Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 226 of 477 (558746)
05-04-2010 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Pauline
05-03-2010 8:05 PM


So, the atheists agree that the scientific method is practically useless when it comes to understanding and verifying things in super-naturalism. Okay.
Let's start with this:
1. Both atheists and theists will agree that morality is surely a major part in human life. The ability to discern good from evil right and wrong takes precedence for more people than not. (there are more theists than atheists. I do not mean to say that atheists live immoral lives, no. Just, that isn't their main focus in life, as it appears. There are other things, like self, accuracy, science, etc that occupy a much bigger part of their lives.)
2. Obviously, in our world, we do not have a universal moral code that everyone follows. Even if there are laws on paper, and more or less similar among countries, people are imperfect, to say the least, in following them.
3. Yet, we all strive to be moral.
4. We all know, for sure, that man cannot ever reach the moral standard he has set for himself.
5. In light of this, there are two possible ways out of this problem. 1) Forget morality and live your life
2) Submit to an absolute, ultimate moral code
6. The absolute, universal moral code is the moral Code of God. There is no personal preference or bias in following this code.
7. Since man already knows that he is imperfect, and cannot perfectly follow God's moral code (he couldn't even his own!), there has got to be propitiation.
8. That is exactly what the Christian God offers. Propitiation.
Now, if people would rather choose to throw morality and its ramifications down the drain for personal reasons, what I wrote above is perfect nonsense--farce. But for the other group who are on the lookout for moral lives, there seems to be only one way--a supernatural way.
This is pretty poor stuff. Humans are social animals, and intelligent to boot. Of course they have ways to get along together (morality). There is no need to appeal to superstition to explain morality.
Can't you do better than this? You claim to have non-scientific ways to study this alleged supernatural realm. Let's see something respectable. "Where's the beef?"
Edited by Woodsy, : corrected spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Pauline, posted 05-03-2010 8:05 PM Pauline has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 227 of 477 (558765)
05-04-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Pauline
05-03-2010 8:05 PM


The crux
Now, if people would rather choose to throw morality and its ramifications down the drain for personal reasons, what I wrote above is perfect nonsense--farce. But for the other group who are on the lookout for moral lives, there seems to be only one way--a supernatural way.
And yet you're still left with the same problem. You can't follow this moral code
But the problem remains as you're still left being imperfect with or without Jesus. What is worse is now you have a perennial escape clause to be as immoral as you want because you're washed in the blood of Jesus and can massacre 50 people and still be forgiven.
The whole point of the messiah is to rescue people from that absolute moral code that no one can follow. If we can't keep the Law, then saved people don't live under the Law any longer. And if they don't live under the Law anymore why are you advocating it?
And clearly "saved" people commit some of the most atrocious sins, so you're left right back at square one which highlights the crux of the matter.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Pauline, posted 05-03-2010 8:05 PM Pauline has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 228 of 477 (558781)
05-04-2010 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hawkins
05-04-2010 4:46 AM


