Scared of theism

robindch

> You are correct saying there are many other philosophers who have written
> about ethics, but it's usually quite verbose and quite difficult to understand

Plenty of people have written clear guides -- Confucius, for example. Plato is also quite clear, though his translations are far dustier than they should be. Check out his very wiity "Symposium" (his treatise on love), or the death scene of Socrates in the Phaedo:

http://socrates.clarke.edu/aplg0190.htm

...which paints Socrates as a far less flashy, and therefore far more heroic, character than the gospels depict Jesus. None of the latter's despairing "why have you forsaken me" stuff, but rather a simple, unshowy account of a man sticking to his principles to the last. It's quite illuminating to compare and contrast the two accounts of the death of the two "moral" heros.

> JC puts it across nice and simple.

For one ghastly second, I thought you were referring to Captain Capslock...

John Wine

robindch wrote:

Plato is also quite clear

I disagree with that, I tried to read 'The Republic' and couldn't so I doubt many kids could.
It is quite interesting the similarties between Socrates and JC.
Both held onto their convinctions right until the end and both were poor men, both never wrote anything but their mates did.
And the work of both was written in Greek.

robindch

> I tried to read 'The Republic' and couldn't so I doubt many kids could.

I didn't recommend that one Try the Symposium or the Phaedo instead. The Republic is a desperately dry read.

> And the work of both was written in Greek.

...and Plato's greek is far better. The NT's stuff is very pedestrian, not that you'd guess that from the translations though!

Dades

John Wine wrote:

It helps provide a world view, as the majority of the world are theists of some sort and they will make up their own mind in later life anyway.

The world view it helps provide is that there is a God monitoring everything you do, and every thought you have. Better (IMO) to teach a child to be moral out of respect or compassion than by the threat of the Big Guy in the sky.

Zombrex

John Wine wrote:

JC puts it across nice and simple.

Suppose we will have to agree to disagree here. Personally I find Jesus's "teachings" to be unclear, deliberately vague, contradictory and in a number of places simply wrong.

A lot of what we think Jesus taught is actually just the most popular interpretation of the New Testement stories. For example the story of Jesus telling the crowd "ye who is without sin throw the first stone" is commonly thought to mean that people should not judge others as everyone has done something wrong in their lives. That is the ethical message that has grown up around the story in the past 2000 years. But there is a compelling argument that that wasn't really what Jesus was talking about in the story itself at all.

Often we get the chicken confused with the egg. We form our own morality first and then interpreate something like the New Testement around this moral framework, but then we think this moral outlook originated from the New Testement itself because we aren't really aware of what we are doing.

John Wine wrote:

Yes but then they would haven't thought about their atheism critically.

But you don't really need to. Have you thought about your atheism to the ancient Austrialian spirit gods critically? Are you even aware of them, and if you are not does it really matter to you?

John Wine wrote:

I disagree with that, I tried to read 'The Republic' and couldn't so I doubt many kids could.

I doubt many children could read the Bible and understand it properly. They might be able to pull out a few catchy things that Jesus is quoted as saying, but that isn't really the same thing. The Bible is taught to children in most case, in that someone like a teacher or parent reads the Bible and then explains what the different passages and verses mean to children.

I see no reason why this could not be done with other classical works

John Wine

Wicknight wrote:

Suppose we will have to agree to disagree here. Personally I find Jesus's "teachings" to be unclear, deliberately vague, contradictory and in a number of places simply wrong.

Where do you find them to be wrong?

Wicknight wrote:

A lot of what we think Jesus taught is actually just the most popular interpretation of the New Testement stories. For example the story of Jesus telling the crowd "ye who is without sin throw the first stone" is commonly thought to mean that people should not judge others as everyone has done something wrong in their lives. That is the ethical message that has grown up around the story in the past 2000 years. But there is a compelling argument that that wasn't really what Jesus was talking about in the story itself at all.

Elaborate, I thought the message from the stone story was very clear. I would say most atheists would agree with the ethical message in this.

Wicknight wrote:

We form our own morality first and then interpreate something like the New Testement around this moral framework, but then we think this moral outlook originated from the New Testement itself because we aren't really aware of what we are doing.

I think it's impossible to say how much of are morals are intrinsic and how much are extrinsic. The NT provides a frameowrk to start thinking about morals, you don't have to agree with them, but it provides a good starting point for the average person who hasn't a degree in Philosophy.

