Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 151 of 577 (555532)
04-14-2010 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by sac51495
04-13-2010 8:59 AM


Re: Simple starting points
sac51495 writes:
Let me rephrase the question.
1. - Did you (or anybody on this forum) assume from the outset that there was no god, and then based on that assumption, you interpreted the world around you? or...
2. - Did you, from a neutral standpoint, interpret everything you saw around you, and thereby came to the conclusion that a God
was impossible (or inadequate)?
There is actually a third alternative, which is (in my own view, at least) considerably more relevant and appropriate for understanding atheism:
3. - Having seen the many varied, inconsistent and incompatible assertions that have been put forth as describing the "true" nature and will of God, I find, from a neutral standpoint, it is far more plausible and likely that none of those assertions about God can be correct, and far less plausible or likely that any one such assertion can be correct. (And in any case, of course, there really is no objective basis for assessing one to be more or less correct than another.)
My point of view is soundly reinforced for me whenever people try to deny or refute solid empirical evidence, purely because the evidence contradicts some assertions that they derive from their own reading of the bible (or any religious text). I notice that other people, who consider themselves religious, derive different meanings from the same text, such that they do not find it necessary to deny or refute results drawn from careful and repeated observation, but this still doesn't do much to reduce the inconsistencies in their respective assertions about God.
My point of view is reinforced every time people decide to kill on the basis of their religious beliefs, every time they cite the bible or the koran to justify injustice and intolerance, every time they lie or misrepresent facts in order to promulgate their dogma, because these actions subvert and nullify any claim of "moral authority" for whichever religion is thus misused or abused.
And the problem is not just the irreconcilable differences separating the countless sectarian factions within the Abrahamic religions. It's also, equally, the self-contradictions, the internal inconsistencies, and the overall incoherence within any single doctrinal "system": the notion that God is (to us) an utterly non-material "entity" that controls material things; the notion that you can "know God personally" but God is unknowable; the notion that God loves all his creation and condemns many souls to eternal damnation and torture; the nonsensical notion of supplication through prayer to an omniscient / omnipotent / omni-everything deity, who responds to prayer in exactly the same way that "Lady Luck" responds to the supplications of a compulsive gambler. (My favorite "news item" headline from The Onion: "God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy: 'No', Says God".)
Those are just the obvious (perhaps trivial) oxymorons we find in our daily exposure to religion. The more subtle and insidious incoherence rests in the propensity among supporters of religion to use terms and invoke concepts that defy clear or substantive definitions. The acceptance of religious faith is in large part the acceptance of assertions whose meaning is comparable to Lewis Carroll's "Jaberwocky".
Considering the position you are arguing from, sac, I suspect that my position is incomprehensible to you. Maybe you'll want to respond (for example) that the huge assortment of Christian sects do not differ so much from one another. (I've gotten that response from others.) If so, then my question is: how many different denominational churches do you attend on a regular basis? Do you personally partake equally in Roman Catholic, Greek/Russian Orthodox, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentacostal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Anglican/Episcopal congregations? If not, why not?
When you look at any one of the churches you don't go to, and determine what it is about them that you disagree with, take the next step of putting yourself in their position, looking back at the church you go to, and try to see what there is in your church that they disagree with. Then see whether you can imagine yourself as an outsider to both churches (e.g. coming from yet another church), to notice how they both have things "wrong" with them.
Carry that to its logical conclusion, and you have atheism. Indeed, atheism (as many have said) is just like monotheism, but extending disbelief to include just one more deity/religion.
{AbE: On further reflection, I can see that my alternative #3 is really just an extension or clarification of sac's #2. But there's an important distinction -- as I learned during past discussions with RAZD -- between concluding that "God is impossible" and concluding that "positive assertions made by humans about God are likely to be incorrect." I recognize that the former is unmotivated and generally unsupportable, but I hold firmly to the validity of the latter.}
Edited by Otto Tellick, : spelling correction
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (added last paragraph, as indicated)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : in last paragraph, used "incorrect" in preference to "false"

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by sac51495, posted 04-13-2010 8:59 AM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 152 of 577 (555573)
04-14-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Huntard
04-13-2010 9:55 AM


