|
|
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
alexwilson 02-Oct-06, 21:32 |
 |
||||||||||||||
|
kementari 02-Oct-06, 22:49 |
jdh -- I tried to make this shorter, but I'm tired, and I don't want this to wait until tomorrow You might kick my butt on the chess board, but I've put a lot more study into formal logic than you have. The straw man fallacy is one of the easiest ones to spot. I'm embarrassed when I see it in my own writing (which is rare), but any time that it's every been pointed out to me, it doesn't take much effort for me to see where the problem is. I admit to it, apologize profusely, and try to figure out whether or not I still think my position (minus the fallacy, of course) is a strong one. It is crystal clear to me that neither you nor alex understands what a straw man argument actually is. Allow me to demonstrate. Proposition = The Bible is inspired by God and inerrant. Conclusion = If contradictions are found in the Bible, then God must have either inspired his prophets to lie in accordance with his Greater Plan, or there are errors in the Bible. In a straw man argument, there's a step in the middle (namely, misrepresenting the original proposition in order to criticize the misrepresentation), and the conclusion or the assumption is based on that step in the middle, not the proposition at the top. A weaker form of your original argument would be to say that you are claiming that the Bible has all the answers to every question, and then trying to disprove "your" point by proving that the Bible doesn't tell us whether or not tachyons exist. I didn't do that. (We're putting my actual arguments with regards to the inconsistencies themselves on hold while we address this. They'll still be there when we're done.) I am going to ask you once again to please demonstrate to me how the assertion that the Bible is the literal Truth of God is somehow weakened by the supporting statement that a God who is the guiding force behind an inerrant guide to salvation would not inspire his prophets to lie. There is no disconnect. It's not a weaker form of your original argument. ***It's a natural consequence of your original argument.*** Either show me the p's and q's, or admit that if I asked you to close your eyes and briefly summarize the difference between an appeal to consequences and an affirmation of the consequent (and make no mistake, identifying and mapping a straw man is easy by comparison), you'd be hard pressed to do it. Accusing people of cheating when they're playing by the rules is not cool. Pretending that the rules mean what you want them to mean when people challenge you to show precisely how they are cheating when the rules are clearly being followed is... something else entirely. Josh, this is ultimately about understanding each other. If we bat each other around a bit in a competitive game of verbal warfare while we're at it, showing people who may not have seen a really *good* debate on the eternal questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything what a skilled pair of passionate wordsmiths can do with the English language, that's fun. This, on the other hand, is stupid. Quit changing the rules, read this www.fallacyfiles.org" target="_blank">-> www.fallacyfiles.org (or, if you're bored with that site, you can try this en.wikipedia.org" target="_blank">-> en.wikipedia.org ), retract your false accusation, and let's move on, shall we? |
||||||||||||||
|
saintinsanity 03-Oct-06, 03:23 |
Tricky tricky tricky So just for clarity, let's have everyone summarize their position. JD, what exactly is your claim about the inspiration of the Bible? Kem, well, I know where you stand. Over by the saber-tooth tiger in the museum with all the contrary-wise evidence. I'm also not sure where jaymar is coming from, nor titanforlife, nor DOK (bait), nor KOP. I think I know where Leo and alexwilson stand. As for myself, I'm a scientist and a non-denominational theist. I definitely accept the idea of an impersonal creator-force-god. Although I'm always interested in how they try to explain it scientifically. I do not believe in the humanized christian idea of god, but at the same time I recognize a personal connection to god and each other inherent in consciousness. From a scientific point of view I am very interested in energetics and in that way I can seem a little flakey and new agey, however I scoff at those cooky people who get carried away with it. I guess that about sums it up. So of course I think the bible is just what it is, a collection of writings compiled by some people with a vested interest in making sure other people got the version of events that they wanted them to get. There are too many pronouns in the previous sentence. Anyhow, this is the end. Although I would like to see some other people getting involved with the crazy discussion. Don't let kem and jd intimidate you! They are both wrong anyway |
||||||||||||||
|
