.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13903884170115763332009-07-06T01:40:59.453-04:002009-07-06T01:40:59.453-04:00Loftus Loses Job as "Rape Czar"
John, I ...<strong>Loftus Loses Job as "Rape Czar"</strong><br />John, I challenged you to articulate a law system (this is the 3rd time) that would be superior to Judeo law for serving rape victims and rapists. Your evasion of the matter was fully expected. Trying to argue that society has "evolved" to a morally-superior state despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary puts you in an untenable position. <br />Looking back, I admit my folly of trying to rationalize the benefits of a woman marrying her rapist as stipulated in Deut. 22, because I remembered that the law was NEVER intended to bring people to perfection, but to make them aware of sin. <br /><br /><b>Rom 8:3</b> <i>For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.</i><br /><br />John, don't you see how completely inadequate and ill-equipped you are in empathizing with a woman who is raped? The act of being “fucked” against her will is the same action that you embellish upon to adorn your wanton vocabulary:<br /><br /><b>John Loftus wrote:</b><br /><i>God created a whole bunch of people who are just forever <b>fucked</b><br /><br />Yup a <b>fucking</b> cosmic lottery <br /><br />If you don't have the right number, well that is just too <b>fucking</b> bad<br /><br />Because sinning is just so <b>fucking</b> great right?<br /><br />Now what kind of <b>fucked</b> up logic is that?<br /><br />Okay so God did not <b>fuck</b> us over, but adam did. <br /><br />So send adam to hell you <b>fucking</b> idiot!<br /><br />They are already <b>fucked</b> or "blessed<br /><br />I was simply already <b>fucked</b> from the start.</i><br /><br />John, aren't you a lowly “shock jock” exhibitionist that enjoys seeing women gasp when you wield your literary “tool”? How could such a person maintain a happy marriage with an inner character that is destructive to a woman’s being? Don’t words emanate from the heart? Your best bet would be to find a mentor who is the opposite of “John Loftus”.Alan Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04152392475770357205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30533807239761496472009-07-05T22:20:38.119-04:002009-07-05T22:20:38.119-04:00Eric,
I applied your suggestion of sticking to th...Eric,<br /><br />I applied your suggestion of sticking to the topic of a post when posting a response to good effect. Thanks. It does work. Choosing an argumentative route (which I unfortunately default to too often) leads to jumbled thinking. So, even though I still am confused by your faith I can benefit from your methodology. Praise Zeus (just kidding). Peace.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33272556231469682572009-07-05T21:14:46.244-04:002009-07-05T21:14:46.244-04:00Chuck, I'm fine with starting from square one....Chuck, I'm fine with starting from square one. I too apologize for some of the nastier things I said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75214670486902013342009-07-05T21:13:40.728-04:002009-07-05T21:13:40.728-04:00(continued)
"We do not see a higher rate of ...(continued)<br /><br />"We do not see a higher rate of brilliancy among those of religious faith and inspiration, including the Christianities."<br /><br />Irrelevant. As I said above, two examples will suffice.<br /><br />"these are instead "human potentialities," observed in humans the world over, with or without, the influence of some Christianity."<br /><br />Again, completely irrelevant. All we need to know is if Christianity does actualize these potentialities, and you already agree that it actualizes one of them. To deny the rest will require some superhuman special pleading. <br /><br />Indeed, if we accept your point here it will defeat your initial claim, if we work out its logic. People don't need Christianity to be stupid, they do a fine job without it. So, if we can't say that Christianity is responsible for actualizing the sundry potentialities I referred to *because* these potentialities are actualized without it, then it follows that we can't say that Christianity is responsible for actualizing the potentiality of stupidity, since stupidity is actualized without it. You've refuted yourself here.<br /><br />"Sadly, Eric, you fancy yourself a philosopher"<br /><br />No, I fancy myself a student of philosophy. I have a lot to learn, but I do know enough to spot poor reasoning in many cases. <br /><br />"yet you fail to look past your religious proclivities to the world's human population which is at first human, not Christian, with human traits common to all of them."<br /><br />And? Is this related to the obvious irrelevancies I adverted to above? If so, it's been addressed and put to bed.<br /><br />"The Christianities, and Christians like you, always seem to want to claim all of humanity as its own, when that is clearly not the case."