Wicknight wrote:

But you don't really need to. Have you thought about your atheism to the ancient Austrialian spirit gods critically? Are you even aware of them, and if you are not does it really matter to you?

My point isn't about a specific theology, it's about the notion of a God that's all. I don't think you can dismiss that notion unless you have considered it first.

Zombrex

John Wine wrote:

Where do you find them to be wrong?

Off the top of my head, his teachings on divorse being one.

John Wine wrote:

Elaborate, I thought the message from the stone story was very clear.

Not really.

The woman who was to be stoned was innocent. We know she is innocent because if she was guilty she would not have been brought into the temple in the first place, as those who did this would be executed. She was taken by the crowd to try and trick Jesus into stoning an innocent woman, so he can be arrested for doing so. He says to them "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

The "sin" is the setting of the trap for Jesus, using this innocent woman as bait. He is calling their bluff. Naturally they don't stone her, not because they have some realisation that stoning is wrong or that adultry is now ok. They don't stone her because she is innocent and they are guilty. They have taken an innocent woman that they are prepared to condemn just so they can get Jesus. That is their sin, and that is what Jesus points out to them with the passage.

Despite common interpretation the message of this passage is not that people should not judge others for their sins as everyone has done something wrong in their lives. The Bible is all about the judging of others.

The message of this passage is that one should not make up false charges against another person.

This makes sense in the wider scheme of the New Testement, where judging itself is not considered a bad thing to do, just judging unfairly or under false evidence.

by the way, historical evidence suggests was added to the book of John after it was originally written, so there is doubt over the authenticity of this story in the first place.

John Wine wrote:

I think it's impossible to say how much of are morals are intrinsic and how much are extrinsic.

Not if you are an atheists

John Wine wrote:

The NT provides a frameowrk to start thinking about morals

The point is there are lots of other works provide better frameworks. The New Testement is very brief, without any proper examination of the different ideas, and with no counter arguments or discussion.

Because of this the NT loses most of its "appeal" (for want of a better word) when you remove the "it is the literal word of God" fact from the equation. Then it just becomes a bunch of rather silly and not particularly insightful or interesting stories about a Jewish cult some 2000 years ago.

John Wine wrote:

My point isn't about a specific theology, it's about the notion of a God that's all. I don't think you can dismiss that notion unless you have considered it first.

Well first point, your notion of God is a specific theology.

Secondly you have to be aware of the notion in the first place. If you aren't aware of the concept of a god what is there to consider or dismiss?

As I said you don't consider the various aspects of accient Austrialian folklore, and neither do I, before we dismiss them because neither of us are aware of them to start with. Yet some how we manage to struggle on regardless.

robindch

> Where do you find them to be wrong?

The following quotes from Jesus in Matthew 10:34-39:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Luke 12:49,51-53:

I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! ... Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three.

etc, etc.

Binomate

Wicknight wrote:

If theism didn't exist everyone would be atheists, though they wouldn't realise it.

Every single person on the planet is atheist, most just don't realise it. John Wine is an atheist, he doesn't believe in Poseidon.

[Edit] Upps, just noticed you've said this in a post after the post I have quoted.[/edit]

aidan24326

John Wine wrote:

I think it's impossible to say how much of are morals are intrinsic and how much are extrinsic. The NT provides a frameowrk to start thinking about morals, you don't have to agree with them, but it provides a good starting point for the average person who hasn't a degree in Philosophy.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'intrinsic morals'. Do you mean that some of our morality is already wired in at birth? I guess some of it might be, though us humans are born knowing very little, and have to learn pretty much everything from scratch. It is quite easy for someone's sense of right and wrong to go badly awry if brought up in the wrong environement.

Either way, why do religious people insist that we need a book like the NT to provide us with a moral framework? What ever happened to teaching a child to be nice out of empathy and compassion for your fellow man (and all animals to some extent) just because that is simply the right way to be? I can think of better ways to teach a child how to behave than reading passages from the bible, and warning of hellfire on non-compliance.

In fact, the ten commandments as a moral framework are not particularly good either, I'm pretty sure I could probably come up with something better myself and I'm no deity. It would be somewhat disapointing to think that's the best an all-powerful god could produce. We all routinely break at least some of them without even doing anything terribly wrong.

