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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 210 of 577 (557676)
04-27-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by sac51495
04-27-2010 9:19 AM


Re: I
There isn't really a force of gravity so much as there is a cause for our attraction to the earth, the cause being a dynamo (which would be the liquid at the core of the earth swirling around, causing an electrical current).
John 11:35.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by sac51495, posted 04-27-2010 9:19 AM sac51495 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 215 of 577 (557801)
04-28-2010 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by sac51495
04-27-2010 9:19 AM


Seriously
I have tried to take you seriously, but then you wrote this:
here isn't really a force of gravity so much as there is a cause for our attraction to the earth, the cause being a dynamo (which would be the liquid at the core of the earth swirling around, causing an electrical current).
Well, what am I to say? You are so ignorant and wrong that you can't tell the difference between the Earth's magnetic field and its gravitation field.
And you are so arrogant and so puffed up with pride that you presumed to lecture us on the subject.
Now, you must be aware of the fact that you have never studied physics. You must surely know that you don't know the first darn thing about the subject on which you are pretending to lecture us.
You must know that you don't know the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism.
And yet you presume to lecture us on these subjects.
I shall resume taking you seriously when you admit that you were bullshitting about a subject on which you were inadequate to make any comment whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by sac51495, posted 04-27-2010 9:19 AM sac51495 has not replied

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


Message 226 of 577 (559703)
05-11-2010 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by sac51495
05-10-2010 9:56 AM


Stop Making Stuff Up
The reason this example is used so much is because, guess what; Hitler was a proponent of Darwinism. In fact, Darwinism had a lot to do with the thinking of Hitler.
You really should get out of the habit of making stuff up.
The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed. (Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi)
I like my evidence-based epistemology much better than whatever it is you're using instead. I'm wrong so much less often.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by sac51495, posted 05-10-2010 9:56 AM sac51495 has not replied

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


Message 227 of 577 (559709)
05-11-2010 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by sac51495
05-11-2010 12:47 AM


Re: I
I derive my truth from God, who is good and upright, and who will judge the hearts of men in a just manner.
Well, you think you do. So does every other religious person. And yet you all seem to have different ideas about what God thinks.
So even assuming that God exists, there can only be a handful of people, or one, or none, who are actually in agreement with God. The rest of them just think they are.
So the chances are millions to one against you being one of the people who actually is in accord with God --- and if you were in that position, you wouldn't know it.
It appears as though following God (and yes, this is the God of The Bible; note the capital "G") is the only way that brings true morality, peace, and knowledge.
And yet knowledge doesn't seem to be your strong suit; and the arrogance and carelessness with which you dispense misinformation does not leave me favorably impressed with your morality either.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by sac51495, posted 05-11-2010 12:47 AM sac51495 has not replied

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


Message 231 of 577 (559842)
05-11-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Hyroglyphx
05-11-2010 1:10 PM


Re: Godwin's Law
A Darwinist??? Say it ain't so!!! Do you know why this is so utterly pointless? Because almost everyone is a darwinist, Sac, because of the scientific rigor associated with it.
But Hitler, as I pointed out, wasn't. "Scientific rigor" wasn't one of the things he was big on.
He did believe in the multiplication table, and the Holocaust shows us the tragic inevitable consequences of this belief ... oh, wait ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2010 1:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-11-2010 9:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 236 of 577 (560033)
05-12-2010 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Phage0070
05-12-2010 5:49 PM


Eusebius
"How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;"
--- Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324)
PE: Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel,
The title of Chapter 31 of Book 12.
Eusebius has gotten an undeservedly bad rep.
If you look at P.E. 12:31, you'll see that what he's talking about is anthropomorphic imagery in the OT:
You may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.
To put this into its historical context, he was writing when Anthropomorphism was becoming popular --- the idea (considered a heresy by the orthodox) that references to God having a face, and hands, and being angry or repenting and so forth should be taken absolutely literally. Eusebius, who opposed Anthropomorphism, needed to argue that such statement were not literally true but were still a good idea.
He was not advocating "lying for Jesus".
Eusebius of Caesarea was made Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about the year 314, and was one of the more renowned Church Fathers.
Not only is he "one of the more renowned Church Fathers", he's not even considered a Church Father.
Christian doctrine states unequivocally that deception in the service of God is a regular and expected matter of course.
Where?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Phage0070, posted 05-12-2010 5:49 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Phage0070, posted 05-12-2010 9:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 239 of 577 (560052)
05-12-2010 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Phage0070
05-12-2010 9:30 PM