<br /><br />I have no idea what you mean here. I certainly don't claim that everyone is a Christian. Perhaps you mean that I apply my worldview to 'all of humanity.' Well, er, yeah. I see that you, as a materialist, claim that your philosophy applies to all of humanity. That's kinda how a weltanschauung works. Now, I would submit that materialism is as obviously stupid as it gets, and that it can lead to some breathtaking stupidity (e.g. eliminativism), but that's another topic for another thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83062202240738644282009-07-05T21:13:06.039-04:002009-07-05T21:13:06.039-04:00"Those areas I pointed to where Christianity ..."Those areas I pointed to where Christianity causes stupidity were not arguendo, they were but a few of the places where the Christianities purposely inculcate stupidity in their followers."<br /><br />I said that *I* was granting it arguendo, not simpliciter. Why? First, because of the way I went about refuting your claim. But second, I granted it with qualification for the same reasons I'd only grant arguendo a similarly woolly claim such as, 'capitalism makes people greedy.'<br /><br />"we will find that in reality very few working scientists, especially the "brilliant scientists" are motivated by Christian faith."<br /><br />This is irrelevant, given that all I need is two (given that I used the plural) to justify my claim. Since you're granting 'very few' above, and since that's more than two, my claim stands.<br /><br />"There is no parity of reasoning here, Eric. Parity might exist if it were observable that Christianities teach their followers material that would lead to brilliancy of mind, but they do not."<br /><br />Let's look at the form of your reasoning and then flesh it out to clarify what you're missing here. You're saying, 'some forms of C advocate A, and some people who believe C act in accordance with A, and, in some cases, acting in accord with A leads to actions that can only be described as stupid.' Here's a substitution instance: 'Some Christianities advocate young earth creationism (YEC), some of the people who practice these forms of Christianity accept YEC and accordingly repudiate evolution, and, in some cases, repudiating evolution is stupid.' (I think the 'in some cases' qualification stands with respect to evolution because, while I advocate evolution wholeheartedly, I don't think it's the case that all opposition to evolution is necessarily stupid. And this, of course, follows from one of the fundamental precepts of modern science, viz. all properly scientific theories are falsifiable, from which it follows that all properly scientific theories are provisional, and can thus, in principle, be repudiated rationally.)<br /><br />Now let's look at my claim to see if the reasoning is analogous: Some forms of Christianity advocate the notion that the universe (a) is ordered and (b) is rationally comprehensible, and some of the people who practice these forms of Christianity accept (a) and (b) and approach apparently discrete scientific data accordingly, and, in some cases, approaching the data in this way leads to brilliant science.'<br /><br />Note, it will not do to object that we don't need Christianity to accept (a) and (b). To make this claim is to confuse sufficiency and necessity, and all I need is sufficiency. Also, it will not do to claim that assuming (a) and (b) always leads to scientific brilliance or you'll again confuse sufficiency with necessity, only this time the other way around (insofar as (a) and (b) are arguably necessary for scientific brilliance, but not sufficient).<br /><br />"Christianities corrupt the content of minds, thus corrupting moral thinking, corrupting attitudes toward science and encouraging personal decision-making based on emotion, follow-the-leader and follow-the-herd. Not a recipe for personal success, much less brilliance."<br /><br />Hmm, this is only (and rather obviously) contradicted by the entire history of Western science. But hey, don't let that stop you from asserting it; as they say, why let something as mundane as the facts get in the way of such a great theory?<br /><br />"Furthermore, inspiration itself does not lead to brilliance."<br /><br />I never said it did. Remember, in my initial response I said motivates *and* informs (the latter demonstrated by (a) and (b) above, which, incidentally, I included in my initial post).<br /><br />(continued)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47593846985428306472009-07-05T17:53:16.064-04:002009-07-05T17:53:16.064-04:00Bluemongoose wrote: But allow me to throw you a cu...Bluemongoose wrote: <b>But allow me to throw you a curveball here -- and this goes for all you spectators silently watching my debates -- just b/c I ask a question doesn't mean I subscribe to its implications.