Now assuming that you've met with God personally and are 100% sure about His existence, and how will you be able to show others that it is true that God exists?!?!?! You will find that there's not any efficient way for such a kind of truth to be conveyed among humans. Even when you are 100% sure about it, others will have to need faith either to accept or to reject what you said. To simply put, witnessing and testimony are already of the most efficient way for your truth to be conveyed. And coincidently this is what Christianity is, witnessing and testimonies.
Widespread agreement is no indicator of accuracy unless it is backed up with evidence. Even if everyone agreed about something, they could still all be 100% wrong.
Witnessing and testimony are not convincing. To me, they just look like a widespread scam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hawkins, posted 05-04-2010 4:46 AM Hawkins has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 229 of 477 (558875)
05-05-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Apothecus
05-03-2010 9:58 PM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
Apothecus writes:
Hello there again, Dr. Sing. I trust you've been well.
Thought I'd weigh in on this argument (yawn) for the benefit of those who may not have argued it in the past.
You raise some very relevant points, sir pharmacist, that help fuel the discussion.
I'm gonna give you a 5 rating on this post.
I'd posit that, in general, the non-religious maintain a balance between foci (morals vs. "everything else") that is simply superior to the "balance" exhibited by the religious. For example, if non-religious folk were so preoccupied with "everything else", they'd be bombing Oklahoma gov't offices and flying planes into skyscrapers. But we don't see the non-religious propagating these atrocities, correct? Curious, that.
So, the atheists get to grade the world's papers? Umm, what is basis for defining moral superiority or lack of it? Flying into buildings and not flying into buildings is not an acceptable criterion. Anything else? I say this because there is no objective way to define moral based on human standards. So you simply cannot say atheists are "more moral" than religious fanatics based on....well, your standard of morality. I cannot, based on my standard of morality. Obama cannot, based on his standard of morality. Mother Teresa cannot, based on her standard of morality.
Do we allow players to referee their own games? Valid question, no?
I hope you get the drift of what I'm saying. I,as a theist, could for example call atheists immoral based on why they agree with abortion.
Instead, what we do see is a segment of society concerned with searching for the truths of science, philosophy, the arts, etc (tangible subjects), instead of spending time attempting to define morality under the auspices of an intangible deity(ies).
On the face of it, what you said is quite eloquent, and appealing.
But if you want to rule out all immorality BECAUSE atheists do not focus all that much on morality, from their lives, I have to disagree.
No, morality is a human invention, exhibited by the fact that different modern cultures possess different moral customs and ideals. However, to really drive this point home, one need look no further than at the fact that morals change over time. An absolute moral code is not so absolute if it can be modified at will, yes? Slavery, subjugation of women, Dr. Sing? Surely those biblical bronze-age morals are now defunct. But ... they were absolute morals at that time, yes?
Alright Doc, good time for me to ask this question:
Do you believe that everything written in the Bible is, also, advocated by God?
Should you choose to live according to a universal, humanist moral standard or a supposedly god-contrived, absolute (and continually changed, apparently)standard, then all the better for yourself and your fellow humans
Universal, humanist moral standard sounds good to me.
But there is problem: No one follows the code perfectly.
Solution: ---Space for Apothecus to give answer---
Absolute Standard sounds better to me
But there is problem: No one follows the code perfectly.
Solution: God Himself lives it for you. And offers it to you, free.
To me, the religious are being good because they have to, not because they want to.
Doc, dogma isn't a good thing sometimes. I sighed when I read this.
-----------------
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?
Fear of the wrath of god is a powerful thing, Dr. Sing. May the farce be with you.
And may your mutations guide you into all positive complexity and fitness there is to achieve.
DA writes:
That's not what he said. He just challenged you to suggest an alternative.
If the atheists do not agree that the scientific method is useless, then then is debate is useless. You just destroyed the common platform for our debate. Do you want to have a discussion or not, DA?
quote:
For example, if you claimed supernatural powers to raise the dead, then we could in principle take you to a morgue and see if you could do what you claimed. That would be using the scientific method, and the test would be effective --- either you really could or you really couldn't, and we'd be able to tell one way or another.
And? Would you believe me after your scientific testing?
Can you suggest an equally good, or superior, method of testing such a claim? We're all ears.
I know of no better way to understand and test observable, natural phenomena than the scientific method.
Question is, is super-naturalism natural? physical? I mean, you can never take God to a cemetery and say "okay, yeah, raise my 80 year old grandma and I'll believe you're God."
Are we convinced yet?
quote:
5. In light of this, there are two possible ways out of this problem. 1) Forget morality and live your life
2) Submit to an absolute, ultimate moral code
This seems to be a non sequitur. How would it follow from your previous statements?
Well, I came across a dead end. So...I went back to the starting point and took a different road.
BUT, if option 1 is valid for you, then yeah, this is somewhat "far-fetched"
Being hungry does not prove that we have bread, and being conscious of our own imperfection does not prove that there is propriation, just that we'd like there to be.
there has got to be propitiation = We expect/hope for propitiation
I used it in a more emotional, than rational sense.
So now that we have a source that is willing to offer us the propitiation that "we'd like there to be", what do we do about it?
Either believe it, or don't.
I can conceive of the possibility, just as I can conceive of the existence of unicorns. What I cannot do is see a unicorn. Because there aren't any unicorns.
Wow, what dogma!
So why are you even talking to me, if seeing God physically is what you want? I cannot show you God.
And if you want to make out that it is "ridiculous" to apply this concept to your religious beliefs, then perhaps it is time for you to offer some actual special pleading, rather than behaving as though this has already been offered.
But it seems to me that the only reason you have to make your religion a special case is that it's wrong. If there was evidence for things like fiat creation, a young earth, Noah's flood, and so forth, then you wouldn't be going about saying that it was "ridiculous" to look at the evidence when it comes to questions of religion, would you? No, it would be the first thing you'd want to talk about.
Simply No.
Um, yeah, that's the best I can tell you,I don't base faith on physical evidence..even if there was 100% reliable evidence for the Flood. I might say "oh look, we have physical evidence to further confirm the veracity of the Biblical account that we already believe in based on faith" but not "hey, Joe, umm...they finally discovered the Ark, so now that we have a leg to stand on in the scientific community, lets believe this Bible, shall we?..and if they contend with us, its okay bud, we have physical evidence!"
W writes:
This is pretty poor stuff. Humans are social animals, and intelligent to boot. Of course they have ways to get along together (morality). There is no need to appeal to superstition to explain morality.
Can't you do better than this? You claim to have non-scientific ways to study this alleged supernatural realm. Let's see something respectable. "Where's the beef?"
Umm, well now, if you would define morality as "getting along with each other", then sir, more power to you. /s
I mean....where's your beef?
Hyro writes:
And yet you're still left with the same problem. You can't follow this moral code[...]as you're still left being imperfect with or without Jesus. What is worse is now you have a perennial escape clause to be as immoral as you want because you're washed in the blood of Jesus and can massacre 50 people and still be forgiven.
You think you're washed in the blood of Jesus if you can allow yourself to massacre 50 people.
Before you give me an example of how the Israelites killed nations on God's command in the OT, let me tell you that that topic is exclusively theological. If someone doesn't appreciate the OT God, then He might as well not discuss that at all. I'm not for a non-theologcial, logical discussion on that one, if you know what I mean. I am 100% happy to talk about it. But I'm asking to play in my arena, not yours.
The whole point of the messiah is to rescue people from that absolute moral code that no one can follow. If we can't keep the Law, then saved people don't live under the Law any longer. And if they don't live under the Law anymore why are you advocating it?
True. I'm not advocating the OT Mosaic Law!
I'm advocating the fulfilled Law. Substitutionary atonement.
And clearly "saved" people commit some of the most atrocious sins, so you're left right back at square one which highlights the crux of the matter.
No denying that. We do commit terrible sins. Being Christian =/= being perfect. Being Christian = Being forgiven
So, Christians are forgiven of the sins they commit SO LONG AS said sins are unintentional. But if a Christian guy kills his aunt because he hates her, guess what,
Rev 22: 14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
Absolute moral code. For both theists and "atheists" alike.
There is NOTHING like, if you're a Christian you can get away with anything...even if Christians themselves believe that or say that. We can't override the code!!!
Ob the other side, what does being Christian mean? It means you are ahead in the morality game than your atheist counterparts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Apothecus, posted 05-03-2010 9:58 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Woodsy, posted 05-05-2010 11:18 AM Pauline has not replied
 Message 231 by Stile, posted 05-05-2010 11:30 AM Pauline has replied
 Message 233 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 12:25 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 235 by Coragyps, posted 05-05-2010 12:44 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 12:47 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 12:58 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 2:03 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 250 by Apothecus, posted 05-05-2010 6:34 PM Pauline has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