-Honour thy father and mother (only if they deserve it. If my dad was a mass-murdering tyrant I would find it a bit difficult to 'honour' him)

-Keep holy the sabbath day (nope. Sunday is just another day to me)

-Thou shalt not take the name of the lord they god in vain (I don't have a god)

-Thou shalt not kill (kill what exactly, presumably just people? or does that include other creatures? what about the death penalty? often handed out and carried out by those who would otherwise claim to be relgious. In America, the most christian states are also the ones who execute the most people. kinda hypocritical)

-Thou shalt not steal (won't argue with that one. though we're all accessories to forms of stealing without really realising it)

-Love thy neighbour (a bit vague. What about if I have very good reason not to love him/her? Surely once I do him no harm, that's all that matters)

-Do not covet thy neighbour's wife (impossible not to break this one. And in any case, it's no harm to look admiringly at someone else's wife once you don't attempt to interfere in their marriage)

-Do not covet they neighbour's goods/house (coveting is no harm, once you don't actually steal)

- .....you shall not have false gods before me (pretty meaningless to anyone who doesn't believe in god already)

-Do not bear false witness against they neighbour (fair enough. though I presume this doesn't include all forms of lying, as lying can be the right thing to do in certain circumstances)

Rev Hellfire

Binomate wrote:

John Wine is an atheist, he doesn't believe in Poseidon.

Not believing in Poseidon does not make you an atheist.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yes it does, it makes you an atheist regarding the existence of that particular god.

all theists are atheists about myths that are not their own.

John Wine

aidan24326 wrote:

-Honour thy father and mother (only if they deserve it. If my dad was a mass-murdering tyrant I would find it a bit difficult to 'honour' him)

You are doing a Dawkins and just going to extremes here.

aidan24326 wrote:

-Keep holy the sabbath day (nope. Sunday is just another day to me)

We all like a lie in.

aidan24326 wrote:

-Thou shalt not take the name of the lord they god in vain (I don't have a god)

Exactly so why take it's name in vain then.

aidan24326 wrote:

-Thou shalt not kill (kill what exactly, presumably just people? or does that include other creatures? what about the death penalty? often handed out and carried out by those who would otherwise claim to be relgious. In America, the most christian states are also the ones who execute the most people. kinda hypocritical)

Another Dawkins, going to extremes in America.

aidan24326 wrote:

-Thou shalt not steal

-Love thy neighbour

-Do not covet thy neighbour's wife

-Do not covet they neighbour's goods/house (coveting is no harm, once you don't actually steal)

Implict for any humanist.

aidan24326 wrote:

- .....you shall not have false gods before me (pretty meaningless to anyone who doesn't believe in god already)

Well if you don't believe in any Gods, then you certainly don't believe in any false Gods.

-Do not bear false witness against they neighbour (fair enough. though I presume this doesn't include all forms of lying, as lying can be the right thing to do in certain circumstances)

Implicit for any humanist

Rev Hellfire

Mordeth wrote:

yes it does, it makes you an atheist regarding the existence of that particular god.

all theists are atheists about myths that are not their own.

I’m a traditionalist then when it comes to the definition of an atheist.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

sub fundamentalist for tradionalist

Zombrex

John Wine wrote:

You are doing a Dawkins and just going to extremes here.

No he is pointing out that the Bible as a moral guide book is actually pretty crap and not very insightful or useful for establishing more complex modern moral and legal frameworks. Large parts of the Bible are completely irrelivent or areas that it doesn't cover at all, that have to be "filled in" by other more detailed, more complex and more thought out, moral frame works.

aidan24326 points out that he could come up with better 10 commandments. So could I.

So why bother with the Bible at all beyond a history class? I mean we don't have to use it just because it is there.

The argument that it is easier for children to understand doesn't really hold. Is it easy for a child to understand Leviticus?

Zillah

John Wine wrote:

I wouldn't agree with that.
I have decided to go with intrinsic evidence you have obeyed your "logical" faculties.

Your intrinsic evidence is unreliable horsecrap. Sorry to phrase that so bluntly but we've had this before. Its nothing special, it can be explained without resorting to inventing supernatural entities.

"Logic", coupled with the scientific method are any humans best tools for correctly understanding the universe. How any sane human being can disagree with that I cannot fathom.

John Wine wrote:

You are doing a Dawkins and just going to extremes here.

Not true. Its the bible that goes to extremes by making absolute statements. Thats one of the common failings of religion. It maintains objective morality so it can make absolute statements.

