John Cuthber Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 OK, fair enough, but please cite evidence for madness as a consequence of facing reality, and, in particular, show a difference between theists and atheists. Zorro, what you don't seem to realise is that, from a scientific point of view, the OP might just as well say "God is real because the unicorns said so.". Also, you need to learn to recognise logical fallacies.
Unity+ Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 His logic is plainly flawed He's doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question and so are you by saying "God does exist ". Logical fallacies of that sort achieve nothing: they just make you look foolish. His logic is plainly flawed He's doing this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question and so are you by saying "God does exist ". Logical fallacies of that sort achieve nothing: they just make you look foolish. If you are implying that stating that God does exist is a fallacy, then you yourself are making yourself looking like a fool, if you will. As I have stated in another post stating that God does or does not exist with scientific experiment is pseudoscience. Science is the analysis, your belief is the conclusion. Many believe that the Universe developed through the physical mechanisms, other stated that the Universe, in fact in some way, was created by God.
iNow Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) If you are implying that stating that God does exist is a fallacy, then you yourself are making yourself looking like a fool Perhaps you should look up the concept of begging the question before you continue pushing this particular stance. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html Many believe that the Universe developed through the physical mechanisms, other stated that the Universe, in fact in some way, was created by God. Indeed, but this is a false equivalence you've just put forth. One of those positions is supported by an abundance of evidence. The other is a hollow claim based on nothing more than faith and wish thinking. Can you tell which is which? Additionally, this only displaces the exact same question, as the next question (if we assume the above to be true) is "where did god come from?" When you say "goddidit" it's a completely empty non-answer. Science cannot prove or disprove God. And this is a large part of the reason it's so easy to suggest that people who accept the existence of god(s) as some absolute truth are broken. Science also cannot prove or disprove that the tooth fairy is real, or that leprechauns with magical powers exist. I suspect you would not argue that people who choose not to believe in those are broken, yet that's exactly what you're doing here in context of your personally preferred flavor of deity. The evidence for god is nonexistent. Now back to the question. Are people who believe in God broken? Of course now. This is clearly not what you intended to type, but it is funny. Perhaps we should consider that it was a Freudian slip and a large part of you knows that both your argument here and your beliefs about human invented deities are without merit? Edited August 12, 2013 by iNow
zorro Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 OK, fair enough, but please cite evidence for madness as a consequence of facing reality, and, in particular, show a difference between theists and atheists. Zorro, what you don't seem to realise is that, from a scientific point of view, the OP might just as well say "God is real because the unicorns said so.". Also, you need to learn to recognise logical fallacies. Thank you john, .... I do need help often but logic isn't one of my weaknesses. The God is real debate has nothing to do with the OP. You seem to assert it to leverage with a Atheist's point of view and your whole debate collapses. In general, you argue with my ref than with me. This is debate and not a precise Chemistry quiz.. Good Luck.
iNow Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 The God is real debate has nothing to do with the OP.I disagree. The idea of the existence of god(s) is central to the question of whether or not people who believe in it are broken.
zorro Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) * Are you saying that people who believe in God are .... * but God does not exist. * therefor people believe in a nonexistant God. You insert a fault because people's beliefs are their footing even to Atheists. and a footing must be real to them even if only a dream. Edited August 12, 2013 by zorro
Tor_Hershman Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 We're all phucked-up! We're all phucked-uP!
imatfaal Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 ! Moderator Note Tor Profanities misspelt are still profanities - please avoid them. Please also keep on topic. Everyone else When criticising another's logic or argument please do not fall into the trap of calling other members broken, silly or foolish. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.