(1)
Message 230 of 477 (558881)
05-05-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Pauline
05-05-2010 10:39 AM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
W writes:
This is pretty poor stuff. Humans are social animals, and intelligent to boot. Of course they have ways to get along together (morality). There is no need to appeal to superstition to explain morality.
Can't you do better than this? You claim to have non-scientific ways to study this alleged supernatural realm. Let's see something respectable. "Where's the beef?"
Umm, well now, if you would define morality as "getting along with each other", then sir, more power to you. /s
I mean....where's your beef?
Well, I can do without the smarmy condescension.
You have still not offered any way to study this alleged supernatural realm, or even to show that it exists.
Um, yeah, that's the best I can tell you,I don't base faith on physical evidence..even if there was 100% reliable evidence for the Flood. I might say "oh look, we have physical evidence to further confirm the veracity of the Biblical account that we already believe in based on faith" but not "hey, Joe, umm...they finally discovered the Ark, so now that we have a leg to stand on in the scientific community, lets believe this Bible, shall we?..and if they contend with us, its okay bud, we have physical evidence!"
If you cannot produce evidence of some convincing kind, the rest of us can dismiss your religion as a kind of disease of the intellect and ignore it as far a the public sphere is concerned.
If religion cannot be shown to be true to people not already committed to it, it has no place in public life. if this is not what you want, then show us some evidence and convince us that it really is evidence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 10:39 AM Pauline has not replied