Re: Eusebius
How exactly is telling untruths as though they were true not lying?
Well, if they are in fact metaphors. If I were to say "I turn my back on you", this would not (except by accident) be literally true, but since you would not suppose that I had found your location, got out a map and compass, and pointed my back in your direction, it would not be deceitful to say it.
'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
Here Eusebius is quoting the pagan philosopher Plato. Plato thinks that he has proved something to be true. But, Plato adds, even if his proof is wrong, or if what he think is true isn't true, the social consequences of people believing it would still be beneficial.
Now I certainly realize that each theist is a religion unto themselves, but I don't see how you can realistically claim that he isn't considered a Church Father.
OK, some people consider him a Church Father. No-one would put him near the top of the list, since some people wouldn't even put him on the list.
On the other hand perhaps a quote from a book instructing the clergy in their behavior would be warranted...
For further example, John Chrysostom, who was also an important Early Church Father.
That's not really what On The Priesthood is about. It's certainly not what the passages you quoted were about.
Have some context.
As far as I can make out John's prose, the situation was this. His friend and mentor Basil was much attached to John. When they were both offered a chance to become bishops, Basil thought that either they both should accept, or neither should. John, meanwhile, thought that Basil would make an excellent bishop but that he (John) would make a bad bishop. So John let Basil accept his (Basil's) bishopric while privately having no intention of accepting the one that he (John) had been offered. Basil felt put out, and John is trying to justify his actions.
He is, again, not "lying for Jesus" or recommending this practice --- he doesn't advocate falsehood in the service of apologetics.
The instances he gives of deceit in a good cause are such things as generals deceiving the enemy. Do you as a non-Christian object to such shenanigans? Or, if you agree with him that the military should exercise guile of this sort, would you say that: "Atheist doctrine states unequivocally that deception is a regular and expected matter of course"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Phage0070, posted 05-12-2010 9:30 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Phage0070, posted 05-12-2010 11:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 240 of 577 (560053)
05-12-2010 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by sac51495
05-12-2010 9:34 PM


So the fact that Hitler was not an atheist has no bearing on whether or not he believed in Darwinian evolution or not.
However, the fact that he consistently talked smack about evolution and advocated creationism does have a bearing on the subject.
Also remember that he lured millions of Germans into following him, so he didn't always necessarily tell the truth.
This is a common creationist dodge when confronted with what Hitler actually said. Maybe, they suggest, even though everything he said on the subject was pro-creation and anti-evolution, he was secretly an evolutionist ... it doesn't seem much of a basis for a smear campaign, but then when did creationists ever need a basis for what they say?
But the problem with this fantasy, besides the inability of creationists to actually read the minds of dead people, is that we have access to the Tischgesprache. These are notes of Hitler's private conversations, in his bunker, with his most intimate cronies, which were not published until after his death.
This also disposes of your excuse that:
Also, Hitler underwent some major changes in his ideology after he wrote Mein Kampf (which was written in 1925, 14 years before WWII started).
The Tischgesprache records what he said during WWII. His opinions on creation and evolution were so consistent between Mein Kampf and the Tischgesprache that I would defy anyone to tell the difference between them.
But I'm going to stop using Hitler as an example, just because it tends to make people a little bit touchy.
A better reason for not talking this sort of nonsense would be that it isn't true. Hitler was a staunch creationist both in public and private from at least 1925 up to the day that he blew his brains out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by sac51495, posted 05-12-2010 9:34 PM sac51495 has not replied