</b><br /><br />Yes, Blue. Anyone can repeatedly question someone about their position without actually presenting a positive opposite claim. <br /><br />However, I don't see you as the agnostic type, so I'm guessing you actually do have a position on the subject. Care to share it with us? <br /><br /><b>Redefining atheism. Umm, Scott, atheists redefine atheism all the time. That's kind of the whole point w/the relativistic way of thinking.</b><br /><br />If we are going to communicate about something, we need to agree on the definition of terms. Yes, you and I will never share the exact same definition of anything, including Atheism, because we cannot read each other's minds, but it seems that we human beings can least get close enough to build cars, cities and even send men to the moon. Or perhaps cars function differently for some people but not others? <br /><br /><b>My objection fails. Unless it's subjective, then you cannot say it's wrong b/c nothing is wrong -- or right in that context.</b><br /><br />While I think it's been presented several times already, Atheism, in the very least as presented here in this thread, is defined as the lack of belief in the God of theism, which is a negative. We can use logic, such as the law of non-contraction, to decide if Christianity is comparable using a wide range of factors. <br /><br />However, should you be referring to an ought, instead of an is, then I fail to see how you're in <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/06/grassroots-atheism.html?showComment=4645598836290031077#c6421390177166564714" rel="nofollow">any better position that I am</a>. <br /><br /><b>God's parameters. Why do you believe Yahweh doesn't have a personality? Why do you believe He is non-material? Why do you believe the Bible depicts God as a despot? What if I suggested to you the picture of a loving, long-suffering dad who loves His kids? Want proof? Or were you just asking rhetorical questions?</b><br /><br />More "if"s. What if I suggested that Yahweh is like the Disney character Pluto? Does Pluto have a personality? Sure he does. But only because that's how his creator envisioned him and how Disney animators have depicted him throughout the years. But does this mean that Pluto actually exists as an independent entity? No, it doesn't. <br /><br /><b>Objectively comparing. Notice how you used the phrase, "what appears to be", indicating you're not sure. Would you like to be sure?</b> <br /><br />Perhaps you're the one asking rhetorical question this time? It's unclear what what I "like" has to do with what is actually true. <br /><br /><b>Prescriptions. You are proving my earlier point about atheists being shackled to inconsistency.</b><br /><br />So, just so I'm clear, Atheism is "restrained" by being defined as a negative? Really? Are you restrained by your lack of belief in Poseidon? Does the lack of a canonical prescribed course of action by your lack of belief in the tooth fairy somehow shackle you to inconsistency? No, your lack of belief in the tooth fairy is a negative belief, while your belief in the Christian God is a positive belief and defines your canonical prescribed course of action. <br /><br /><b>Science. What if science and the Bible could co-exist; but, rather, it was scientism and the Bible that could not?</b> <br /><br />More "if"s! What if Jesus was 100% finite and 100% infinite? Should one think Christianity need not abide by the law of non-contridiction, then I suppose one could think the Bible and science could co-exist. <br /><br /><b>Give me a specific example, and we'll break it down.</b> <br /><br />Blue, Let me ask you a question in return. Would God have been any less perfect or be at a loss should he have decided not have created human beings?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2630161635876689412009-07-05T16:44:19.478-04:002009-07-05T16:44:19.478-04:00Eric,
You said,
let me grant all you've said ...Eric,<br />You said,<br /><b><br />let me grant all you've said arguendo, but let's think a bit more deeply about this.<br /></b><br />Those areas I pointed to where Christianity causes stupidity were not arguendo, they were but a few of the places where the Christianities purposely inculcate stupidity in their followers. What I stated was not some hypothetical premises, it was observed facts. Christianities cause stupidity.<br /><b><br />Many brilliant scientists claim that their Christian faith motivates them to attempt to understand the world. <br /></b><br />I'm sure if we tease out the semantics of "many," "brillant," "scientists," get the actual numbers of these "many brilliant scientists" and analyze what their true motivations are, we will find that in reality very few working scientists, especially the "brilliant scientists" are motivated by Christian faith. I can say this for having worked with several Nobel Laureates; listened to and read a great many keynote addesses, conference papers, Nobel acceptance speeches; worked with members of the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences, and finding that while they state many varied reasons for pursuing their work, religious faith, specifically the Christian faith, is not among their stated motivations.