John Cuthber Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) If you are implying that stating that God does exist is a fallacy, then you yourself are making yourself looking like a fool, How fortunate then, that I made no such implication. What I said was that assuming that God exists and then using that to prove the existence of God is a logical fallacy. It is, and so is the argument from authority- particularly when the authority isn't very good at logic. Since it's a breach of the forum's rules to use logical fallacies in an attempt to support a point, I will leave you all to ponder whether or not such action is wise. Edited August 12, 2013 by John Cuthber 1
Unity+ Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) Perhaps you should look up the concept of begging the question before you continue pushing this particular stance. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html Indeed, but this is a false equivalence you've just put forth. One of those positions is supported by an abundance of evidence. The other is a hollow claim based on nothing more than faith and wish thinking. Can you tell which is which? Additionally, this only displaces the exact same question, as the next question (if we assume the above to be true) is "where did god come from?" When you say "goddidit" it's a completely empty non-answer. And this is a large part of the reason it's so easy to suggest that people who accept the existence of god(s) as some absolute truth are broken. Science also cannot prove or disprove that the tooth fairy is real, or that leprechauns with magical powers exist. I suspect you would not argue that people who choose not to believe in those are broken, yet that's exactly what you're doing here in context of your personally preferred flavor of deity. The evidence for god is nonexistent. This is clearly not what you intended to type, but it is funny. Perhaps we should consider that it was a Freudian slip and a large part of you knows that both your argument here and your beliefs about human invented deities are without merit? If you really want to debate with dignity, you might as well cut the arrogance because it doesn't make for a proper debate. Taking advantage of human fault is not a point of a debate. I guess my point was not clear, which was clearly my fault. Am I stating that God is proven scientifically? No, I am not, but back to analyzing your key points. Perhaps you should look up the concept of begging the question before you continue pushing this particular stance. Okay...I will. That has what I currently discussed. Here is my point. Since God clearly cannot be proven or disproven scientifically we can enter the realm of philosophy, which tends to look at science in a different light. Since philosophy is not debated with scientific evidence, but with philosophical logic this means things can be debated not with observable evidence measured through scientific rigor, but with a form of "human logic" for lack of a better term. Indeed, but this is a false equivalence you've just put forth. One of those positions is supported by an abundance of evidence. The other is a hollow claim based on nothing more than faith and wish thinking. Can you tell which is which? Be careful before you put forth a sentence. There is scientific evidence, which I think you meant to put forth within your argument, and just regular evidence, which can be left as many forms of evidence. Do we have any scientific evidence that can prove God? I would have to say not at this moment and I don't think we can because trying to do so would be pseudo science. However, there is philosophical "evidence" and argument as a way of the definition by analysis of the mechanisms of science and many forms of logic that exist. Additionally, this only displaces the exact same question, as the next question (if we assume the above to be true) is "where did god come from?" When you say "goddidit" it's a completely empty non-answer. Now your arguments are just getting very "dull" because you clearly imply that all religous imply this statement. An object falls to the ground. Would I say that "God did it?" Well, I would say that the object that gravity cause the object to fall to the ground and that the design of the mechanism behind the existence of gravity are created by God(though this is a very simple example). If you want to argue more on this point, then so be it. And this is a large part of the reason it's so easy to suggest that people who accept the existence of god(s) as some absolute truth are broken. Science also cannot prove or disprove that the tooth fairy is real, or that leprechauns with magical powers exist. I suspect you would not argue that people who choose not to believe in those are broken, yet that's exactly what you're doing here in context of your personally preferred flavor of deity. The evidence for god is nonexistent. Well, the problem with your argument somewhat breaks down because we can clearly tell that fairies and leprechauns were invented by humanity through the greed instinct, which clearly God(through scripture of the Christian faith) is against such. Again, you forget to say scientific evidence. My argument above argues this. This is clearly not what you intended to type, but it is funny. Perhaps we should consider that it was a Freudian slip and a large part of you knows that both your argument here and your beliefs about human invented deities are without merit? Again, the arrogance in this statement is beyond the measure of a debate. Edited August 13, 2013 by Unity+
iNow Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) If you really want to debate with dignity...What dignity is there in debating with someone who honestly believes their imaginary friend is real? I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I will not offer any undue and unearned deference just because your flavor of imaginary friend is more popular. Either way, I urge you to focus on the content of these posts instead of their tone or your assumptions about my personality. Since God clearly cannot be proven or disproven scientifically we can enter the realm of philosophy, which tends to look at science in a different light. Since philosophy is not debated with scientific evidence, but with philosophical logic this means things can be debated not with observable evidence measured through scientific rigor, but with a form of "human logic" for lack of a better term.This exemplifies why I find most philosophy to be a waste of time. That which can be asserted