|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
On the whole, at some point in such a discussion, atheists and theists are gonna throw filth at each other saying "no, YOU are immoral because you do this, and WE are moral because we don't do that, and do this!" --So?....Anyone other than me see the need for a absolute standard here? And at some point Protestants are going to burn Catholics at the stake, and Catholics are going to burn Protestants at the stake. And Muslims are going to crash planes into the World Trade Center. And apparently everybody hates the Jews.
Yes, I "see the need" for an "absolute standard". But I do not see why that "absolute standard" should be the one that you preach. Nor do I suppose that because I need such a thing that it should therefore exist. Being hungry does not prove that I have bread. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So you're reading everything, thinking only about what you want to and posting to get my nerves up. That's an odd interpretation of my behavior. And wrong, but it's the oddity that I'm now going to think about. I am not trying to annoy you, I'm just trying to debate with you. If I ever really want to annoy you, then believe me you'll notice.
Yeah! So... Would you rather throw away morality then? No need of morals at all? No, of course not. You seem to be trying to put up a false dichotomy: either I believe in the God that you believe in, or I have no morality whatsoever. That is not actually how it works. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But you still haven't followed me.
Yes, I see the need for an absolute moral standard. But that doesn't mean that I think that one exists. I just wish that one did and that someone could tell me what it is. And so you ask me what is my "idea of a absolute moral standard". Well, darned if I know. I'd just like there to be one. But apparently there isn't. You might as well ask me what color I think unicorns are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The thing is, if you are interesting in hitting at the crux of the matter, like Hyro pointed out, you would never said this: Well, I think that that is hitting at the crux of the matter. If you have any questions about this concept, I'll be happy to answer them.
Sure, have your own morality standard........only, your attempts to live up to any standard are going to fail. Whether you like it or not. This is true enough. It is also true of Christians. Indeed, Christians are obliged by their religion to belive that this is true of them. So what's your point? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Like Apothecus said, if atheists' main focus is NOT morality and theists' is, then who is ahead of the morality game Stile? Apparently, the atheists. I don't have to waste a moment of my time thinking: "Hey, that woman's cute, I should rape her ... oh, wait, but that's immoral"; or "Hey, I'm short of money, so I should mug that little old lady ... oh, wait, but that's immoral". The people who have to think about morality a lot are the people who are led into temptation a lot. I hardly ever have to think about morality except in abstract discussions of it on Internet forums. So I can spend my time thinking about stuff that is way more interesting. Why should I have to think about morality? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If the atheists do not agree that the scientific method is useless, then then is debate is useless. Then this debate is useless. How can we agree that the scientific method is useless? It abolished smallpox, it put men on the moon, and it is the reason why we have computers that can communicate over the Internet. We couldn't even be having this discussion if not for the fact that the scientific method totally kicks ass.
Do you want to have a discussion or not, DA? I do, but not if I first have to agree as a premise that "the scientific method is useless". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
In responding to my main post, you first objection was that: There is no better way than the scientific method to study anything and that this is the most reliable way. Here are your words: Yes, those were my words. Would you like to argue with them rather than just confessing yourself "nonplussed"? Otherwise this isn't so much a debate as a walkover.
Next, your second objection is: A realization of moral imperfection does not necessitate the existence of its remedy, instead it makes us wish for there to exist such a remedy. Here are your words: Again, yes, that's what I wrote. Would you like to argue with me instead of just quoting me?
When I ask you to step out of your arena, into mine and ask you to allow for the possibility of supernatural existence ... ... then I did so. I acknowledge the possibility of the supernatural. Without reservation, without conditions. I allow for the possibility of supernatural existence.
You simply dismiss me. Yeah, it was kinda simple. I await your counter-argument.
I'm confused! Utterly. Agreed.
1. You do not want to conceive of God, just like you are not interested in conceiving of pink unicorns... 2. You want me to use the scientific method 3. You challenge me to propose a better method because you think I'm just blowing smoke here and have nothing to offer. But your point (1) is false. I am happy to conceive of the concept of God, just as I am happy to conceive of the concept of pink unicorns. It causes me no problem to imagine a pink unicorn. The thing that I find difficult is to discover evidence of a pink unicorn.