<br /><br />What's more, Eric, is that I have known many "brilliant scientists" who happened to be part of some Christianity, but in listening to them talk of their work and their lives, you would be given no clues whatsoever that they had any religious affiliation. Whether in public addresses, writings about their work or private conversations, they do not claim that some Christianity moves them, motivates them, or inspires them.<br /><b><br />Now, in this case, by parity of reasoning, the Christian faith makes people brilliant.<br /></b><br />There is no parity of reasoning here, Eric. Parity might exist if it were observable that Christianities teach their followers material that would lead to brilliancy of mind, but they do not. Christianities corrupt the content of minds, thus corrupting moral thinking, corrupting attitudes toward science and encouraging personal decision-making based on emotion, follow-the-leader and follow-the-herd. Not a recipe for personal success, much less brilliance.<br /><br />Furthermore, inspiration itself does not lead to brilliance. In the absence of concrete, relevant information, no amount of inspiration will lead to success. The world over we see that given the proper information to work with, brilliancy can come from people harboring many bizarre thoughts and claiming any number of curious inspirations. We do not see a higher rate of brilliancy among those of religious faith and inspiration, including the Christianities.<br /><br />Realize, Eric, that in your listing of human potentialities, you pointed directly to the fact that these are not potentialities that are Christian-caused, these are instead "human potentialities," observed in humans the world over, with or without, the influence of some Christianity.<br /><br />My contention is not that Christianity is the only thing that causes stupidity, but observably Christianities work hard to perpetuate stupidity, and to increase the number of people afflicted with it, while they do little to combat it.<br /><b><br />I would also say that we should expect nothing less of a view of the world rich enough to encompass it.<br /></b><br />Sadly, Eric, you fancy yourself a philosopher, yet you fail to look past your religious proclivities to the world's human population which is at first human, not Christian, with human traits common to all of them. The Christianities, and Christians like you, always seem to want to claim all of humanity as its own, when that is clearly not the case.<br /><b><br />In short, what you said is true, but trivially so when all the data is considered.<br /></b><br />What I said is indeed true, and when the data is considered accurately, we see that your excursion into Christian Apologetics World, was yet another Christian misrepresentation of the world and humanity, another factual nurturing of the Christian stupid.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51513269771684458252009-07-04T23:15:10.689-04:002009-07-04T23:15:10.689-04:00Scott:
Why do you assume I have an objection to e...Scott:<br /><br />Why do you assume I have an objection to excluding atheism as a worldview? Originally, I merely asked why Chuck thought the way he did regarding atheism as a worldview. You'll notice throughout my posts that I never said specifically, "atheism is a worldview" Apparently Chuck had heard that somewhere else before and incorporated it into our conversations. Again, I merely asked why he felt that way.<br /><br />But allow me to throw you a curveball here -- and this goes for all you spectators silently watching my debates -- just b/c I ask a question doesn't mean I subscribe to its implications.<br /><br />Redefining atheism. Umm, Scott, atheists redefine atheism all the time. That's kind of the whole point w/the relativistic way of thinking. Each individual has his/her own interpretation of what atheism is. These are the shackles the follower must bear. Nothing is consistent, therefore, atheism has no solid boundaries. Nobody within that framework can give you a firm definition of what constitutes an atheist. After all, everyone's opinions are equal...<br /><br />My objection fails. Unless it's subjective, then you cannot say it's wrong b/c nothing is wrong -- or right in that context.<br /><br />God's parameters. Why do you believe Yahweh doesn't have a personality? Why do you believe He is non-material? Why do you believe the Bible depicts God as a despot? What if I suggested to you the picture of a loving, long-suffering dad who loves His kids? Want proof? Or were you just asking rhetorical questions?