without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence. Be careful before you put forth a sentence. There is scientific evidence, which I think you meant to put forth within your argument, and just regular evidence, which can be left as many forms of evidence.Let me clarify. First, you must define god in a way that is measurable and can achieve consensus. As of right now, god is little more than in ill-defined three letter word that means different things to different people. It must not be vague, and it must be a definition that can be tested. Second, you must provide evidence in this case is something that ties specifically to that clear definition. As should be obvious, I'm referring to scientific evidence. The position of most theists, including you I suspect, would be something vague like "our own existence is evidence of god," or "the existence and our knowledge of love is evidence there is a god," or some similar mumbo jumbo. It's equivalent to suggesting that thunder is evidence of Thor or that waves in the ocean are evidence of Poseidon. No, that is not what I mean by "evidence," especially not on a subject as profound as the existence of deities. Those who claim god(s) exist are the ones making extraordinary claims so extraordinary evidence is what is required for those positions to earn any credibility whatsoever. Now your arguments are just getting very "dull" because you clearly imply that all religous imply this statement.None of this changes my point that replacing the idea of a big bang with a conjecture that "goddidit" does little more than to displace the same question. It is a non-answer that suffers from the same faults you attack in the BB hypothesis. Call it dull all you want. My point remains. Discarding the BB hypothesis and replacing it with a god conjecture does nothing but to introduce a new complexity into the discussion, displacing the question of creation farther backward in a way that solves nothing, and yet that way simultaneously creates new questions like "what, then, created god(s), and what then created that?" It becomes an infinite regression, and turtles all the way down. IMO, "goddidit" is an answer found satisfying only to fools, to the mentally vulnerable, and to the lazy among us. Well, the problem with your argument somewhat breaks down because we can clearly tell that fairies and leprechauns were invented by humanity through the greed instinct, which clearly God(through scripture of the Christian faith) is against such.In what ways do you think it's clear that fairies and leprechauns are invented by humans, but god(s) are not similarly invented? Also, why do you assume the Christian god is the only real one, and not any of the other thousands of human invented gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology? I venture to suggest that your Yahweh is NOT, in fact, any different nor any less fictional. Your god, regardless of your worldview or belief system, is equivalent to the easter bunny or puff the magic dragon. If you disagree, then you're welcome to offer some evidence in favor of your stance and I will review it. If it's anything more than mere faith and wish thinking, I might even change my mind and become a theist myself, but until then I am taking the most logical and rational position by assuming there is no good nor compelling reason to accept as valid the conclusion that some sort of magic cloud surfing invisible sky dictators exist in any way outside of the human mind. Again, you forget to say scientific evidence. My argument above argues this.I forgot no such thing. This is a science forum. When requesting evidence it is implicit that scientific evidence is what's called for. If your standard of evidence is so low that anything and everything can support your position... things like suggesting that a lovely sunrise or a flowering plant or a lively flowing river are evidence of god(s)... then it is truly no standard at all. It has no utility, and offers no value in ensuring our positions are valid and accurate and that we don't believe in nonsense and aren't fooling ourselves. Now... Perhaps such vacuous and nonsensical forms of evidence are good enough for philosophers, but not me nor most members of this community. Again, the arrogance in this statement is beyond the measure of a debate.You would be well served to focus on the content of my points instead of their tone. It does no benefit to your argument to evade the core issues by commenting on my style or personality. Edited August 13, 2013 by iNow
Moontanman Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 Unity+, on 12 Aug 2013 - 8:54 PM, said: Well, the problem with your argument somewhat breaks down because we can clearly tell that fairies and leprechauns were invented by humanity through the greed instinct, which clearly God(through scripture of the Christian faith) is against such. While your idea of god may be against such, those things were once part of a religion that had just as much evidence as your religion does and was against your religion which won not because it had more compelling evidence but because anyone who wouldn't convert to christianity was killed, often quite painfully and gruesomely... . In fact the Bible states that unicorns are real, do you believe in unicorns? 1
md65536 Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) Of course, this implies that God is a delusion of the mind. I think you forget to apply another part of the argument. Science cannot prove or disprove God. This means that simply stating that it is a fact that God does not exist is an utter admittance to applying pseudoscience based on a claim that you will declare or imply as a scientific statement. I specifically avoided taking sides on whether a god exists or not, because neither side is proven. I should have more clearly separated "delusion" and "belief in something unknown", but I think what I wrote is true whether a god exists or not. Some degree of delusion is healthy (I argue it's "necessary"), other degrees are unhealthy, whether it's about religion or anything else. OK, fair enough, but please cite evidence for madness as a consequence of facing reality, and, in particular, show a difference between theists and atheists.I'm thinking along the lines of "obsessive mental preoccupation" or something, and I'm talking about people who can't stop facing reality. This is really only a guess, and I'm no expert of course, but I think that the normal, "non-broken" ability to quiet your thoughts (even just to allow for sleep) is a type of avoidance of all the pressing issues that