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


Message 243 of 577 (560056)
05-12-2010 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by sac51495
05-12-2010 10:33 PM


Let me give you some clarification on what I believe. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."(Romans 1:18-23).
You do not say why you believe that.
Note the part that says "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen"
Oh, I did note that. I really did.
It's not true, is it?
Now however, I attempt to make God my starting point in all my thinking, and from this I see that if there was no god, nothing can be accounted for.
But this seems to be a non sequitur.
If someone said: "I attempt to make custard my starting point in all my thinking, and from this I see that if there was no custard, nothing can be accounted for", what would you think?
Just because some person tries to account for everything in terms of custard, does not mean that nothing could be accounted for except with reference to custard. It might just mean that they'd made some risible mistake.
At least we know custard exists.
So I am asking these questions because I do not think they are possible to answer well without a god.
Since religious people have differed wildly on these questions, it is plain that most people with a god are getting them badly wrong.
What makes you think that you're one of those one-in-a-million theists who've got them right?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by sac51495, posted 05-12-2010 10:33 PM sac51495 has not replied

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


Message 246 of 577 (560061)
05-12-2010 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Phage0070
05-12-2010 11:12 PM


Re: Eusebius
I am aware. The point was that Eusebius was advocating deception, not that he was the author of the quote.
But Plato thought that he had proved something to be true.
This makes no sense; the first statement does not follow from the second. This appears to be a failure of basic reasoning.
It's not strict logic, but it's still reasonable. Similarly, since not everyone would agree that Paul McCartney was a drummer, it is at least unlikely that he would make it onto anyone's list of top ten drummers, even if it is not a logical impossibility.
This passage does not advocate (or condemn) that, but it does advocate deception in the service of God.
In the service of desirable outcomes. How would you feel about it?
I object to those shenanigans in the same sense that I would object to being stabbed by a theist; while a perfectly reasonable thing for a general to do to the enemy, it is not suitable behavior in advocating religious ideals.
But he never said that one should use deception in advocating religious ideals.
Those examples seem to indicate that John viewed Basil as an enemy, in order to justify his actions. If enmity is required to justify one's actions toward a friend or fellow, perhaps it is time to admit those actions are not friendly or civil.
Chrysostom discusses this point. I gave you a link. See his example of the doctor.
No, I would say that deception is only regular and accepted as a matter of course when dealing with mortal enemies, or those wished extreme ill.
And John Chrysostom doesn't say that one should be deceptive regularly and as a matter of course, only that it is sometimes justified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Phage0070, posted 05-12-2010 11:12 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 12:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 248 of 577 (560067)
05-13-2010 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Phage0070
05-13-2010 12:53 AM


Re: Eusebius
OK, and?
So Eusebius in quoting it, even approvingly, isn't approving deliberate falsehood.
No, no it isn't in the slightest. Observe:
The Christian god wouldn't even be included in many people's lists of existing gods, therefore nobody would put the Christian god at or near the top of existing gods.
Does it make any more sense to you now?
I find that false analogies rarely clarify anything.
Are you sure you have been reading these quotes?
Yes. He thought that these passages were matephorical rather than literally true, but he didn't think that the Bible was full of lies as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 12:53 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 3:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 251 of 577 (560071)
05-13-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by PaulK
05-13-2010 2:21 AM


Presuppositionalism
I don't think you've quite got the hang of presuppositionalism. Romans 1:18-23 is actually one of the founding texts of presuppositionalism. (Of course, this involves them in an intractably vicious circle, but that is apparently exactly the position that presuppositionalists aspire to be in.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2010 2:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2010 3:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 254 of 577 (560078)
05-13-2010 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by sac51495
05-12-2010 10:33 PM