When criticising an opponent who makes absolute statements it is perfectly valid to go to any extreme. Maybe then your opponent will learn to stop making absolute statements.

You don't like extremes, fine, then stop supporting absolute statements.

For example:

Statement: Respect one's parents.
Extreme response exposing failing of initial statement: What if my father is a mass murdering tyrant?

A more correct statement would be: Respect one's parents as long as they are worthy of respect in your eyes.

We cannot easily attack that statement by going to extremes because it has an intelligent qualifier.

John Wine wrote:

I think religion is good for kids even if you are atheist.

Every single benefit can be taught in other ways that does not involve indoctrinating children into a world view based on fantasy.

robindch wrote:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Y'know what always struck me as weird about that? Why did he say cross? He hadn't be crucified yet, why would a cross be a symbol?

John Wine

Zillah wrote:

Your intrinsic evidence is unreliable horsecrap. Sorry to phrase that so bluntly but we've had this before. Its nothing special, it can be explained without resorting to inventing supernatural entities.

"Logic", coupled with the scientific method are any humans best tools for correctly understanding the universe. How any sane human being can disagree with that I cannot fathom.

Well we will never on that. I cannot say my intrinsic thoughts are horsecrap.

Not true. Its the bible that goes to extremes by making absolute statements. Thats one of the common failings of religion. It maintains objective morality so it can make absolute statements.

I agree parts of the Bible are OTT, I am no Bible basher.
I don't generally supported extreme statements, perhaps you would like to give an example of me doing so.
My point is Bible for many is a good starting point to think about morals. The way we are having a debate about them now is case in point of that fact.
You don't have to agree with the all the morality of the Bible, I certainly don't but I think it is an excellant place to start. Not because it is the word of God, but because it simple explains some moral and ethical ideas quite simply.

When criticising an opponent who makes absolute statements it is perfectly valid to go to any extreme. Maybe then your opponent will learn to stop making absolute statements.

Ridiculous logic.

MrJoeSoap

Why would anyone need a book to teach them morals and ethical issues? Surely life itself is the best teacher.

Zillah

John Wine wrote:

Well we will never on that. I cannot say my intrinsic thoughts are horsecrap.

Well I don't suppose you would, but they are. Sorry.

I don't generally supported extreme statements, perhaps you would like to give an example of me doing so.

I didn't say you did, but you were attacking someone else's argument because they went to extremes. They did not, they simply used the bible's own extreme position against it.

My point is Bible for many is a good starting point to think about morals. The way we are having a debate about them now is case in point of that fact.

Like I said above (maybe the edit was too late), you can teach all those things to children without teaching them a world view based on fantasy.

Ridiculous logic.

Uh, ok, thats your view. You are wrong though. Perhaps you misunderstand my use of the word "extreme". An "extreme response" is one that takes the initial logic of a statement and carries it to an example where the logic is proven to be invalid. Like the father example above.

Zombrex

John Wine wrote:

I certainly don't but I think it is an excellant place to start.

Why though? Is it just because it exists and in the past was used for moral guidence?

It seems to me that a person would spend more time throwing out the crap in the Bible before they come across anything of worth. In other words it seems like an almight waste of time when they could study something of far more relivence. An average episode of Corrie contains more insightful commentary on ethical issues.

If someone wants a good place to start with moral and ethical that is simple and easy to read I would suggest here

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

aidan24326

Wicknight wrote:

No he is pointing out that the Bible as a moral guide book is actually pretty crap and not very insightful or useful for establishing more complex modern moral and legal frameworks. Large parts of the Bible are completely irrelivent or areas that it doesn't cover at all, that have to be "filled in" by other more detailed, more complex and more thought out, moral frame works.

aidan24326 points out that he could come up with better 10 commandments. So could I.

So why bother with the Bible at all beyond a history class? I mean we don't have to use it just because it is there.

The argument that it is easier for children to understand doesn't really hold. Is it easy for a child to understand Leviticus?

Exactly. I was just trying to point out that the bible as a moral framework isn't all that good. Vague, incomplete, outdated and in parts just plain irrelevant. I'm not even sure of it's value in a history lesson. It's historical accuracy is now widely considered (among history scholars) to be very sketchy at best, and that's just the NT.

The OT is just a collection of myths and fables, many of them x-rated passages that would be deemed unfit for a young audience in any other context. When you think about it, it's actually difficult to see what educational value the bible has at all in the modern world. I can see very little tbh.