Re: I
I understand your position, but certainly, you don't adhere to the bible in all things? There's some pretty bad stuff in there (stoning your kids if they're disobedient, or stoning people who work on the sabbath, for example). Surely, you don;t follow everything in the bible to the letter?
First of all, I would like you to cite passage of scripture that support these statements. I am certainly not denying that they are in the Bible, but I would like to ensure that you know what you're talking about.
To answer the question, in short, you have to understand the covenants of God with man before you can understand the laws of Israel. If you would like for me to explain this in further detail, I can.
How do you know the bible is true then?
There are several arguments I can raise here. Atheists often say that they do not believe that there is no god, but rather they lack a belief in god. They say that they simply find a belief in god inadequate to describe the world around us. My primary argument here is that atheism itself is highly inadequate to describe the world around us.
Another argument that can be raised, is that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can truly verify the existence of anything. The existence of the universe cannot verify the existence of the universe. But if this universe was created by and eternal, Supreme being, we do have an explanation for the existence of all things. Does God verify Himself then? The answer here is difficult, because as I have said before, it is difficult to describe God with one of the cognitive faculties He has given us (reasoning). But ultimately, something that is eternal cannot verify itself in the sense that we think of it, because it has no beginning or end. This concept (of no beginning or end) is very hard for humans to understand, since we are mortal, so understanding God himself is, in a way, impossible. To make the point, God can be eternal, but matter cannot. Something must be eternal for all things to exist (if there is not something that is eternal, how did anything come to be?...did "something" come from "nothing"?). Once again, I see no alternative but the Bible. And further, once you come to a true understanding of the Bible, God can continue to verify himself in your life over and over again. This does not serve to convert us however (not necessarily, but it could), but to strengthen our conversion. Since you do not believe, you have not seen the working of God that I have seen, and this (the things which I have seen) are one of the biggest verifications of my faith in Christ (and this is quite far from a blind faith). And I would further argue that you yourself do depend on a god (for if you didn't, how would you know anything), but verbally, you deny it. It isn't that God is hiding from you, your just ignoring his presence.
As to your history of your religious beliefs, you didn't quite answer the question (I should have worded it differently). Let me rephrase the question.
When you were coming to the conclusion you were in the latter half of your history, were you making these conclusion from the stand point that (a) - there is a god (b) - there is no god (c) - neutral?
I will respond to the scientific method discussion later.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 9:55 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2010 9:40 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 154 by DC85, posted 04-14-2010 3:24 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 156 by bluegenes, posted 04-14-2010 9:40 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 157 by Stile, posted 04-15-2010 9:53 AM sac51495 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 153 of 577 (555579)
04-14-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by sac51495
04-14-2010 8:54 AM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
First of all, I would like you to cite passage of scripture that support these statements. I am certainly not denying that they are in the Bible, but I would like to ensure that you know what you're talking about.
Ok. I will put them up here this evening (my time), can't look them up right now.
{ABE}: As promised here they are:
Stoning kids from Deuteronomy 21:18-21
quote:
[18] If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
[19] Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
[20] And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
[21] And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
And killing people that work on the Sabbath from Exodus 31:12-15
quote:
[12] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[13] Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
[14] Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
[15] Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
To answer the question, in short, you have to understand the covenants of God with man before you can understand the laws of Israel. If you would like for me to explain this in further detail, I can.
I would, thanks in advance.
There are several arguments I can raise here. Atheists often say that they do not believe that there is no god, but rather they lack a belief in god. They say that they simply find a belief in god inadequate to describe the world around us. My primary argument here is that atheism itself is highly inadequate to describe the world around us.
You're absolutely correct. Atheism doesn't explain the world around us. How could it, it's not an explanation for anything, it's a label for someone who doesn't believe in god.
Another argument that can be raised, is that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can truly verify the existence of anything.
What? I call bullcrap on this one. Why should other worldviews not be sufficent to explain the world around us? Hell, even last thurdayism can do that. It's a completely useless explanation, but it's an explanation nonetheless.
The existence of the universe cannot verify the existence of the universe.
Wait... So the fact there is a universe cannot be said to be support for there being a universe? I don;t understand.
But if this universe was created by and eternal, Supreme being, we do have an explanation for the existence of all things.
Hey! That's what Islam says. Guess you better convert! And we have an explanation for the existence of things now as well.
Does God verify Himself then? The answer here is difficult, because as I have said before, it is difficult to describe God with one of the cognitive faculties He has given us (reasoning). But ultimately, something that is eternal cannot verify itself in the sense that we think of it, because it has no beginning or end. This concept (of no beginning or end) is very hard for humans to understand, since we are mortal, so understanding God himself is, in a way, impossible.
That sounds rather agnostic to me.
To make the point, God can be eternal, but matter cannot.
And you know this how? The matter part that is.
Something must be eternal for all things to exist (if there is not something that is eternal, how did anything come to be?...
Ok. How about, energy, in one form or another?
did "something" come from "nothing"?
No.
Once again, I see no alternative but the Bible.
The Quran. The Torah. Countless other mystical writings. Or, and this one's the kicker, science!
And further, once you come to a true understanding of the Bible, God can continue to verify himself in your life over and over again.
Aha! The old "you have to believe it first and then you'll get the evidence"?
This does not serve to convert us however (not necessarily, but it could), but to strengthen our conversion. Since you do not believe, you have not seen the working of God that I have seen, and this (the things which I have seen) are one of the biggest verifications of my faith in Christ (and this is quite far from a blind faith).
Confirmation bias then? Not very convincing to me.
And I would further argue that you yourself do depend on a god (for if you didn't, how would you know anything), but verbally, you deny it.
What? How can I know something without a god? Oh I don't know, by reading a book for instance? And please don't say "but without god you wouldn;t be able to understand the book!", that's not an answer. Seriously, you have a weird logic surrounding you, it seems.
It isn't that God is hiding from you, your just ignoring his presence.
I've looked for him, you know. He didn't show himself then either.
As to your history of your religious beliefs, you didn't quite answer the question (I should have worded it differently). Let me rephrase the question.
When you were coming to the conclusion you were in the latter half of your history, were you making these conclusion from the stand point that (a) - there is a god (b) - there is no god (c) - neutral?
C neutral. I still am. I still don;t say there is no god, but like anything I don;t have any evidence for, I don't take him into account when leading my life. Just like I don't take bigfoot into account.
I will respond to the scientific method discussion later.
Ok. I look forward to it.
Edited by Huntard, : Bible quotes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by sac51495, posted 04-14-2010 8:54 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 4:42 PM Huntard has replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 154 of 577 (555626)
04-14-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by sac51495
04-14-2010 8:54 AM