Ahh, I was looking for these. Fancy fallacy names. In classic atheist style... Um ... now you're making stuff up. I did not name a fallacy. As a matter of fact, I paraphrased Matthew Arnold. I would point out that if you don't like imaginary people making imaginary statements naming your fallacies, then maybe you should stop committing fallacies, and then maybe the imaginary people who live in your head will shut up.
You're telling me that its okay to reject my God's moral code and instead have imperfect men follow a imperfect, self-made moral code. No, that is not what I told you.
Wait!!! But didn't you agree with me that you "see the need" for a "absolute moral code"?? Yes. I wish there was one, just like I wish that there was a God, and just like I wish I was a millionaire and that there was a pill one could take that would cure cancer. What's your point? If I find something desirable, that doesn't give me a shadow of a shred of evidence that it's true I wish that there was an absolute moral code, and that I knew what it was, but this doesn't lead me to think that there actually is one, and that I know what it is.
AND, ignoring my points on what the Christian religion offers ... I didn't. I get what it offers. But I am unable to believe that it is true.
You do want to have a discussion. I am supposed to play the game under your rules. Well, those "rules" are what it means to have a discussion. If you can supply me with evidence that there is a God, then I'll think about it with an open mind, and maybe I'll argue with you, and maybe I'll dispute your evidence, and maybe I'll dispute the conclusions that you draw from the evidence, and maybe I'll try to pick holes in your logic ... and so on. That would be a discussion. You might even win. If you can't get to stage 1, where you put up some evidence, then what is there left for us to talk about? It'll just be you saying: "There is a God, there is a God, there is a God", and me saying: "I don't believe you". If we can't discuss evidence and its interpretation ... then what else is there for us to discuss? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm not angry or ticked off. My problem is, if you guys aren't willing to let go of it right now... the debate, most probably, is gonna end at "me: so, ____ is why we need to believe God. You: But where is the physical evidence for God, why should I even believe in a God I don't even see????" I'm not for this. Then I guess we're done. I'm open-minded --- if someone wants me to believe in ghosts or fairies or unicorns or God then I will listen carefully to their evidence. But if you decline to provide me with evidence, then what do we even have to talk about. Your non-evidence for the Christian God is indistinguishable for your non-evidence for the Muslim God and your non-evidence for the Easter Bunny. If you refuse to supply me with evidence for your opinions, then we literally have nothing to discuss. So yeah, we might as well stop. Because if you will not put up some shred of a scrap of a scintilla of an argument for your views, then there is nothing, nothing whatsoever, that we have left to discuss. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What?! I don't even have a self-derived moral standard of my own. Oh yes you do.
The one I claim to follow is God's. Claim all you like. The fact that you make this false claim is the only difference between us. You attribute your moral standards to God, whereas I admit that my moral standards are mine.
Whats your point? That. The only significant difference between us is that you believe that your morality is God's morality, despite your inability to read God's mind or to present me with any evidence that he even exists. Of course your morality is "self-derived". Blaming it on your imaginary friend does not make that fact less true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Evidence is what he wants. And I assume he means evidence from a physical source of some sort. Something tangible! Something that be tested via experiments...since it seems like what he sees is what he believes and what he doesn't see with his eyes, automatically and dogmatically cannot exist! I didn't say that. What I would say is that there is no reason to believe in something that has no observable effects. It's like Carl Sagan's invisible dragon:
A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage Suppose (I’m following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! Show me, you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricyclebut no dragon. Where’s the dragon? you ask. Oh, she’s right here, I reply, waving vaguely. I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon. You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints. Good idea, I say, but this dragon floats in the air. Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless. You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick. And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work. Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. Do you see the problem, dw1? It chokes the discussion. It chokes the discussion of things that don't exist. It wouldn't choke the discussion of gravity or aardvarks or cheese or jealousy or Belgium or umbrellas or the national debt. But I have asked you to suggest an alternative. What else is there to discuss? Apparently you would like to convince people of the existence of God, but without supplying them with any evidence for the existence of God. Now since evidence by definition is whatever is relevant to the truth of a proposition, there doesn't seem to be anything else to talk about. So what's your plan B? Perhaps you could give us a sample couple of paragraphs of non-evidence-based argument, just so's I can see what it looks like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
1. Observation: The supernatural itself cannot be physically observed, measured, quantified, or qualified. Like Sagan's dragon. And unlike the deity described in the Bible. There's no reason a priori why we can't observe the effects of the supernatural. We can perfectly well imagine a god who constantly sent squads of angels to Earth to go about singing his praises and smiting wrongdoers. We'd notice. The fact that we live in a universe in which there is no evidence of a god is, then, not because a god is a sort of thing for which there should necessarily be no evidence. Rather, this observation is consistent with the hypothesis that we live in a universe without a god
2. Hypothesis: Since there are no recorded observations, there is no scope for a hypothesis. Oh yes there is. There's scope for the hypothesis that there is no god, just as our failure to observe unicorns leaves ample scope for the hypothesis that there are no unicorns.