As for it being easier to understand, I would dispute that also. Much of it is deliberately vague and obscure, and obviously open to alot of misinterpretration and selective interpretation as has happened.

John Wine

Zillah wrote:

Well I don't suppose you would, but they are. Sorry.

Do you not trust your intrinsic evidence for love then either?

Like I said above (maybe the edit was too late), you can teach all those things to children without teaching them a world view based on fantasy.

Of course you can, but some of the examples in the Bible are excellant and hard to beat. Have a go at the Prodigal Son for example?

Uh, ok, thats your view. You are wrong though.

You have no evidence I am wrong.

Perhaps you misunderstand my use of the word "extreme". An "extreme response" is one that takes the initial logic of a statement and carries it to an example where the logic is proven to be invalid. Like the father example above.

You are going to have to elaborate, this makes no sense?

John Wine

aidan24326 wrote:

Exactly. I was just trying to point out that the bible as a moral framework isn't all that good. Vague, incomplete, outdated and in parts just plain irrelevant. I'm not even sure of it's value in a history lesson. It's historical accuracy is now widely considered (among history scholars) to be very sketchy at best, and that's just the NT.

I think your are reducing and thinking in black and white terms.
An objective analysis would deem that there are good parts and bad parts.

The OT is just a collection of myths and fables, many of them x-rated passages that would be deemed unfit for a young audience in any other context. When you think about it, it's actually difficult to see what educational value the bible has at all in the modern world. I can see very little tbh.

As for it being easier to understand, I would dispute that also. Much of it is deliberately vague and obscure, and obviously open to alot of misinterpretration and selective interpretation as has happened.

The core problem of this type argument is that it lacks details, it's like a high level summary devoid of concrete examples.
If you picked specifics we could agree or disagree.
The 10 commandments for example, many atheists would actually with, as you seem to yourself.

Wicknight:

Why though? Is it just because it exists and in the past was used for moral guidence?

It seems to me that a person would spend more time throwing out the crap in the Bible before they come across anything of worth. In other words it seems like an almight waste of time when they could study something of far more relivence. An average episode of Corrie contains more insightful commentary on ethical issues.

If someone wants a good place to start with moral and ethical that is simple and easy to read I would suggest here

The Bible is not moral absoluteness, that is not my argument. I am just saying it is a good starting point. If we all discuss the 10 commandments, I think if society engages and discusses the 10 commandments that is a good thing for society, I can't see how that it is a bad thing.

Zillah

John Wine wrote:

Do you not trust your intrinsic evidence for love then either?

I believe in love because:

- It is an emotion. Emotions have been proven to exist as a neuro-chemical response in human beings to certain stimuli.
- I have felt it. Humans feel emotions and therefore me feeling it is evidence for its existence.
- I have seen the actions other people take because of love. The result implies the cause.

Your instrinsic evidence for God is irrelevant because a feeling proves nothing beyond the existence of the feeling itself. For example, if I loved someone because I thought they loved me and would always protect me, its not evidence that they will always love me and protect me. Similarily, you having a deep feeling for God's existence does not count as evidence for his existence.

Of course you can, but some of the examples in the Bible are excellant and hard to beat. Have a go at the Prodigal Son for example?

Right, so we should use appropriate examples of human activities when teaching our children morality? Yeah, perfect. "God" doesn't come into it. We should use lots of sources, any and all sources for ideas on how to teach a certain lesson.

You have no evidence I am wrong.

Yes, yes I do. We are talking about logic. Logic has a set of rules. Your position is illogical, it defies those rules. Therefore you are wrong. The evidence for this is the post where you said "Ridiculous logic" in reference to my argument.

You are going to have to elaborate, this makes no sense?

Sigh. Ok.

My position is this:

"One may take a statement to the extreme* to highlight its failings**."

*Extreme: The maximum allowable while still being valid.
**Its failings: Failure to provide limitations to its position.

For example:

Statement: "One should always respect one's father."
Response: "But if my father is a mass murdering tyrant I should not respect him."

The response shows the statement to be invalid as it has not put appropiate limitations on its argument. A logical limitation would be "...as long as he remains worthy of respect."

The person who made the "response" here is using the one who made the statement's own extreme position against them. If there is a criticism about going to extremes to be made it should be made against the one who made the statement (ie, the Bible), not the response.

If thats not exhaustively clear enough then I give up.