kem now. the discussion is never so simple as point counter point. now we have taken a tangent about "straw men". and it goes on . . . From your fallacy files link: "The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but *instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent*. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. *There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man*. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context." Its all about context, as is said in this definition. You said this: "If you're a literalist, then you must believe that God would not inspire his prophets to write things that were not true". My point was that you have misrepresented my position to mak your argument, even going so far as to insist I *must* take the position. Hardly. It might actually be better to discuss the inspiration of scripture before continuing even. The argument I see you making is this: If the word of God is perfect, then all the details in the Bible will also be perfect. The point here is that, your assertion is not my position, so while it was a ncie attempt, in the context of this discussion it was INDEED a strawman. Furthermore, I explained your "percieved" inconsistencies with the resurrection and all the details are actually indeeed present and accounted for. So even for this instance you argument fail. Your argument to me was a strawman, though a legitimate argument within the proper context. Unfortunately for you, even within the proper context for your argument to work, the agument still fails re:the resurrection because the details are in fact all accounted for. The onus is now on you to demonstrate that the text of the resurrection * must* be read in such a way as to make a real contradiction unlike the percieved problems you ahve presented. BTW, you lost your condescending tone towards me on your last post. I think the discussion will be much smoother if that continues. |
||||||||||||||
|
pawnt soon. any chance you can wait until we get there? |
||||||||||||||
|
pawnt - inspiration ***Jd claims to be a literalist about the bible, and denies that the bible contains inconsistencies.*** You make the same assumption as Kem, I have never taken the position that the Bible emphatically does not contain inconsistencies, although I cannot think of any off the top of my head. The Bible is perfect where is reveals God to his creation. In regards to theology and teaching on things spiritual and moral it is completely inerrent. The Bible was inspired as the thoughts of God came into the minds of his prophets. Men were still the conduit and wrote these ideas, conepts, and occasionally direct quotes in their own language, in their own frame of reference and context. God did not dictate every word. The Bible is not a science textbook, or a math book, or any other type of book except what it is. So when we jump on the Bible for calling a bat a "bird" - so what. The author lumped that in with flying creatures even if it wasn't a bird. It was a flying animal and the authors at the time of writing of the OT did not make taxonomic distinctions that we do today because of our bilogical sciences. What is imortant about the book is perfect. That would be the Gospel message, which is simple, believe in Jesus Christ and be right with God right now. |
||||||||||||||
|
alexwilson 03-Oct-06, 06:16 |
No. As Jesus himself would might have said... what a nest of vipers this website is. You know what I meant to say. I should have said that Elijah was the other really, really important guy in the Bible that was taken up to heaven. Does that sound better? Elijah never claimed to be God. Jesus claimed to be God, and he had the evidence to back up his claim. |
||||||||||||||
|
jaymar 03-Oct-06, 06:23 |
pawn.. Jesus may have existed, as a man. I do not believe him to have been the son of god so also don't believe he was resurrected. He may have been a prophet/wise man/sensei/political activist or all of them but he was just a man. I do not believe there is a God. If it turns out that I am wrong and a higher intelligence exists then I do not believe that it gives one jot about us. It certainly isn't interfering in our everyday affairs. I dislike religion although have a spiritual side and seek peace and quietude for myself whenever I can. I am drawn to the Native American view of "circular time" and being at one with the planet and nature. I do not need a supreme being to strive for that. There are still great mysteries to life which we as individuals may or may not find answered when we die. However I think that just inventing a supreme being and saying there's the answer is shoddy and not worthy of mankind. If my views offend anyone then I am sorry that person is so sensitive. |
||||||||||||||
|
jaymar I do not think that it is your views that were offensive at all, but perhaps the way you chose to word said views. I know I found your remark about God "jerking-off" less than polite, which I know for you is no different that making a statement about santa claus or the easter bunny "jerking-off". I dont know . . . I guess I think that you can easily be true to your belief or nonbelief system without resorting to such wording to make your point. |
||||||||||||||
|
jaymar 03-Oct-06, 07:15 |
jdh.. |
||||||||||||||
|
jaymar |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 03-Oct-06, 08:03 |