could occupy your mind, and is SIMILAR to suppressing thought with religion. Moderate consumption of alcohol can be healthy, same with religion! I specifically think there is no great difference between atheists and theists in this. Relaxing a racing mind is healthy, moderate use of external reality-suppressants can be healthy, and moderate use of religion can be healthy. Here's an example which will hopefully make my point clear: Suppose someone likes to relax by reading fiction. Are they necessarily broken? They are avoiding reality! Suppose their behavior is partly inspired by a fictitious character. Are they broken then? I don't see the difference between that and letting religion shape one's reality, whether the religion is "true" or not, with the caveat that extreme escape of reality with any of these things can be unhealthy to the point of breaking someone. Conversely, refusing to "waste" time or potential, and only constantly and fully facing measurable reality, is not healthy. A possible difference that comes from whether or not a person realizes they're avoiding reality, I think doesn't matter in small degree. Addition: Looking back over the thread, if by "believing that the sky fairy will make it better isn't going to improve things nearly as well as actually doing something about it," you meant only in the case where belief prevents necessary action in life, then I agree (falls under "extremism" I think), but that's not what was being argued. Edited August 13, 2013 by md65536
Unity+ Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 Unity+, on 12 Aug 2013 - 8:54 PM, said: While your idea of god may be against such, those things were once part of a religion that had just as much evidence as your religion does and was against your religion which won not because it had more compelling evidence but because anyone who wouldn't convert to christianity was killed, often quite painfully and gruesomely... . In fact the Bible states that unicorns are real, do you believe in unicorns? Where does it say such a thing? You would be well served to focus on the content of my points instead of their tone. It does no benefit to your argument to evade the core issues by commenting on my style or personality. This is clearly not what you intended to type, but it is funny. Perhaps we should consider that it was a Freudian slip and a large part of you knows that both your argument here and your beliefs about human invented deities are without merit? That ends my point on that statement. I forgot no such thing. This is a science forum. Yes, and this is the religion section. I specifically avoided taking sides on whether a god exists or not, because neither side is proven. I should have more clearly separated "delusion" and "belief in something unknown", but I think what I wrote is true whether a god exists or not. Some degree of delusion is healthy (I argue it's "necessary"), other degrees are unhealthy, whether it's about religion or anything else. I'm thinking along the lines of "obsessive mental preoccupation" or something, and I'm talking about people who can't stop facing reality. This is really only a guess, and I'm no expert of course, but I think that the normal, "non-broken" ability to quiet your thoughts (even just to allow for sleep) is a type of avoidance of all the pressing issues that could occupy your mind, and is SIMILAR to suppressing thought with religion. Moderate consumption of alcohol can be healthy, same with religion! I specifically think there is no great difference between atheists and theists in this. Relaxing a racing mind is healthy, moderate use of external reality-suppressants can be healthy, and moderate use of religion can be healthy. Here's an example which will hopefully make my point clear: Suppose someone likes to relax by reading fiction. Are they necessarily broken? They are avoiding reality! Suppose their behavior is partly inspired by a fictitious character. Are they broken then? I don't see the difference between that and letting religion shape one's reality, whether the religion is "true" or not, with the caveat that extreme escape of reality with any of these things can be unhealthy to the point of breaking someone. Conversely, refusing to "waste" time or potential, and only constantly and fully facing measurable reality, is not healthy. A possible difference that comes from whether or not a person realizes they're avoiding reality, I think doesn't matter in small degree. Addition: Looking back over the thread, if by "believing that the sky fairy will make it better isn't going to improve things nearly as well as actually doing something about it," you meant only in the case where belief prevents necessary action in life, then I agree (falls under "extremism" I think), but that's not what was being argued. I apologize if it seemed I was attacking you. I was just trying to get a clearer understanding of the argument. you meant only in the case where belief prevents necessary action in life, then I agree (falls under "extremism" I think), but that's not what was being argued. I think that can be more in the broader sense of opinion rather than just religion. For example, believing in something in some government that is against the idea would be an example, though yes there are religions(especially some Christian sects) that believe medicine is bad and evil. I particularly find them ignorant because they clearly haven't read the Bible at all. That is one thing I actually do dislike or find uncomfortable about certain religious people, which is the fact that they believe something without even reading what was behind the whole belief in the first place. If i remember correctly, there are only 40% of Christians who have read the Bible all the way through(I have read almost the whole Bible). Igorance is what led to the corruption of the Catholic church and government within England(correct me if I am wrong). They made it impossible or improbably for people to gain access to a readable Bible to actually see what the Bible had stated, which lead to false teachings. I can see and understand where all the "hate" towards religion came from that aspect and yes many disasters in history, with religion and war, have been caused by ignorance and I think that is the main attack towards religion; the aspect of things that clearly if A happened, than B must be true. If millions of people were killed because of false teachings of a religion then clearly the religion must be hogwash, which is entirely false because the religion itself doesn't even teach violence at all.