Zombrex

John Wine wrote:

I am just saying it is a good starting point. If we all discuss the 10 commandments, I think if society engages and discusses the 10 commandments that is a good thing for society, I can't see how that it is a bad thing.

But I'm still not sure how you define "good" in the start point. I can think of plenty of better ones.

Its not a bad thing per say, it is just rather pointless. Most of the ten commandments are nonsense "Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy..." and the rest are general rules about specific things, mostly containing your neighbour.

I would probably be laughted out of Humanities or Politics if I wished to discuss the moral start point of say a Home and Away (Austrialian soap opera for those not in the know) episode. That doesn't mean there is something bad about the H&A episode, just that it is hardly a good starting point for a serious discussion on morality. It doesn't add anything to the debate.

That is kinda the point about the Bible, it doesn't add anything. It is largely irrelivent, and a person would spend more time teaching someone to ignore the bad bits.

aidan24326

John Wine wrote:

I think your are reducing and thinking in black and white terms.
An objective analysis would deem that there are good parts and bad parts

Yes there are some good parts. A few catchy little stories. It appears the thing you won't accept is that a few catchy little ditties does not make the bible a worthy read, and certainly doesn't excuse all the other guff it contains.

The core problem of this type argument is that it lacks details, it's like a high level summary devoid of concrete examples.
If you picked specifics we could agree or disagree.
The 10 commandments for example, many atheists would actually with.

I really would have thought examples were scarcely necessary at this stage where the Old Testament is concerned. Anyone who believes the story of Noah's Ark or of Moses parting the red sea to be historical fact clearly has a few screws loose imo. Just read (registered poster) JC's bizarre attempts at defending the Noah story over in the long-running thread on christianity forum.

As for many atheists agreeing with the 10 commandments, I don't know, maybe they do (perhaps we could have a poll on it). I did say I agree with a few of them myself. Do not kill and do not steal are pretty standard in any moral guide. The problem is the 10 commandments are not a suitable overall moral framework. Like I said, they are (some of them) unclear, incomplete, and in 2 cases only relevant to those who believe in god.

To put it simply, they're just not very good. I've no doubt any good scholar of morality and ethics would produce something far better. As I've said, I think I could do better myself and I wouldn't claim to be an expert.

Zombrex

John Wine wrote:

You are going to have to elaborate, this makes no sense?

Someone says "Abortion is absolutely completely wrong and immoral"

"But what in case of when a father has raped his daughter and produced a child?"

"Oh, well I mean its obviously not wrong then"

Taking the original statement to the extreme tests if it holds in all cases. To the person making the original statement the absolute nature of the statement falls down when taken to this extreme, pointing out problems with the original belief that abortion is completely wrong. The person doesn't actually believe this, though they inital claimed they did.

Taking examples to the extreme is often a very useful method to test if someone actually holds to them.

robindch

> Y'know what always struck me as weird about that? Why did he say cross?
> He hadn't be crucified yet, why would a cross be a symbol?

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

One could argue that it would have been understood as the mark of a convicted criminal at that time in the Roman Empire, but that doesn't make much sense -- why would a religious preacher go around dressed like a criminal? Or if it wasn't a symbol, then some people will no doubt argue that as JC, he would have known in advance about his death on the cross (but if so, why is he quoted as shouting to god, 'why have you forsaken me?', surely he would also have known that he'd be 'saved'?). But if the cross wasn't a recognised symbol of a legal state conviction, then why would he tell people to take it up anyway? Running about with the first-century equivalent of a ball and chain without any ulterior symbolization is frankly a bit strange.

Finally, the quote could have been just created to fit the facts, as the document was written well after the events that it described. Standard biographical technique at the time involved a lot of 'creating quotes', so this anomaly is hardly surprising.

Good point.

John Wine

Zillah wrote:

I believe in love because:

- It is an emotion. Emotions have been proven to exist as a neuro-chemical response in human beings to certain stimuli.
- I have felt it. Humans feel emotions and therefore me feeling it is evidence for its existence.
- I have seen the actions other people take because of love. The result implies the cause.

I believe in God because:
- It is an emotion. Emotions have been proven to exist as a neuro-chemical response in human beings to certain stimuli.
- I have felt it. Humans feel emotions and therefore me feeling it is evidence for its existence.
- I have seen the actions other people take because of love. The result implies the cause.