My position is very similar to yours, pawn. I accept the idea of a creator-force -god but do not necessarily " believe " in it. I fully admit to being motivated by a strong desire to find " something ". I envy both those who have found a faith that brings them peace of mind, and those who have the strength to fully accept there is nothing.. no reason, for life or existence itself, everything is purely a fortuitous happenchance. I am curious at the apparent venom behind some of the atheist posts. There appears to be more " missionary " zeal from the non-believers to persuade believers to " see the light " than vice versa. Its probably the established church ( in the more narrow sense ) that has caused this animosity rather than those who quietly follow their own faith. Does it really matter if you feel people are deluding themselves ?..only if their actions start having an effect on your life, which has obviously been the case down the ages. Its the nature of man to search for a meaning for his existence, its one of the things that separates us from the animals. In my opinion, the bible was a wonderful example of that search. Christians believe the search is over and the truth has been revealed. I believe the search has barely started and the bible is another valuable set of documents to reference as we continue. If I needed to personalise a God, my feeling is that God " inspires " or has " inspired " ALL thought..how could he do otherwise ? (leaving any freewill argument for the time being )..this God, faced with our feeble attempts at understanding the mystery of creation and existence would likely say...keep looking. |
||||||||||||||
|
leo missionary " zeal from the non-believers to persuade believers to " see the light " than vice versa*** I really glad you saw this leo. The observation carries much more power when coming from you, a skeptical but leaning towards so sort of "force" kind of guy, than from me - a I'd got to the fire before I denied my faith Christian. Everything I say is suspect to the atheist . . . It's funny because Christians (theists in general?) are always accused for "forcing religion down throats". Yet there seems to be a strong atheistic proselytizing going on. That seems to be ok with the athiest but if I talk about Christ I'm cramming things in throats? Can you hear the cognitive dissonace? This is my opinion about what you see goin on here leo. Ultimately, atheism is a "negative beliefe system" - without getting into all of the precise definitions that atheists enjoy - I'll tell you what this means in my opinion. When you cannot prove your position because you have taken a position on a negative - that is God does not exist - since you cannot prove God does not exist, you must attack anything that might suggest that God does exist. If you can destroy every argument that God does exist, then youll feel much better about a position that you cannot prove in the first place. Personally, and this my humble opinion, the implications of the discussion are so much more important for the person who had faith once, but then lost it. Losing your faith must be sad and all that pain will be for naught if your position cannot 100% tackle all supporting agrumet for a God. Doubt is dealt with not by faith but by destroying all arguments aaginst your position. The believer does not need to destroy all the arguments of the atheist. In fact, it is not even necessary to respond to the atheist. Faith does not require that every single question can be answered. Apologetics, the branch of Christian theology that deals with these questions, does not attempt to prove God, nor doe it attempt to prove the atheist wrong. Apologetics merely seeks to give a reasonable explanation for faith. Did I make any sense? |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 03-Oct-06, 09:01 |
|
||||||||||||||
|
jaymar 03-Oct-06, 11:51 |
Sorry guys.. I do not see that the onus is on me to prove a negative. Please provide me with some evidence that God exists. I do not accept the bible as it is an unproven and non-scientific piece of work. The claims in it are not verifiable. All the evidence we have is that it is not possible to raise people from death, it is not possible to feed thousands of people with a few loaves etc. etc. Non of the miracles are scientifically possible. Yet here we have otherwise sensible people saying that it is possible and the reason? Faith!!! You are arguing for things that any child knows cannot happen and yet twisting the responses by saying that those who doubt lack faith. "The believer does not even need to respond to the atheist. Faith does not require that every single question be answered". Then you are fooling yourselves whilst wallowing in a wonderfully smug position. We don't need to prove anything because we are right. Faith conquers all. Before I sign up to anything I want to make sure its the right thing to do. Do you conduct your whole lives with " No need to check this out, I have faith it will work?" Lets build a belief system so that those who adhere to it cannot be wrong. If anything tricky comes up, well its a matter of faith. You are getting strong responses not because your position is strong but because it is silly and the really funny part is that you think you are smart. |
||||||||||||||
|
