Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   John could I talk to you?
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 92 (26571)
12-14-2002 5:39 AM


John your view of christianity makes me sad. I would like to start a discussion with you where we could discuss the problems you have with Christianity. I will give effort in my posts and research what we are to discuss. I will admit right now that I do not proffess to have all the answers. I admit that I am wrong sometimes. Let's start with your most major beef with Christianity.
------------------
saved by grace

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 12-14-2002 10:11 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 3 by joz, posted 12-14-2002 10:12 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 8 by John, posted 12-14-2002 2:49 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 92 (26578)
12-14-2002 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by funkmasterfreaky
12-14-2002 5:39 AM


I`m not John but try this to warm up with....
I see no evidence that intragalactic magenta gerbils exsist, I see no evidence that your God exists, why do you think I should believe in your God and not the aforementioned vacuum dwelling rodents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-14-2002 5:39 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by forgiven, posted 12-14-2002 1:07 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 92 (26579)
12-14-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by funkmasterfreaky
12-14-2002 5:39 AM


sorry double post....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-14-2002 5:39 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 92 (26582)
12-14-2002 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by joz
12-14-2002 10:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
I`m not John but try this to warm up with....
I see no evidence that intragalactic magenta gerbils exsist, I see no evidence that your God exists, why do you think I should believe in your God and not the aforementioned vacuum dwelling rodents?

you aren't john and i'm not funky, but i'd like to know something if you don't mind... i don't think i've ever actually asked this... what *do* you believe? iow, do you flat out deny God's existence or do you just say the door's open if and when you become convinced? also, do you insist on empirical evidence for something before you can believe it exists? thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by joz, posted 12-14-2002 10:11 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by joz, posted 12-14-2002 1:24 PM forgiven has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 92 (26584)
12-14-2002 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by forgiven
12-14-2002 1:07 PM


I`m not sure I *believe* anything, I pretty much assume a priori a material universe, as we discussed earlier nobody has yet managed to really dig metaphysics out of the hole that Hume dug, I guess you could call that a form of belief if you include tentativity in your definition....
Following on from this concept of the universe I assume that matter/energy and its interactions can be observed and models of how these interactions occur can be constructed....
All else follows....
As for things I have no evidence for I stick them in a holding bin of disbelief untill such a time as evidence of interstellar chartereusse rodents, semitic tribal deities etc becomes available to assess....
Now I`m sure some would term that agnosticism but personally I consider it *weak* atheism (weak in that new evidence could change my opinion)....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by forgiven, posted 12-14-2002 1:07 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John, posted 12-14-2002 1:59 PM joz has replied
 Message 9 by forgiven, posted 12-14-2002 5:17 PM joz has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 92 (26586)
12-14-2002 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by joz
12-14-2002 1:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
I`m not sure I *believe* anything, I pretty much assume a priori a material universe, as we discussed earlier nobody has yet managed to really dig metaphysics out of the hole that Hume dug, I guess you could call that a form of belief if you include tentativity in your definition....
Following on from this concept of the universe I assume that matter/energy and its interactions can be observed and models of how these interactions occur can be constructed....
All else follows....
As for things I have no evidence for I stick them in a holding bin of disbelief untill such a time as evidence of interstellar chartereusse rodents, semitic tribal deities etc becomes available to assess....
Now I`m sure some would term that agnosticism but personally I consider it *weak* atheism (weak in that new evidence could change my opinion)....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-14-2002]

Pretty much how I view the issue as well, with maybe a tweak or two which I'll bring up if it ever becomes important.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by joz, posted 12-14-2002 1:24 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by joz, posted 12-14-2002 2:42 PM John has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 92 (26590)
12-14-2002 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John
12-14-2002 1:59 PM