3. Prediction: Can there be one? Yes. Prediction: we will never make any observations supporting the existence of a god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? If just one person could prove beyond a reasonable doubt and without question that their side was right, we wouldn't be here discussing this. This assumes that everyone would be both willing to study the proof and able to understand it; and my experience on these forums and elsewhere tells me that there is practically nothing, no matter how perfectly simple and obvious, that people can't manage to either ignore or misunderstand if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Look, here's you managing to misunderstand something utterly simple which must have been explained about a zillion times on this forum:
There is doubt in evolution also but getting anyone around here to admit that is just shy of a miracle....there is faith involved in science and evolution, such as the "point of singularity" theory, in the sense that the origins of life, from an evolutionary standpoint, CANNOT be hypothesized and reproduced over and over using the scientific method, thus it takes a "step of faith", which always leaves room for doubt. * shakes head *
It's more then enough evidence to hold up in a court of law ... No. Consider, for example, the whole talking snake question. Can you call any eyewitnesses? OK, how about some material evidence? It wouldn't get to a court of law. It wouldn't get past a grand jury. It wouldn't get through the DA's office. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes PaulK, his evidence would stand up...why? Because in a court of law you don't have to have a piece of "gotcha" evidence or the smoking gun (although it helps if you do). You do however need at least one piece of admissible evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are right on the talking snake thing. BUT, if one can prove that things in the NT are true are other parts of the OT that might seem stretchy by natural law standards, then one can believe other parts of the Bible where we just don't have the proof. (1) Should I also apply this same reasoning to classical works of Chinese history ... or to the works of Herodotus ... or of Geoffrey of Monmouth ... or Homer? (2) You suggest extrapolating from the reliability of some parts of the Bible to "other parts ... where we just have no proof". But what about parts of the Bible where we have proof to the contrary, such as the Flood myth? By analogy, if you had an informant who had always proved reliable in the past, then you might be inclined to believe him if he told you he'd witnessed the murder of Jimmy Hoffa in 1975. But you'd just laugh at him if he started telling you how he'd witnessed the murder of Barack Obama in 2009, however reliable he'd proved to be on other subjects. Even if he made a claim not actually contrary to observation, you would also be dubious about a supernatural claim. Suppose you had an otherwise reliable informant, whose stories had checked out perfectly on every other occasion, who told you that I'd killed someone using black magic. Now, although you of course do not rule out the existence of the supernatural a priori, how convinced would you be by his claim? How ready would you be to take it to court?
And you're shaking your head about the origin of life question....prove it to me then. Can you? With evolution...prove it. You cannot. You will do exactly as I am doing. You will use scientific explanations that we DO KNOW for sure about certain things and extrapolate them to the past and say, "it's logical that this started somehow" but you can't prove it directly. Could you be more coherent? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am inclined to disagree with that. It is not as if the world were divided into two fixed realms, the natural and the supernatural, and that thus far we only have evidence of the natural. Rather, it that whenever there is evidence, we call that natural, and we relegate the term "supernatural" for that for which there is no evidence. No, I don't think so. The supernatural is that which supervenes the regular laws of nature. Turning water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead, and so forth, would in fact be supernatural --- they'd only be natural if everyone could do it by following the correct procedures.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024