jaymar You do not have to prove a neative, because you cannot. My point was that since this is the default position - that is unknown - in order to lave doubt at a minimum it was necessary to attack any evidence given for God. ***Please provide me with some evidence that God exists*** The kind of evidence you require for "proof" is not available. The type of evidence pesented in support of God are of the circumstantial type. I do not have access to the filmstip of God creating the world. ***All the evidence we have is that it is not possible to raise people from death, it is not possible to feed thousands of people with a few loaves etc. etc. Non of the miracles are scientifically possible. Yet here we have otherwise sensible people saying that it is possible and the reason? Faith!!!*** This is really simple. If God exists, then miraculous events can happen. ***You are arguing for things that any child knows cannot happen and yet twisting the responses by saying that those who doubt lack faith*** Well, I thought that was the point about atheism, lack of faith or beliefe. I think Kem said it best when she asked, (paraphrased heavily) "Do I have to have faith to NOT believe in santa claus or the easter bunny?" Faith is a spiritual thing. ***Then you are fooling yourselves whilst wallowing in a wonderfully smug position. We don't need to prove anything because we are right. Faith conquers all.*** My whole point that you have reacted to is that faith does not require I tear down all other arguments in the same manner that a negative position requires the attack of arguments antithetical to the negative position. ***Do you conduct your whole lives with " No need to check this out, I have faith it will work?"*** No ***You are getting strong responses not because your position is strong but because it is silly and the really funny part is that you think you are smart. *** The pleasantness does not stop . . . overflowing and unbounded . . . |
||||||||||||||
|
echo3 03-Oct-06, 14:43 |
Actually.... Doctors do it in the ER all the time. The difference is that in hospital it's calls ressussitation, in the bible it's called resurection. There would be a helluva lot of Messiahs walking around otherwise wouldn't there! One minute you're just a bloke who's been brought back from heart failure, next minute your the son of God. |
||||||||||||||
|
alexwilson 03-Oct-06, 15:28 |
And did you know that you are really abraisive? |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 03-Oct-06, 16:48 |
the branch of Christian theology that deals with these questions, does not attempt to prove God, nor does it attempt to prove the atheist wrong. Apologetics merely seeks to give a reasonable explanation for faith." I think thats a very reasonable position. One of the basic definitions of faith is " belief that is not based on proof ", it can also an obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, in this case God. In contrast to a "false hope" in a fantasy, the object of faith transcends what can be proven scientifically and sometimes exceeds what can be objectively defined. Faith, by its very nature, requires belief outside of known fact. I would hold the view that the different faiths/religions are just aspects of man's attempts at understanding the ultimate truth.. just different paths to the same goal. The closest I have come to a religion that encompasses my view of life, nature and the universe would be Universal Sufism, the ten thoughts, which form the basic creed are... There is one God the Eternal, the Only Being, None exists save God. There is one Master the Guiding Spirit of all souls, who constantly leads all followers toward the Light. There is one Holy Book the Sacred Manuscript of Nature, the only Scripture that can enlighten the reader. There is one Religion the unswerving progress in the right direction, toward the Ideal, which fulfills the life's purpose of every soul. There is one Law the Law of Reciprocity, which can be observed by a selfless conscience together with a sense of awakened justice. There is one Family the Human Family, which unites the Children of Earth indiscriminately in the Parenthood of God. There is one Moral Principle the Love which springs forth from a willing heart, surrendered in service to God and Humanity, and which blooms in deeds of beneficence. There is one Object of Praise the Beauty which uplifts the heart of its worshipper through all aspects, from the seen to the unseen. There is one Truth the true knowledge of our being, within and without, which is the essence of Wisdom. There is one Path the effacement of the limited self in the Unlimited, which raises the mortal to immortality, in which resides all Perfection. Universal Sufis believe in an essential unity of the great religions of the world. However, this does not mean they believe the various religious creeds and doctrines are identical. Rather, they view all religions as having sprung from the same spiritual source. Every person has a fundamental "essence", which does not necessarily end with death, but rather goes on to further better itself, until finally it realises union with the Universal Mind, which is in fact its true nature. Heaven and Hell are creations of the mind, Heaven being Realisation of one's true nature - and thus peace, and Hell being ignorance of it. There ends my thought for tonight. |