<br /><br />Objectively comparing. Notice how you used the phrase, "what appears to be", indicating you're not sure. Would you like to be sure?<br /><br />Prescriptions. You are proving my earlier point about atheists being shackled to inconsistency.<br /><br />Science. What if science and the Bible could co-exist; but, rather, it was scientism and the Bible that could not?<br /><br />Basic human rights. Why do you believe your statement here is true? Give me a specific example, and we'll break it down.<br /><br />You question regarding biblical interpretation. That was a very good question. Come with me down the rabbit hole, Alice. I have much to show you...Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57319714237174779832009-07-04T20:01:21.472-04:002009-07-04T20:01:21.472-04:00bluemongoose,
Sconner, I come to the same conclus...bluemongoose,<br /><br /><i>Sconner, I come to the same conclusion about atheism. Ultimately, who is right? What tips the scales? If reason comes from humans -- and they can't decide on pizza toppings -- who's to say what the right answer is?</i> <br /><br />Odd argument.<br /> <br />1. Curious? -- why do you not believe in allah and the qur'an -- god's final revelation of divine guidance and direction for mankind?<br /> <br />2.I would have to venture, the reasons you do not believe in the qur'an and do not believe in the allah-character out of the qur'an are the same reasons I reject the bible and your bible-god.<br /> <br />3. How come you believe an angel spoke to Mary foretelling the coming of the christ but you do not believe an angel revealed the qur'an to Mohammad? What exactly is your reasoning?<br /> <br />4. Please explain your unbelief in allah and the qur'an? What exactly is your reasoning?<br /><br />Presumably you do not believe in elves. Many Icelanders believe in these magical entities. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/03/icelanders-and-their-culturally.html<br /><br />5. What is the reasoning you use to discount the existence of elves?<br /><br />6. Considering your non-belief in elves, allah and the qur'an -- is this the same scrutiny, logic and skepticism you use in determining your christian belief is true?<br /> <br />I await your excuses and diverging...................sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90679209635187779182009-07-04T19:38:15.680-04:002009-07-04T19:38:15.680-04:00Bluemongoose wrote: Wouldn't this be a great p...Bluemongoose wrote: <b>Wouldn't this be a great place to put in a plug for scribed doctrine and absolutes, a moral standard not based on something as fickle as humans?</b><br /><br />Blue, <br /><br />This sounds great on paper, but if God doesn't exist, then all we have are deluded fickle human beings who *think* they have a direct line to God, telling us what they think God would want if he did exist. <br /><br />When one objectively looks at Christianity, we see what appears to be just that. <br /><br />To make matters worse, If they believe God is the source of morality, then ultimately something either pleases God or it offends him. Period. They need no concrete reasons to back up their claims because it supposedly comes from a "transcendent" source. The Bible doesn't say that Homosexuality is an abomination because the Israelites population had dropped to under 10,000 people and God wanted to ensure their survival as a race. It merely said that it was wrong because God said so. This is how you treat two year olds, not grown human beings, which would obviously have the capacity to understand reasonable explanations. <br /><br />So, to answer your question, I'd rather have a bunch of people who at least are aware and mindful of their tendency to be fickle, then a bunch of delusional people who refuse to give up the illusion that their fickle views come from a transcendent, omniscient being.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21301791375317621332009-07-04T19:23:02.658-04:002009-07-04T19:23:02.658-04:00Blue,
Here is an objective definition of "wo...Blue,<br /><br />Here is an objective definition of "world-view" - A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung ( [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] (help·info)) Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is the German word for "view" or "outlook." It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts with it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as the translated form world outlook or world view.<br /><br />An atheist operates from a negative - no god and therefore does not have a workable framework from which to interpret or interact with the world simply from this negation. There must be a system of thought they develop in harmony with their atheism that then constitutes their worldview.<br /><br />Christianity on the other hand IS a worldview that presupposes supernatural assertions as fact so that morality can be defined in line with these presuppositions.