Re: I
My primary argument here is that atheism itself is highly inadequate to describe the world around us.
You're correct but only because atheism doesn't explain anything at all. It only tells you what a person or people don't believe. It makes no attempt to explain anything.
we do have an explanation for the existence of all things.
except for the existence of God correct? oh wait.... you go on to say
created by and eternal, Supreme being
Some how saying God is eternal allows you to get around flawed logic.
It amazes me how people can sit back and make the Horrible argument that the complexity of the Universe somehow proves the existence of God. They then have the nerve to say in the next breath that an infinitely complex god wasn't created. You cannot have it both ways either all complex things are designed or they aren't. If you say God is eternal then you've defeated your own argument.
Then you make another assertion because you knew we would call you on the above.
To make the point, God can be eternal, but matter cannot
I do hope you can explain this. Why is this?
This concept (of no beginning or end) is very hard for humans to understand
Yet you have this bizarre idea that the Universe and all energy have a beginning..... hmmmm
.did "something" come from "nothing"?
I don't know... Did God?
you deny it. It isn't that God is hiding from you, your just ignoring his presence.
Perhaps you could point it out for me
When you were coming to the conclusion you were in the latter half of your history, were you making these conclusion from the stand point that (a) - there is a god (b) - there is no god (c) - neutral?
letter (a) as I was at one time a Christian. I am however not understanding the point of you question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by sac51495, posted 04-14-2010 8:54 AM sac51495 has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 155 of 577 (555671)
04-14-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by RAZD
04-13-2010 8:58 PM