iNow Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) Suppose someone likes to relax by reading fiction. Are they necessarily broken? They are avoiding reality! Suppose their behavior is partly inspired by a fictitious character. Are they broken then? I don't see the difference between that and letting religion shape one's reality... So long as they recall it's just a fiction, then no. Reading or being inspired by fiction is not broken. We agree. However, that's hardly the case when the topic is religion and god(s). These people not only think it's real, but absolute truth. That's a rather important distinction that you ought to incorporate into your thinking on this topic. That is a big difference. It's the difference between watching a movie about teenage mutant ninja turtles to distract yourself for 2 hours versus thinking the movie is a documentary representative of reality and that there are really giant martial arts practicing shelled organisms in the sewers. Where does it say such a thing? There are unicorns in the bible in at least five different books... They can be found in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, and Isaiah. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/unicorn/ . Yes, and this is the religion section. Requests for evidence are still implicitly scientific requests, regardless of the section or subforum. You should review the rules to which you agreed when creating your account if you remain confused or uncertain about this point. This isn't a "make up any damned thing you want" forum. It's a science forum. I can see and understand where all the "hate" towards religion came from that aspect... Just to be clear, I do not "hate" religion nor the religious. I do, however, hate ignorance, especially the willful variety. There just seems to be a tremendous overlap between religion and ignorance, despite the ability of people to cite exceptions to that generalization (there are a great many very intelligent and brilliant theists, but their beliefs and worldview are still rooted in a specious set of assumptions and wish thinking). IMO, ignorance should be eradicated in all its forms through education, rationality, reason, and critical thinking whenever possible. All of those things are anathema to religion, religious belief, and religious practice, each of which require that obvious falsehoods and contradictions be ignored and that central claims and foundational premises and assertions be accepted as true based on faith alone. Faith is perhaps one of the single worst possible reasons to accept something as true. It's little more than pretending to know something you cannot know. ...and yes many disasters in history, with religion and war, have been caused by ignorance and I think that is the main attack towards religion; the aspect of things that clearly if A happened, than B must be true. If millions of people were killed because of false teachings of a religion then clearly the religion must be hogwash, which is entirely false because the religion itself doesn't even teach violence at all. I know you stated above that it irritates you when people make claims without having read the bible, and you shared how you have read "almost the whole thing" yourself, but perhaps you should read it fully. It seems you're now the one making misguided claims. There are MANY religions that teach violence, including yours. See below for a brief sampling. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html Ignoring these facts, or hand waving them away through rationalizations and logical fallacies and contradictory positions, does not magically make them disappear. You made a claim that "religion doesn't even teach violence at all," which is self-evidently untrue, even within your own personally preferred flavor of religion, not to mention the countless others out there. Edited August 13, 2013 by iNow 1
Unity+ Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) So long as they recall it's just a fiction, then no. Reading or being inspired by fiction is not broken. We agree. However, that's hardly the case when the topic is religion and god(s). These people not only think it's real, but absolute truth. That's a rather important distinction that you ought to incorporate into your thinking on this topic. That is a big difference. It's the difference between watching a movie about teenage mutant ninja turtles to distract yourself for 2 hours versus thinking the movie is a documentary representative of reality and that there are really giant martial arts practicing shelled organisms in the sewers. There are unicorns in the bible in at least five different books... They can be found in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, and Isaiah. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/unicorn/ . Requests for evidence are still implicitly scientific requests, regardless of the section or subforum. You should review the rules to which you agreed when creating your account if you remain confused or uncertain about this point. This isn't a "make up any damned thing you want" forum. It's a science forum. Just to be clear, I do not "hate" religion nor the religious. I do, however, hate ignorance, especially the willful variety. There just seems to be a tremendous overlap between religion and ignorance, despite the ability of people to cite exceptions to that generalization (there are a great many very intelligent and brilliant theists, but their beliefs and worldview are still rooted in a specious set of assumptions and wish thinking). IMO, ignorance should be eradicated in all its forms through education, rationality, reason, and critical thinking whenever possible. All of those things are anathema to religion, religious belief, and religious practice, each of which require that obvious falsehoods and contradictions be ignored and that central claims and foundational premises and assertions be accepted as true based on faith alone. Faith is perhaps one of the single worst possible reasons to accept something as true. It's little more than pretending to know something you cannot know. I know you stated above that it irritates you when people make claims without having read the bible, and you shared how you have read "almost the whole thing" yourself, but perhaps you should read it fully. It seems you're now the one making misguided claims. There are MANY religions that teach violence, including yours. See below for a brief sampling. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html Ignoring these facts, or hand waving them away through rationalizations and logical fallacies and contradictory positions, does not magically make them disappear. You made a claim that "religion doesn't even teach violence at all," which is self-evidently untrue, even within your own personally preferred flavor of religion, not to mention the countless others out there. For one thing, that is a St. James translation, which gives different translations of meaning. The "strength of a unicorn" is simply referred to as a measure of strength. At the time at which that particular Bible was written they decided to reference such as a measure of strength. Requests for evidence are still implicitly scientific requests, regardless of the section or subforum. You should review the rules to which you agreed when creating your account if you remain confused or uncertain about this point. This isn't a "make up any damned thing you want" forum. It's a science forum. I have not presented any evidence and I haven't made any up either. there are a great many very intelligent and brilliant theists, but their beliefs and worldview are still rooted in a specious set of assumptions and wish thinking I can respect such opinions. Just to be clear, I do not "hate" religion nor the religious. I never implied such, and if it translated in such a way I did not do this intentionally. Faith is perhaps one of the single worst possible reasons to accept something as true. It's little more than pretending to know something you cannot know. Though not scientific, mathematics sometimes makes some "faith" based assumptions, such as many hypotheses that rely on the Riemann Hypothesis to be true. Also, there is no evidence behind Hawking radiation, yet we accept it as fact(though there are the few who are skeptical towards the idea. It is an interesting idea, but unproven at this moment in time(Unless I am unaware of a recent discovery). It seems you're now the one making misguided claims. There are MANY religions that teach violence, including yours. See below for a brief sampling. Now, here is my counter-argument to that claim. There is no promotion to the violence if one were to develop an analysis of the statements made in the Bible based on the connections between readings. Let us become "unscientific" about this and let us make an analysis of the Bible. In no way had God promoted violence within the Bible. If you remember, in the beginning of the Creation story within the Bible there is the Fall of man. This ultimately begins to Spiral of Violence, with the killing of Abel by Cain. This violence continues on with humanity and will last centuries. Did humanity promote violence? Yes. Did God within the Bible? Not that I am aware of. EDIT: And to include on from the New Testament, Jesus Christ(and historically Jesus did exist, you can make a counter-argument if you want, but it is whether you see him as just a person or whatever is to be made a conclusion by you) did not promote violence at all. He was totally against it. Also, a response to the Skeptic's Notated Bible: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it."Why not? What's wrong with knowing right from wrong? If man had not had the knowledge of evil, then there would be no need to know right from wrong. In order to know wrong, there must be knowledge of evil. Edited August 13, 2013 by Unity+
iNow Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) For one thing, that is a St. James translation, which gives different translations of meaning. Nice try, but that's irrelevant to the point. There are unicorns in the bible. That was the assertion made. You asked where, and you were answered. Here's more (since the version seems to matter to you): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#Biblical I have not presented any evidence... Yes, we agree. That's sort of the issue I've been trying to point out to you. You believe these extraordinary claims despite the complete absence of evidence in their favor. Offer some evidence, you and your position might gain some credibility. Refuse, and you will receive no unearned or undue deference for your worldview. You are claiming that in this reality there is a god or gods. If you cannot support that with evidence, then you could equally be asserting the existence of any other fictional creature or product of human imagination. You would not ask that we take seriously claims that santa claus is real, so why are you asking for us to apply a different set of standards for your personally preferred fiction? Though not scientific, mathematics sometimes makes some "faith" based assumptions, such as many hypotheses that rely on the Riemann Hypothesis to be true. Again, irrelevant to my point. Maths does that as an axiom. They say, "given X, then Y." If we have no evidence in favor of