What is real?
Well, I can't give you a complete list; but some examples would include waffle irons and cantaloupes and alligators and income tax and ketchup and Zanzibar and firecrackers and armadillos and teacups.
How do we know what is real?
Observation.
Two things to be noted:
(1) We couldn't possibly deduce the existence of the real things I listed from theism in general, nor from Christianity in particular. We have to observe the world in order to find this stuff out.
(2) We couldn't possibly deduce the existence of God the same way we deduce the existence of the sort of things I listed. So in order to defend his existence theists have to think up some whole new way of defining and detecting "reality" which they never use for anything else.
How do we live based on what we know is real?
Well, we acknowledge and take into account the existence of waffle irons and cantaloupes and alligators and income tax and ketchup and Zanzibar and firecrackers and armadillos and teacups ... and so forth.
And we acknowledge the existence of God if he ever shows up and starts acting like a real thing.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by sac51495, posted 05-12-2010 10:33 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by sac51495, posted 05-30-2010 12:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 255 of 577 (560080)
05-13-2010 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Phage0070
05-13-2010 3:18 AM


Re: Eusebius
If you approvingly quote someone advocating deliberate falsehood, you are approving deliberate falsehood.
But, for the nth time, Plato thought that what he was saying was true. Therefore, he wasn't advocating deliberate falsehood. All he was saying was that if he was inadvertently wrong, then at least the consequences of people erroneously believing him would do more social good than harm.
Then perhaps you could point out the difference? They are both people's opinions on beings, fictional or not. If the Christian god not being on some people's lists at all does not imply he cannot be at or near the top of other people's lists, then Eusebius not being on some people's lists of Church Fathers does not imply he cannot be at or near the top of other people's lists.
As I said, I didn't mean it as a strict matter of logical inference, but rather as a heuristic.
It is irrelevant whether he thought they were metaphors or straight lies, presenting metaphor as truth is a lie. If you present something you know is not literally true as being literally true, it is deception.
But all metaphors are presented as being true, that's what makes them metaphors and not similes. "I wash my hands of you"; "he is a greedy pig"; "I spit on Communism"; "he's a real high flier"; "she blows hot and cold"; "you're really busting my balls" ... you see how it works?
And when a Christian sings "He's got the whole world in his hands", he is neither subscribing to the Anthropomorphic Heresy nor telling a deliberate lie.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 3:18 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 4:56 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 257 of 577 (560089)
05-13-2010 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Phage0070
05-13-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Eusebius
And for the nth time, it is irrelevant what Plato intended. It is Eusebius I am talking about, and what Eusebius intended with the quote.
His meaning in quoting Plato was to highlight the advantages of deception, unintentional or otherwise.
No. What he was trying to show in the P.E. was that ideas claimed by the pagan philosophers were prefigured in the Bible and that the Jews got there first.
I would agree with anyone who said that this example was particularly unconvincing, but that is what he was trying to do.
Eusebius believed, as you claimed yourself, that the anthropomorphism of God in the Bible was not literally true and yet advocated its presentation as such.
No --- he thought that he and all his orthodox chums should go around loudly denouncing the Anthropomorphites as being wrong in thinking it to be literally true.
Then I believe I have adequately proved your heuristic to suck.
And yet it seems to work just fine in the field in which I thought it sensible to apply it, and what more can one ask of a heuristic?
Again, not true. Metaphors are presented as being metaphors ...
Well, no they're not. Very rarely does someone precede a metaphor by pointing out that it's a metaphor.
On the other hand, Eusebius did say that (what he took to be) metaphors in the Bible were metaphors, and so he was not dishonest on that account. It would have been dishonest, by your lights, if he'd believed them to be metaphors but preached Anthropomorphism.
In this same sense you cannot come up with your own original metaphor and expect to be understood without first explaining the metaphor to your target audience.
I can and I have; and I can also understand other people's metaphors without necessarily having them explained to me first.
Those people singing the song presumably know it is a metaphor. Telling a child who doesn't know it is a metaphor that God holds the world in his hands, expecting the child to literally believe it, is a lie. That is what Eusebius was advocating.
But Eusebius and his pals would in fact have been mortified if passages such as he was referring to had turned anyone into an Anthropomorphite.
Whichever way you slice it, Eusebius was not advocating plain old lying as any reasonable person would understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 4:56 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Phage0070, posted 05-13-2010 11:25 AM 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