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


(1)
Message 231 of 477 (558884)
05-05-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Pauline
05-05-2010 10:39 AM


Half a circle... is 180 degrees
At the beginning of the post Dr. Sing writes:
So, the atheists get to grade the world's papers? Umm, what is basis for defining moral superiority or lack of it? Flying into buildings and not flying into buildings is not an acceptable criterion. Anything else? I say this because there is no objective way to define moral based on human standards. So you simply cannot say atheists are "more moral" than religious fanatics based on....well, your standard of morality. I cannot, based on my standard of morality. Obama cannot, based on his standard of morality. Mother Teresa cannot, based on her standard of morality.
So, you cannot grade standards of morality. Got it.
You are building your credibility on the idea of objectiveness. Excellent.
At the end of the post Dr. Sing writes:
On the other side, what does being Christian mean? It means you are ahead in the morality game than your atheist counterparts.
*Poof*
That was the sound of your credibility exploding, being popped by a hypocritical needle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 10:39 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 12:09 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 232 of 477 (558889)
05-05-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Stile
05-05-2010 11:30 AM


Re: Half a circle... is 180 degrees
Stile writes:
*Poof*
That was the sound of your credibility exploding, being popped by a hypocritical needle.
Wait a second. Just a second.
Like Apothecus said, if atheists' main focus is NOT morality and theists' is, then who is ahead of the morality game Stile? I'm not asking you who is good or bad, successful or unsuccessful at it.
I'm raising my hands; I'm not going to judge who is moral. That is the whole point of having a absolute moral code.
If you are mathematician and I am a doctor, then is it fair to assess who is ahead of the game when it comes to medicine?
If both you and I were physicians and I said that I'm ahead of the game, irrespective of what you think, then I am falsely judging..and you can by all means doubt my credibility.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : clarification
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Stile, posted 05-05-2010 11:30 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 1:48 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 246 by Phage0070, posted 05-05-2010 2:26 PM Pauline has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 233 of 477 (558892)
05-05-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Pauline
05-05-2010 10:39 AM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
So, the atheists get to grade the world's papers?
On exactly the same basis that you do. The only difference between you and me is that I know this and you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 10:39 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 12:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 234 of 477 (558893)
05-05-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Dr Adequate
05-05-2010 12:25 PM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
On exactly the same basis that you do. The only difference between you and me is that I know this and you don't.
What?! I don't even have a self-derived moral standard of my own. The one I claim to follow is God's. Whats your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 12:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2010 3:04 AM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 235 of 477 (558896)
05-05-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Pauline
05-05-2010 10:39 AM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
Absolute moral code. For both theists and "atheists" alike.
GOOD! So we atheists can own slaves, too, and be MORAL about it! Hooray! Where are some for sale?
Ob the other side, what does being Christian mean? It means you are ahead in the morality game than your atheist counterparts.
Tell Ratzinger all about it......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 10:39 AM Pauline has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 236 of 477 (558899)
05-05-2010 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Pauline
05-05-2010 10:39 AM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
Universal, humanist moral standard sounds good to me.
But there is problem: No one follows the code perfectly.
But the same problem applies to any moral standard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 10:39 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 12:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 237 of 477 (558901)
05-05-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Dr Adequate
05-05-2010 12:47 PM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
So you're reading everything, thinking only about what you want to and posting to get my nerves up.
--
But the same problem applies to any moral standard.
Yeah! So...
Would you rather throw away morality then? No need of morals at all?
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 12:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 1:05 PM Pauline has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 238 of 477 (558902)
05-05-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Pauline
05-05-2010 10:39 AM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 10:39 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 1:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 239 of 477 (558904)
05-05-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dr Adequate
05-05-2010 12:58 PM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
Yes, I "see the need" for an "absolute standard"..
Mark this down, Dr Adequate.
But I do not see why that "absolute standard" should be the one that you preach
What then is your idea of a absolute moral standard? I am VERY eager to hear your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 12:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2010 1:17 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 247 by Phage0070, posted 05-05-2010 2:30 PM Pauline has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 240 of 477 (558905)
05-05-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Pauline
05-05-2010 12:53 PM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 12:53 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 1:14 PM Dr Adequate 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