Hey John if you don`t mind me asking what are those minor changes? Just curious.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John, posted 12-14-2002 1:59 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 92 (26591)
12-14-2002 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by funkmasterfreaky
12-14-2002 5:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Let's start with your most major beef with Christianity.
Ok. Fair enough.
My major philosophical problems with Christianity are different from the major reasons I care, so I'll start there just for clarity. I care because the dogma permiates most of the world I inhabit. For the most part, this isn't a problem. There are large portions of that dogma which are functionally necessary to a society, any society. Things like prohibitions against theft and murder, for example. The problem is that the dogma goes far beyond functionally necessary. It reaches into areas like sexual preference, family life, medicine... pretty much everywhere. It permiates the legal system in the form of, say, marriage restrictions. Christians invariable don't see this, in my experience. It also permiates the social structure at other levels. For example, it effects the funding of science. It effects the funding of arts. In effect, this equates to censorship of knowledge and speech. It can be dangerous to not be christian, or dangerous to violate christian principles. It can be dangeous, even, to be the wrong kind of christian, just read some history. On the subject of reaching far beyond functional necessity, the OT can be and has been used to justify all manner of things. You likely don't want to admit it, but slavery is condoned. Instructions are given as to how badly one can beat a slave. Instructions are given as to how to sell your daughters. Racism is condoned. The sum total of the OT is an account of a massive race war. I think the religion promotes warped values such as blind faith and a perverse ethnocentrism. It takes the responsibilty for ones actions off of the individual and places it on GOD or the devil-- holy war or demonic intervention.
Anyway, that should give you something to chew on. I know that your first objection is going to be that I can't blame the religion for the actions of the people, so you might as well go ahead make your case.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-14-2002 5:39 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-14-2002 6:19 PM John has not replied
 Message 19 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-15-2002 8:02 PM John has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 92 (26612)
12-14-2002 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by joz
12-14-2002 1:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Now I`m sure some would term that agnosticism but personally I consider it *weak* atheism (weak in that new evidence could change my opinion)....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-14-2002]
ok, fair enough... so you only believe that which is, or has been, empirically verified and all else goes into your bin of disbelief... i'm not quite clear on the depth from which metaphysics has yet to be dug re: hume... before i say anything on that maybe you can flesh it out for me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by joz, posted 12-14-2002 1:24 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by John, posted 12-14-2002 5:51 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 92 (26615)
12-14-2002 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by forgiven
12-14-2002 5:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, fair enough... so you only believe that which is, or has been, empirically verified and all else goes into your bin of disbelief... i'm not quite clear on the depth from which metaphysics has yet to be dug re: hume... before i say anything on that maybe you can flesh it out for me
It can be a bit hard to get a handle on Hume. One's intellect tends to revolt at the thoughts he thought. That said, Hume wrote his A Treatise of Human Nature in 1739-40, and as far as I am aware no one has been able to clean up the mess he made.
Imagine a TV screen and playing on it is a sitcom or National Geographic Special or whatever. For the time being, imagine that the only sense we have is that of sight. There is an image on the screen but it isn't substantial. The images are illusory flashes of light on a screen. Imagine that screen to fill your entire field of vision wrapping around on all sides. Now imagine this screen capable of producing the appearance of depth. At this point it becomes impossible to infer the existence of the television that is producing this image. It is impossible to 'go behind the scenes' and infer a substrate upon which these images play. Thus, all we have is the illusory flickering images. This is the vision Hume had. Just add that not only vision, but all of the senses included.
Hume then attacked causality. Look at the screen, there are no real connections between any two items any more than a billiard ball on a TV screen actually strikes another ball on that screen. We can't infer a substrate, remember. There are no identifiable connections, nothing solid upon which to pin the ideas of matter or motion or energy.
Hume then looked for the self. And never saw it. His thoughts turn out to be more images on the screen.
Have a nice day.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by forgiven, posted 12-14-2002 5:17 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by forgiven, posted 12-14-2002 10:22 PM John has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 92 (26616)
12-14-2002 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John
12-14-2002 2:49 PM