Perhaps you made a false presupposition....
RAZD writes:
Ah so you assume that your belief is true, rather than deduce it from evidence. In logic this is known as begging the question:
Much the same as the baseless assumption that gods are "unknowable" then.
RAZD writes:
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
RAZD writes:
This is what your presupposition amounts to: pretending that your faith\belief is validated by your presupposition that your faith\belief is true.
Perhaps you made a false presupposition.
Well quite........
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 04-13-2010 8:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2010 7:03 PM Straggler has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 156 of 577 (555681)
04-14-2010 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by sac51495
04-14-2010 8:54 AM


sac51495 writes:
My primary argument here is that atheism itself is highly inadequate to describe the world around us.
Atheism, like all things that are not descriptions of the world around us, is definitely inadequate as a description of the world around us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by sac51495, posted 04-14-2010 8:54 AM sac51495 has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 157 of 577 (555762)
04-15-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by sac51495
04-14-2010 8:54 AM


Not an Explanation
sac51495 writes:
But if this universe was created by and eternal, Supreme being, we do have an explanation for the existence of all things.
What you are talking about is not an acceptable explanation, it's just a story.
An acceptable explanation would involve:
-a foundation of objective and verifiable observations of reality
-logical reasoning of various forms derived from those observations and showing how the conclusions were reached
-a description of the limitations of the explanation and conclusions
I think you have provided the middle portion. But without basing it on a solid foundation, you cannot be sure you're not making mistakes or possibly even just creating imaginary ideas. Withing describing the limitations, you're scope is so incredibly massive that it's... unprofessional... to let others simply "guess" at where you expect the information to start and stop making sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by sac51495, posted 04-14-2010 8:54 AM sac51495 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 158 of 577 (555863)
04-15-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Straggler
04-14-2010 8:49 PM


Perhaps you didn't read the context .... again.
Hi Straggler,
RAZD writes:
This is what your presupposition amounts to: pretending that your faith\belief is validated by your presupposition that your faith\belief is true.
Perhaps you made a false presupposition.
Well quite........
So, are you contesting my presuppositions? Or are you agreeing that sac51495's presupposition/s is/are useless and logically flawed?
Just for reference:
sac51495 Message 132: My basic assumption is that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and has since been ruling over it in an omnipotent and omniscient manner, and that he sent his Son to carry the burden of His children's sin, and we thereby have forgiveness and the ability to enter into His kingdom.
Which is what I replied to with the message you quoted. Previously I had listed:
RAZD Message 119: That is one possibility, but another is that reality exists, independent of human perception (ie a rock is a rock whether or not anyone is there to perceive it).
In this case the basic a priori assumptions we can make are
  1. that there is a reality,
  2. that we can understand parts of this reality by objective testing and
  3. that other people exist who can experience the same reality in the same way.
Without these assumptions all philosophy and religion is just naval gazing, and any concept could be true, none could be deemed more credible than any other, reality could exist or all could be illusion (as the Buddhists would have it).
Do you disagree with those presuppositions? A simple yes or no will suffice at this time.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2010 8:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2010 1:36 PM RAZD has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 159 of 577 (555952)
04-16-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by RAZD
04-15-2010 7:03 PM


Glass Houses
So, are you contesting my presuppositions? Or are you agreeing that sac51495's presupposition/s is/are useless and logically flawed?
I am simply pointing out that people in glass houses should be careful where it is they remove their underpants.
Do you disagree with those presuppositions? A simple yes or no will suffice at this time.
Yes - The presupposition of yours that I find incoherent is the one that you have not included here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2010 7:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2010 8:03 PM Straggler has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 160 of 577 (556039)
04-16-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Straggler
04-16-2010 1:36 PM


Pseudoskeptic Bunglers should not make up things
Hi Straggler, curiously you did not answer these questions either. It seem you are incapable of doing so.
Yes - The presupposition of yours that I find incoherent is the one that you have not included here.
Ah, you mean the stuff in your imagination that you keep making up about my arguments.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2010 1:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2010 1:13 PM RAZD has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 161 of 577 (556245)
04-18-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by RAZD
04-16-2010 8:03 PM