X, however, it can be dismissed as speculative nonsense (much like I'm doing with theist claims). Likewise, with your example of Hawking radiation, people acknowledge readily that it is an unproven conjecture. The analogy fails since it's not treated as some absolute truth in the way theists do with their personally preferred flavor of deity or god(s). They're not saying that gods might exist. They're saying that gods do exist. This is an important difference, and a huge reason why I and others feel so comfortable calling them broken. Now, here is my counter-argument to that claim. There is no promotion to the violence if one were to develop an analysis of the statements made in the Bible based on the connections between readings. Let us become "unscientific" about this and let us make an analysis of the Bible. In no way had God promoted violence within the Bible. I'm sorry, but if this is truly your position then you are no longer approaching this discussion in good faith. It's self-evidently true that god supports violence in the bible, in many ways and in many forms, and to suggest otherwise means you're engaging in the very hand waving, logical fallacies, and cherry picking about which I warned in my previous post. Did humanity promote violence? Yes. Did God within the Bible? Not that I am aware of. EDIT: And to include on from the New Testament, Jesus Christ(and historically Jesus did exist, you can make a counter-argument if you want, but it is whether you see him as just a person or whatever is to be made a conclusion by you) did not promote violence at all. He was totally against it. And here's one of those contradictions I mentioned. Are you sure you've actually read the bible you continue to cite? As you might recall: http://www.examiner.com/article/why-believe-the-bible-viii-jesus-supported-writings-of-old-testament-prophets While Jesus gave a speech to the multitudes from the top of a mountain, he firmly supported the divine authority of the Old Testament as a whole. Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. – Matthew 5:17,18, NIV <snip> Many of us are familiar with the two greatest commandments in the Bible–to love God with our whole being and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus quoted these verses and said, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:37-40, KJV) First of all, Jesus is deliberately quoting two separate books of Moses–Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Secondly, Jesus is upholding all Scripture by implying that “the law and the prophets” are based upon love for God and others. Jesus absolutely supported the laws and scriptures of the old testament. You may not like what this means for your position, but it remains true all the same. More on that here. It seems that it's only his current followers that like to pretend he did not. Edited August 13, 2013 by iNow
Unity+ Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 Nice try, but that's irrelevant to the point. There are unicorns in the bible. That was the assertion made. You asked where, and you were answered. Here's more (since the version seems to matter to you): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#Biblical Yes, we agree. That's sort of the issue I've been trying to point out to you. You believe these extraordinary claims despite the complete absence of evidence in their favor. Offer some evidence, you and your position might gain some credibility. Refuse, and you will receive no unearned or undue deference for your worldview. You are claiming that in this reality there is a god or gods. If you cannot support that with evidence, then you could equally be asserting the existence of any other fictional creature or product of human imagination. You would not ask that we take seriously claims that santa claus is real, so why are you asking for us to apply a different set of standards for your personally preferred fiction? Again, irrelevant to my point. Maths does that as an axiom. They say, "given X, then Y." If we have no evidence in favor of X, however, it can be dismissed as speculative nonsense (much like I'm doing with theist claims). Likewise, with your example of Hawking radiation, people acknowledge readily that it is an unproven conjecture. The analogy fails since it's not treated as some absolute truth in the way theists do with their personally preferred flavor of deity or god(s). They're not saying that gods might exist. They're saying that gods do exist. This is an important difference, and a huge reason why I and others feel so comfortable calling them broken. I'm sorry, but if this is truly your position then you are no longer approaching this discussion in good faith. It's self-evidently true that god supports violence in the bible, in many ways and in many forms, and to suggest otherwise means you're engaging in the very hand waving, logical fallacies, and cherry picking about which I warned in my previous post. And here's one of those contradictions I mentioned. Are you sure you've actually read the bible you continue to cite? As you might recall: http://www.examiner.com/article/why-believe-the-bible-viii-jesus-supported-writings-of-old-testament-prophets Jesus absolutely supported the laws and scriptures of the old testament, only his current followers pretend he did not. (Why did I even become a part of this debate). I am just going to end it here because I came to discuss science, not religion. Why am I even debating?
iNow Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 So, you concede the argument and acknowledge that you're unable to offer any valid or reasonable rebuttals to my criticisms or answers to my questions?