<br /><br />Comparing Christianity and atheism as world-views indicates you do not know what a world view is.<br /><br />Now if you want to compare Christianity to atheistic communism or atheistic naturalism then we can have a discussion but to conclude that atheism is in itself an integrated system of intepreting reality is really just a sad example of your ignorance.<br /><br />I know you are a woman because you once had your profile public but when the heat came down on you, it was switched to private.<br /><br />Now, fill us in on what you believe.<br /><br />Or will you still defensively back-peddle and prove you are an idiot.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42420843668501875492009-07-04T19:04:20.589-04:002009-07-04T19:04:20.589-04:00Blue,
It seems your continued objection to exclu...Blue, <br /><br />It seems your continued objection to excluding atheism as a world view is based what you conciser an unfair claim that Christianity was somehow responsible for a wide variety of atrocities, such as The Crusades, etc. <br /><br />Perhaps your thoughts are, "If they can redefine Christianity, then I can redefine Atheism", as if part of some exercise that will eventually show us the error in our ways? <br /><br />If you merely affirmed the existence of a non-materilal, infinitely powerful and knowledgeable being, and left it at that, then it might be a valid comparison. However, this is clearly not the position of Christianity. As such you are comparing apples to oranges, and your objection fails. <br /><br />Christianity doesn't merely say that God exists - it says that God is the very source of morality. Christianity tells it's followers they should be "fishers of Men." It says that God created the universe using his omnipotent will and omniscient knowledge. But in attempting to answer a wide range of questions by inserting an intelligent agent into the hierarchy of creation, you open up an whole can of worms regarding what this agent likes and dislikes, his intentions and his rules, etc. <br /><br />If God is non-material and does not respond in any reasonable way questions about his nature, this leaves a gaping void in which a wide range of non-falsificable claims can be made. <br /><br />Furthermore, the Bible depicts God demanding and assisting in acts of tribal genocide and portrays his enjoyment over dashing children rocks and the smell of burnt offerings. These are just a few barbaric examples. Christians do not view these depictions as later actions taken by fanatical followers, but part BIblical canon. <br /><br />You may object and claim that God created a new convent when he sent Jesus to die for our sins. But, should this have actually occurred, what would this say about God's nature? <br /><br />God used to think genocide was OK, but now things it's wrong? God used to enjoy dashing children upon rocks, but has since reformed? Or perhaps Jesus is really the kinder and gentler side of the Trinity and God hasn't really changed at all?<br /><br />When one objectively compares this to the idea of an unchanging, perfect being, one can't help but see what appears to be nonsense, or at best case, the result of conflicting ideas from different sources. <br /><br />Despite your claim to the contrary, when someone thinks the Christian God does not exist, there is no further "canonical" atheist prescription that must follow. It's a negative. Instead, this appears to be another attempt to spread misconceptions about atheism - just as many theists seem to think acknowledging evolution implies support of eugenics, or every other social policy which happen to go against your religious beliefs. <br /><br />Clearly, we can both think that eugenics is wrong, but for completely different reasons.<br /><br />Should someone note how the Bible conflicts with discoveries about the universe around us, Christians often reply that the Bible wasn't meant to be a book of science. But when we also note that the Bible conflicts with what we currently see a basic human rights, then one must question what *is* the Bible supposed to represent and how should it be interpreted?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65750645029162617442009-07-04T18:59:35.676-04:002009-07-04T18:59:35.676-04:00Chuck:
You say, victimhood; I say, someone finall...Chuck:<br /><br />You say, victimhood; I say, someone finally put a mirror up to you and showed you what kind of person you are. <br /><br />Strawman, huh? If what I post can't be used against atheism, then where's your counter argument? Merely implying that what I posted was wrong doesn't do anything. I can say gravity doesn't exist all I want, but does it make it true? <br /><br />Atheism is not a worldview. So you say, but you still don't back it up w/anything. Remember merely stating something doesn't make it so.<br /><br />Bigots. Do you even know what a bigot means? Why do you assume I'm a woman? How does my "devotion to biblical gener roles" prove anything? Another statement you don't back up. I hope you're not in college. Your professors would not be happy w/your lack of follow-up.<br /><br />Proof. Chuck, continue to dialogue w/me, and you will have all the proof you need. These things take time; and as we dissect each issue individually, you will get exactly what you have asked for -- unless you'd like to use the old impatient excuse: "If I can't have it now, then I don't want to play anymore!" In which case I would say, "I hope some day you graduate to solid foods."<br /><br />Name calling. More statements that you don't back up. Haughty? Or you just don't like what I've said?Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73347468187973794972009-07-04T18:38:10.102-04:002009-07-04T18:38:10.102-04:00Phil:
Putting words in your mouth, or you just do...Phil:<br /><br />Putting words in your mouth, or you just don't like what I've said. After all, how dare I suggest that atheists could be zealots, intollerant and bigotted after they have worked so hard to free themselves from the bonds of absolutes.<br /><br />Martin Luther. Sure, sure. The thought of connecting those kinds of dots never crossed your mind. You're jut upset b/c I saw your move ahead of time and put you into check.<br /><br />Twisting words. Again, atheist-speak for when your slight of hand move has been flushed out before you had the chance to use it.Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7757535556140087012009-07-04T18:27:00.635-04:002009-07-04T18:27:00.635-04:00Sconner, I come to the same conclusion about athei...Sconner, I come to the same conclusion about atheism. Ultimately, who is right? What tips the scales? If reason comes from humans -- and they can't decide on pizza toppings -- who's to say what the right answer is?Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31270645717550327232009-07-04T18:23:52.784-04:002009-07-04T18:23:52.784-04:00Hi there, Scott!
Your entire post brings to light...Hi there, Scott!<br /><br />Your entire post brings to light the problem w/relativim: if all we have to rely on for our moral foundations is humans, who do we believe -- if they are all equal?<br /><br />Wouldn't this be a great place to put in a plug for scribed doctrine and absolutes, a moral standard not based on something as fickle as humans?Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51623106912663958642009-07-04T18:14:48.670-04:002009-07-04T18:14:48.670-04:00Hiya, Gopraire.
Senseless circles? Or you've...Hiya, Gopraire.<br /><br />Senseless circles? Or you've just never heard my arguments before? I thought you atheists were open-minded.<br /><br />Proving the point. But in an atheistic society that supports relativism, why should your opinion/interpretation matter to anyone but you? Unless you like making one-ended stick arguments in which the only thing not subjected to relativism is atheist viewpoints.<br /><br />Answers. Ah, so it's a soapbox you desire. Why get answers about something you don't understand when you can mudsling? Sounds very typical.<br /><br />Are you an atheist? You might be living proof of this title: "The Atheist Faith Makes a Person Stupid." <br /><br />Myths & lies. If we use your standard of relativism, then I am free to say, "that's just your interpretation." How can you, a human with finite knowledge say for sure there is not infinite God? Are we to assume you believe yourself to be infinitely knowledgable?<br /><br />I can assert atheism is sloppy thinking. If all we are left with is relativism, how do we know which fallible human is correct if we are both equal? I could also say stupid people adhere to atheism, it requires blind obedience; and atheist believers are shackled to their dogma.<br /><br />So this all begs the question, which is better: relativism where there are many interpretations, nobody knows where to draw lines and who is right & wrong; or (option 2) scribed doctrine w/absolutes? <br /><br />Are you freer w/atheism or does it make you shackled to the idea that there is nothing solid?Bluemongoosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345851513268502559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15046891794643829302009-07-04T17:04:58.383-04:002009-07-04T17:04:58.383-04:00Eric,
Let's say we are square and start from ...Eric,<br /><br />Let's say we are square and start from scratch next time. Apologies again for misrepresenting your POV and thanks for informing me of yours. I obviously don't see how you can be such a student of logic and also embrace Christianity but I hope to find that out as we dialogue here. Be well.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64876583266083138782009-07-04T16:12:53.258-04:002009-07-04T16:12:53.258-04:00eric,