Seeking Clarification
Straggler writes:
Yes - The presupposition of yours that I find incoherent is the one that you have not included here.
Ah, you mean the stuff in your imagination that you keep making up about my arguments.
No I mean the supposition that you seem too embarressed to actually unambiguously state outright. But that also seems to underlie a great deal of your thinking. Consider the following:
RAZD writes:
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
RAZD writes:
What is the objective reality of a god that is undetectable? Further, if one believes that god is unknowable, how could one expect to have any way of determining whether or not the terms "objective reality" applied or not. Message 368
RAZD writes:
An obvious corollary is that there are many elements of reality that we are unable to sense, being limited as we are to 5 senses. Message 393
All of which suggest that you are operating under the presupposition that there is a whole realm of non-empirical reality in which gods exist.
If not - then my bad. But all I ask for is a frank and unambiguous clarification on what your position actually is on such matters. As opposed to your usual tactic of relentlessly stating what it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2010 8:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2010 7:30 PM Straggler has replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 162 of 577 (556263)
04-18-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Huntard
04-14-2010 9:40 AM


Re: I
Stoning kids from Deuteronomy 21:18-21, and killing people that work on the Sabbath from Exodus 31:12-15
There are a number of responses to this objection (that it was wrong for the Israelites to stone rebellious children and to kill people that work on the Sabbath).
The one I will focus on requires some in depth explanation of the covenants of God with man, along with some explanation of the Law.
There are certain laws and morals in this universe. These are not random products of evolution or of human reasoning, but entities established by God. Jehovah being a merciful God, He made known to us these laws, whether it be by way of conscience, or ordinance.
The first time for God to make known his laws to man via ordinance, was when he led the Israelites out of Egypt. He then told Moses his laws and ordinances that were to be established as a part of the "government" of the Israelites. Note that I said that these laws were established as a part of the "government" of the Israelites. This means that certain punishments were prescribed for certain wrongdoings (just like we do today). Everyone knew the punishments that were laid out by God for sins, so in this way, they had an advantage over us Gentiles, (see Romans 3:1-2).
So the Israelites lived by the Law. This however does not mean that they were saved by the Law. The Law served to condemn their sins, much like our conscience condemns us. How were they saved? By faith (Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:28)).
So having covered the Israelites, I have to talk about us as Gentiles (non-Israelites). We are saved in the same way as Israelites are (by faith). As Romans 3:30 says "since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith". What is the difference between Jews and Gentiles? Gentiles are condemned by their conscience, rather than by the Law (Romans 2:14).
So, since Gentiles are not governed by the Law in the way that the Israelites are, they are likewise not condemned in the way that the Israelites are (e.g., being stoned). This does not mean that Gentiles are free from punishment. Gentiles are punished by their conscience. This verse explains it beautifully: "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law" Romans 2:12. Those who sin without the law (Gentiles) will likewise perish without the law. With the Jews however, because they sin under the law, they perish or are punished according to the law.
So the reason why I wouldn't stone my rebellious children is because the Bible commands it. Should the Jews have stoned their rebellious children? Yes, because it was commanded by God. Does this seem cruel? No, because the Law clearly laid out the punishment for rebellion. So a rebellious child knew what their punishment was. Israelite children would even have an advantage (in a sense) over us, because they would know what a terrible punishment was laid out for stoning, and would thereby refrain from being rebellious.
So to sum it up in short form,
1. - Jews live by the Law, and are thus punished by the Law.
2. - Gentiles live without the Law, and are thus punished without the Law.
The covenants I spoke of are basically as follows: God's covenant with the Israelites - which was one in which God laid out his ordinances - and God's covenant with the Church - which is one in which salvation by faith is the focus.
Atheism doesn't explain the world around us. How could it, it's not an explanation for anything, it's a label for someone who doesn't believe in god.
Wouldn't you agree that there are extreme philosophical implications if there is no god? There are plenty of implications if there is a god, so likewise, there are plenty of implications if there is no god. In your universe, there is no god...correct? Despite what a particular human may believe, there either is a god, or there isn't...right? You only say that you do not hold the belief that there is a god. You do not interpret your universe based on the belief that there is a god. So you and me are interpreting the universe in entirely different ways. I interpret based on the Bible, while you interpret it based on the belief that...I would say, but no one besides RAZD has told me what belief(s) dictate how they interpret the universe (please tell me what your belief(s) are). But the point being this: whatever it is you interpret the universe by, it isn't the Bible. So you and me have different starting points, resulting in different conclusions. To sum it up, you don't interpret the universe based on a god, which by definition says that you interpret the universe with NO god. Do you see the implications here? If there is no god, then there is no afterlife (this is for the simple reason that without a supernatural god, how can something supernatural like this happen?). This means that there is no true, lasting reward for anything we do. So why should we do anything, if it has no merit? The implications would continue to pile up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Huntard, posted 04-14-2010 9:40 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Stile, posted 04-18-2010 8:22 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 169 by Huntard, posted 04-19-2010 1:18 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 193 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2010 12:48 PM sac51495 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 163 of 577 (556288)
04-18-2010 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Straggler
04-18-2010 1:13 PM