||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 03-Oct-06, 17:26 |
Trawling through various sites I came across this, from a humanist.. "This majority of the humanity is more emotional than intellectual. That is why you can find people who are highly educated, intellectuals, with many degrees and academic qualifications who are still childish in their emotional maturity. There are still many academicians, scientists and men and women of high intelligence, who cannot get themselves rid of god, religion and faith. As intellectuals, these people would never accept anything without evidence in their area of expertise. Yet they are willing to forego their intelligence and accept religious beliefs solely by faith. This might seem a paradox but in reality it isn’t. Intellectual maturity and emotional maturity are two separate things. One may be a highly intelligent person yet emotionally immature. And because emotional needs always take precedence over intellectual needs, when there is a conflict between the two the person invariably seeks to fulfill his emotional needs rather than his intellectual quest. Upon our emotional satisfaction rests our sense of security. Surely if the notion of God as a being does not make sense intellectually it may be a nuisance but it is not as nearly frightening as the feeling of being left alone without the all-knowing, the caring and the loving parent whom we have learned to rely upon in the darkest moments of our solitude. The thought of being left alone is unbearable. We might be grownup adults and even aging senor citizens, but emotionally we could be still children, needing to cling to our loving parent, needing to believe in God. " Now, come on fellow posters.. Kem, Jaymar and others may completely agree with the guy, but isnt there something about his superior, know-all, condescending attitude that makes you just want to give him a good slap ? It goes to show that you have religious bigots, but you dont have to look far for atheist bigots. |
||||||||||||||
|
qiwi 03-Oct-06, 17:27 |
Actually..... For a start "resuscitation" is not the same as "resurrection" In my job I have to do regular first aid courses and I can tell you that when you 'flatline'... you are gone... This is from Wikipedia: "In various television medical dramas, an isoelectric ECG (no cardiac electrical activity or FLATLINE) is often used as a symbol of death or at least extreme medical peril. This is technically known as ASYSTOLE.... Though sometimes shown on television, defibrillation, [thats the part where they apply the paddles and try to shock the heart back into a normal rhythm] which can be used to correct arrythmias such as ventricular fibrilation & pulseless ventricular tachycardia, cannot correct ASYSTOLE.... So there you go.... dont believe everything you see on TV.... |
||||||||||||||
|
saintinsanity 03-Oct-06, 17:37 |
Furthermore But it would be nice to live forever...perhaps if I believe hard enough.... |
||||||||||||||
|
qiwi 03-Oct-06, 17:41 |
A Negative Belief System.... The essential message of Christ, which is largely obscured by the ranting of the anti-semites who hi-jacked his teachings shortly after he flat-lined, is to NOT JUDGE OTHERS... |
||||||||||||||
|
saintinsanity 03-Oct-06, 18:16 |
I see where the confusion comes from So there is a thin line you are walking between your position and kem's 'straw man." Let's see if we can straighten this out civilly! I think I can clear it up. Jd, if you were in fact made aware of some sort of error in the bible, would you abandon your faith? |
||||||||||||||
|
leo principles - his condescension is evidence of his *lack* of that which he acuses the beliver of lacking, no? Anyway, I think there is a book you'd really like - it's NOT Christian, but spiritual - it's a book called "The Road Less Traveled" By Dr. M. Scott Peck. It will change you I promise. The abridged audio version can be pruchased on iTunes. You also might like "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch - also not a Christian book. Spiritual truths are transcendant. |
||||||||||||||
|
pawnt Bible. that all depends on the error and your definition of error. I have told you more than once that the Bible is inerrant where it comes to what it's goal is and that is the revelation of God to His creation. The important part being the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Find that type of error and you'll give me pause. |
||||||||||||||
|
qiwi jacked his teachings shortly after he flat-lined, is to NOT JUDGE OTHERS*** The essential teaching? Christ did caution against judging others, but that was NOT his "essential message". I'm always amazed when people who have no belief in Christ like to run around telling others what he said or what his message was. |
||||||||||||||
|
saintinsanity 03-Oct-06, 18:41 |
Well, I won't find it |
||||||||||||||
|
qiwi 03-Oct-06, 19:02 |
jdh7.... p.s. You claim I "have no belief in Christ" Quite the contrary.... it is those who have perverted his original teachings and converted them into a poorly written book full of hate filled, jingoistic, anti-semitic, dross that I have no time for.... |
||||||||||||||
|
codyj 03-Oct-06, 20:33 |
Kem |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