Okay, I'm going to some what agree with you here, in that we as Christians have been responsible for some terrible things in history and in the present. Even warring amongst ourselves over doctrine. I think we also push our belief system on others in the name of "evangalism", which really flips the angry switch on those who believe differently than us. I don't blame them for getting angry it's not our place to say what others should and should not do with their personal lives. We may have chosen differently, and we should focus on trying to live whatever particular doctrines we have chosen rather than push them. To me "evangalism" should be very simply to love, as Jesus Christ has shown his love for us, so should we then love others. This has been a problem in Christianity from the beggining (see Revelations 2).
quote:
On the subject of reaching far beyond functional necessity, the OT can be and has been used to justify all manner of things. You likely don't want to admit it, but slavery is condoned. Instructions are given as to how badly one can beat a slave. Instructions are given as to how to sell your daughters. Racism is condoned. The sum total of the OT is an account of a massive race war.
I am going to have to do some more study on my OT, to discuss this too much further. I admit I have not read the books of the law in a long time. I tend to pick up from Samuel on. I do know that yes again you are right and the OT has been blatantly misuesed to justify some terrible things. I do know that it was normal for Hebrews to sell themselves into slavery to each other, kind of like a contract worker.
I guess I've never thought of the OT as a huge race war. I guess I just always saw it as an account of God's relationship to his people. He had made a promise to Abraham and he did not break it. Even when all of Israel would stray from him. He allowed them to suffer the consequences of their actions, but did not leave them. This is a very brief and off the top of my head response, but I always saw the OT as a testament to God's faithfulness. To me it shows how much man fails and turns rotten on his own power. But how God is still faithful and keeps his word. Even though man continually breaks his end of the deal. I'm sure you will disagree, and yes I have only presented opinion so far. It is going to take some more study to make a decent case. Will try and support this assertion by monday.
Like Chara I am not going to try and change your mind, I find, as she stated that it is better to discuss things with people who think differently than you than with those who are like minded. This is why I enjoy discussion with you.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John, posted 12-14-2002 2:49 PM John has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 92 (26624)
12-14-2002 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by John
12-14-2002 5:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
It can be a bit hard to get a handle on Hume. One's intellect tends to revolt at the thoughts he thought. That said, Hume wrote his A Treatise of Human Nature in 1739-40, and as far as I am aware no one has been able to clean up the mess he made.
Imagine a TV screen and playing on it is a sitcom or National Geographic Special or whatever. For the time being, imagine that the only sense we have is that of sight. There is an image on the screen but it isn't substantial. The images are illusory flashes of light on a screen. Imagine that screen to fill your entire field of vision wrapping around on all sides. Now imagine this screen capable of producing the appearance of depth. At this point it becomes impossible to infer the existence of the television that is producing this image. It is impossible to 'go behind the scenes' and infer a substrate upon which these images play. Thus, all we have is the illusory flickering images. This is the vision Hume had. Just add that not only vision, but all of the senses included.
Hume then attacked causality. Look at the screen, there are no real connections between any two items any more than a billiard ball on a TV screen actually strikes another ball on that screen. We can't infer a substrate, remember. There are no identifiable connections, nothing solid upon which to pin the ideas of matter or motion or energy.
Hume then looked for the self. And never saw it. His thoughts turn out to be more images on the screen.
Have a nice day.
yeah i understand that part, it's just that i never really thought that his philosophy dug *that* deep a hole... do you find him to be inconsistent?... iow, don't his arguments utilize the very metaphysicality he denies? i can't quite understand how he can doubt even his own existence (maybe i'm going a little far here), being a proponent of "illusion," without that very doubt being inconsistent a la descartes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John, posted 12-14-2002 5:51 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-14-2002 11:26 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 92 (26627)
12-14-2002 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by forgiven
12-14-2002 10:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
yeah i understand that part, it's just that i never really thought that his philosophy dug *that* deep a hole...
Then you aren't getting it, no offense. Hume's Treatise is a huge book and honestly, it is about ten times longer than it has to be. But Hume was smart enough to know how people would react, so he wrote case after case after case to illustrate his point. He took every angle he could think of taking. You really should read the book.
quote:
do you find him to be inconsistent?...
He made some errors in Treatise, but none that are critical. Actually, I think he wasn't as radical as his premises demand.
quote:
iow, don't his arguments utilize the very metaphysicality he denies?
The only snag I see is that Hume was logical, and it can be argued that logic is derived from the idea of causality, which Hume undermined. Thus, the argument defeats itself. It is internally inconsistent.
The other side of the coin is that Hume perhaps wasn't reasoning, just looking.
quote:
i can't quite understand how he can doubt even his own existence (maybe i'm going a little far here), being a proponent of "illusion," without that very doubt being inconsistent a la descartes
Cogito ergo sum is a circular argument. I know you like Descartes, but he was wrong-- very very wrong.
Basically, HE wasn't doubting HIS existence. There is no HE to do the doubting. This is the point Hume made. The assumption that there has to be a thing that thinks or a thing that sees is unfounded. What is a thought? It is a picture or a sound which appears to be inside our heads. Just like any other image or sound. You cannot infer behind the screen to a substrate. Emotions are in the same boat.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by forgiven, posted 12-14-2002 10:22 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 12:31 AM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 92 (26634)
12-15-2002 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
12-14-2002 11:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
Cogito ergo sum is a circular argument. I know you like Descartes, but he was wrong-- very very wrong.
Basically, HE wasn't doubting HIS existence. There is no HE to do the doubting. This is the point Hume made. The assumption that there has to be a thing that thinks or a thing that sees is unfounded. What is a thought? It is a picture or a sound which appears to be inside our heads. Just like any other image or sound. You cannot infer behind the screen to a substrate. Emotions are in the same boat.
i grant the circularity of descartes... however, it seems intuitively true that it requires conciousness to either affirm or deny conciousness, as it requires reason (or logic) to affirm or deny either reason or logic...
i will look for it at the library when i go to get the one chara recommended... the one by frances schaffer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-14-2002 11:26 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-15-2002 1:23 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 92 (26638)
12-15-2002 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by forgiven
12-15-2002 12:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i grant the circularity of descartes...
Hey!!! Progress!!!!
quote:
however, it seems intuitively true that it requires conciousness to either affirm or deny conciousness, as it requires reason (or logic) to affirm or deny either reason or logic...
Careful. This is exactly what Descartes did. Don't you just hate those intuitive truths?
You, like Descartes, are assuming an agent or a self, right off the bat. But where is the evidence? The more you look, the more you find images -- memories or imagination-- or sounds -- voices in you head. But no self.
When you 'get' Hume, your jaw will drop. I promise.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 12:31 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 10:29 AM John has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024