Re: Seeking Clarification
Hi Straggler. Still struggling I see ...
All of which suggest that you are operating under the presupposition that there is a whole realm of non-empirical reality in which gods exist.
If not - then my bad.
No it is not a presupposition, so yes, once again, your bad. Anyone who has followed the debates will recognize this as an old failure on your part, repeated here once again. Curiously it has nothing to do with this thread topic that I can see.
But all I ask for is a frank and unambiguous clarification on what your position actually is on such matters.
Amusingly, my opinion is essentially irrelevant and unnecessary to discuss topics (like this one) with logic and reason, it is only you being an obsessive nosy parker.
Curiously, you still can't say why you feel you need to make a decision - why is that? And now (your latest failed reply) it appears you don't even understand the question ... perhaps you should keep your pursuit of (your) fantasy to one thread at a time. Then you only look foolish on one thread.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2010 1:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2010 2:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 164 of 577 (556292)
04-18-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by sac51495
04-18-2010 4:42 PM


Your God doesn't sound very attractive
sac51495 writes:
This means that there is no true, lasting reward for anything we do. So why should we do anything, if it has no merit? The implications would continue to pile up.
Why do you require a "true, lasting reward" for anything you do? Who is a better person? Someone who does something nice in order to receive a "true, lasting reward" (or any kind of reward), or someone who does something nice, just to be nice?
You are not making your view of the universe seem very attractive. Why would anyone want to live like you, if this is how you perceive things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 4:42 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 8:59 PM Stile has replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 165 of 577 (556296)
04-18-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Stile
04-18-2010 8:22 PM


Re: Your God doesn't sound very attractive
Why do you require a "true, lasting reward" for anything you do? Who is a better person? Someone who does something nice in order to receive a "true, lasting reward" (or any kind of reward), or someone who does something nice, just to be nice?
Another question is raised. If something nice is done for the sake of being nice, is the recipient of the benevolence receiving a lasting gift?...The point of my question is this: what is the only lasting gift (this is a better word than reward) we can receive? Is any gift we receive on this earth going to last forever? Once we have died, all of our earthly gifts and our benevolent acts will pass away. If there is no god, then that is all there is to it, and there is no good reason to do benevolent things. If you want to be nice for the sake of being nice, that is perfectly fine with me. But you would be perfectly justified in doing nothing...from your point of view, you will be neither condemned or rewarded for anything you do, so you would be justified in living 100%, completely for yourself and your pleasure.
I do not require that a true, lasting reward be bestowed on me for me to do any "good" things. The question is, do you? If you don't require this, then what reason do you have for being "nice"? Once again, the point is not that you shouldn't be nice, but that one who holds your views would be justified in not being nice.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Stile, posted 04-18-2010 8:22 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Stile, posted 04-18-2010 9:05 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 194 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2010 1:13 PM sac51495 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024