Unity+ Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 So, you concede the argument and acknowledge that you're unable to offer any valid or reasonable rebuttals to my criticisms or answers to my questions? Well, as I stated I am ending my part of the argument, so yes.
Phi for All Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 If man had not had the knowledge of evil, then there would be no need to know right from wrong. In order to know wrong, there must be knowledge of evil. This has always bothered me. It seems to imply that if I don't understand the concept of evil, I'm immune from it. If I don't understand evil, isn't there a chance I might do something God would claim as evil? Adam: "Hey God!" God: "Hi Adam. Where's Eve?" Adam: "She's resting after our latest talk." God: "Adam, is that Eve on the ground with her skull caved in?" Adam: "Yeah. We were talking about that apple tree you told us to stay away from, and she wanted to eat one. I needed to stop her and I remembered I once hit my head on a rock and slept for a while. So I found a smaller rock and made it hit her head so she'd sleep. Smart, huh?" God: "You killed her, Adam. That's pretty evil." Adam: "I'm sorry, pretty what?!" 1
Unity+ Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) This has always bothered me. It seems to imply that if I don't understand the concept of evil, I'm immune from it. If I don't understand evil, isn't there a chance I might do something God would claim as evil? Adam: "Hey God!" God: "Hi Adam. Where's Eve?" Adam: "She's resting after our latest talk." God: "Adam, is that Eve on the ground with her skull caved in?" Adam: "Yeah. We were talking about that apple tree you told us to stay away from, and she wanted to eat one. I needed to stop her and I remembered I once hit my head on a rock and slept for a while. So I found a smaller rock and made it hit her head so she'd sleep. Smart, huh?" God: "You killed her, Adam. That's pretty evil." Adam: "I'm sorry, pretty what?!" Well, in order for that argument to withstand the word "killing" would have to be switched with "murder". Epigenetics follows the idea that the experiences of an ancestor of an offspring can affect that offspring genetically. For the sake of argument, since freewill exists within humanity as God created us to be, when we ate the tree of knowledge of good and evil that spread genetically. Though this is baseless as speculation, it is a point. EDIT: iNow, I know your going to attack this argument so if you do I am not going to be able to support any of these claims because of my lack of knowledge within epigenetics, so save the post. Edited August 13, 2013 by Unity+
iNow Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 Well, as I stated I am ending my part of the argument, so yes. And this is part of the problem, evidenced right here. You and other theists like you expect your religious stance to be offered some sort of respect and treated seriously, yet you are completely unable to address reasonable criticisms or rationally address valid questions.
Unity+ Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) And this is part of the problem, evidenced right here. You and other theists like you expect your religious stance to be offered some sort of respect and treated seriously, yet you are completely unable to address reasonable criticisms or rationally address valid questions. Well, you don't have to go on about it. I ended my part of the debate, whether we agree on something or not. We agree to disagree. You and other theists like you expect your religious stance to be offered some sort of respect and treated seriously I am not asking for any stance to be respected more than the other. In fact, I intend that both stances are respected equally, whether there is an agreement or not. Edited August 13, 2013 by Unity+ 1
John Cuthber Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 I am not asking for any stance to be respected more than the other. In fact, I intend that both stances are respected equally, whether there is an agreement or not. That's the problem. You don't understand why a belief in the Sky Fairy should not be given the same respect as science. Where, on the scale of "respect" do you think that Zeus should be, or Ra or the FSM? Do you consider them all equal? I think most atheists do so, when it comes to a lack of respect, at least I'm consistent. I respect evidence. Incidentally, there was a discussion earlier about arrogance and atheism. Well, I'm an atheist and I'm arrogant. But I'm not arrogant enough to think that the entire Universe was created for the benefit of me and my species. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now