I don't think that my position is rati...eric, <br /><br /><i>I don't think that my position is rationally coercive, but I do think that it's rational...</i><br /><br />Rational?<br /> <br />What's rational about believing in a magical god/man (the schizophrenic embodiment of god -- both god and the son at the same time), born of a virgin (<i>foretold by an angel</i>) who can walk on water, get the party going buy multiplying bread and wine and was raised from the dead (alive and well, good as new), which somehow magically altered sin so that if you use the <i>magic of telepathy</i> you can let Jesus know that you believe in him and you will be spared the torturous existence in the flames of hell for an eternity?<br /> <br />That's rational?<br /><br />--S.sconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17473671062467783406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56472105305452467002009-07-04T14:32:53.806-04:002009-07-04T14:32:53.806-04:00"Can I then presume that your analysis of NL ..."Can I then presume that your analysis of NL leads to a conclusion that late term abortionists have forfeited their right to life?"<br /><br />No, just that, as I said, the conclusion is not unreasonable given the premises an NL theorist is working with (and, of course, that the NL premises are not themselves unreqasonable). For example, I think that atheism is not an unreasonable position, but you cannot make the move from this premise to the conclusion that I am an atheist. Similarly, you cannot make the move from my claim that given NL premises, the conclusion that a late term abortionist has forfeited his right to life (which doesn't mean that *anyone* has the right to take it, or that the state *has* to take it) is not unreasonable, to the conclusion that I believe that a late term abortionist has forfeited his right to life. There's a bit of nuance there, but it's not at all trivial. As I said previously, my own position on abortion (which I sketched in a previous post) is as confused as the complexity of the issue would lead one to expect. <br /><br />"how do you know that I've, " . . .not worked out either the beliefs as (I) understand them or the problems as (I) see them."<br /><br />I was referring to your formualtion of the questions. You must work out in some detail just what your understanding of a particular term or Christian belief is (since they tend to vary both inter-demoninationally and intra-denominationally), and you must work out in some detail just what the problem with that term or belief is. Until you've done that, your questions are far too vague to make anything of, since I'm unsure of both what it is you understand a particular term to mean, and what you understand the problem to be.<br /><br />Please, if you do attempt to clarify a question, try to make sure it's relevant to the topic of this thread, i.e. how Christian belief makes someone stupid (and please read my response to Russ so we don't go over the same ground again).<br /><br />"I am asking your perspective on the basic teachings I heard week after week in main-stream Christian churches and which I have finally come to reject as absurd."<br /><br />As I said, these teachings vary, so you must be precise. Also, after you clarify a question, you can't simply present it and assume that the absurdity you claim is there is self evident: you have to clarify precisely where the absurdity lies (and, I hope, avoid fallacious arguments from personal incredulity). Also, any apparent absurdity must support the claim of this thread, viz. that Christianity makes people stupid.<br /><br />"You are a defender of the faith correct?"<br /><br />No, I'm just trying to get at the truth. I was an ardent atheist for a number of years, but gradually came to believe that the theistic worldview and the arguments for it are more consistent with my experience of the world and my philosophic intuitions (which we all rely upon when thinking these things through). I've changed my mind in the past, and I'm certainly open to doing it again in the future. I don't think that my position is rationally coercive, but I do think that it's rational, just as I would say (and I presume John would agree) that the arguments for atheism aren't rationally coercive, but atheism is rational.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89325757451379795522009-07-04T10:07:51.433-04:002009-07-04T10:07:51.433-04:00Eric,
May I ask one other thing how do you know t...Eric,<br /><br />May I ask one other thing how do you know that I've, " . . .not worked out either the beliefs as (I) understand them or the problems as (I) see them."<br /><br />I am asking your perspective on the basic teachings I heard week after week in main-stream Christian churches and which I have finally come to reject as absurd.<br /><br />You are a defender of the faith correct?<br /><br />All I ask you to do is defend the rhetoric that is shared in countless church services and small group bible studies throughout this country. <br /><br />Thanks.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com