Zillah wrote:

Yes, yes I do. We are talking about logic. Logic has a set of rules. Your position is illogical, it defies those rules. Therefore you are wrong. The evidence for this is the post where you said "Ridiculous logic" in reference to my argument.

Name any rule I have violated.

As for 'ridiculous logic', let's have a look at what you said:

When criticising an opponent who makes absolute statements it is perfectly valid to go to any extreme. Maybe then your opponent will learn to stop making absolute statements.

This is pathetic logic. How does it all of sudden become valid to make extreme statements? Extreme statemens are either valid or they are not.
In fact a statement is either valid or it is not.
The validity of statement does not change purely because of a particular context which is the need to "critise an opponent who makes absolute statements."
It is either valid, invalid or irrelevant statement.

Furthemore, what sort of logic is "maybe then then your opponent will learn to stop making absolute statements"
That could also be true if you just ignore your opponent.
You are misunderstanding cause and effect a classic logic fallacy.

Sigh. Ok.

My position is this:

"One may take a statement to the extreme* to highlight its failings**."

*Extreme: The maximum allowable while still being valid.
**Its failings: Failure to provide limitations to its position.

For example:

Statement: "One should always respect one's father."
Response: "But if my father is a mass muder tyrant I should not respect him."

The response shows the statement to be invalid as it has not put appropiate limitations on its argument. A logical limitation would be "...as long as he remains worthy of respect."

The person who made the "response" here is using the one who made the statement's own extreme position against them. If there is a criticism about going to extremes to be made it should be made against the one who made the statement, not the response.

If thats not exhaustively clear enough then I give up.

Sounds like the socratic method. However, the only case it fails is if it is taken to extremes. Which is proof of a good maxim.
I don't support the alternative wording '..as long as he remains worthy of respect' because this changes the message of honouring your parents by default. One should honour their parents by default, if not there is something wrong, with the kids or with the parents i.e. they are mass murderers like you say.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

umm

god is the supreme commander and creator of the universe and all living things therein.

god is not an emotion.

you just confused yourself.

John Wine

Mordeth wrote:

umm

god is the supreme commander and creator of the universe and all living things therein.

god is not an emotion.

you just confused yourself.

Welcome back Mordeth, my belief is an emotion but I accept it as a valid belief. Hope that makes sense.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

no, it does not.

I hope someday you will understand why.

Dades

Mordeth wrote:

god is the supreme commander and creator of the universe and all living things therein.

You make him sound so...

John Wine

Mordeth wrote:

no, it does not.

I hope someday you will understand why.

I follow my deepest emotions. Do you?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

generally no, when i am angry I try to calm myself down and think about the proper way to act.. I fail alot but i try.

when I'm lustful I don't go follow my 'emotion' to it's logical conclusion and rape some woman, I have a ****. it's great fun.

I sometimes get a feeling that there is an intelligence behind the universe, that there are spirits and angels and such but then I remember I've taken a pscychadelic and my brain is having a spastic attack.

John Wine

Mordeth wrote:

generally no, when i am angry I try to calm myself down and think about the proper way to act.. I fail alot but i try.

when I'm lustful I don't go follow my 'emotion' to it's logical conclusion and rape some woman, I have a ****. it's great fun.

Those emotions result in negative harm to others it is quite easy to deduce that you are better off minimizing their impact on your life as your life gets worse.
Furthermore, they are bursts, not something I would call deep or innate.
You loose your temper but it may only a hour or so. You see a hot bird, it will only last a finite time, irrespective if you relieve yourself or not.

I sometimes get a feeling that there is an intelligence behind the universe, that there are spirits and angels and such but then I remember I've taken a pscychadelic and my brain is having a spastic attack.

Yes your brain is having a spastic attack after taking a pscychadelic.

Zillah

robindch wrote:

> Y'know what always struck me as weird about that? Why did he say cross?
> He hadn't be crucified yet, why would a cross be a symbol?

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

One could argue that it would have been understood as the mark of a convicted criminal at that time in the Roman Empire

Actually crucifiction was a penalty generally used for insurgents/rebels. Not odd at all if you think about it; Lining a road with 20,000 corpses (Spartacus) is a good message to anyone else thinking of rebelling.

So its even easier to argue that Jesus may have been aluding to the fact that his followers would need to defy Roman authority. There's a school of thought that Jesus was crucified as an insurgent threat after he smashed up the temple and got away with it.

John Wine wrote:

I believe in God because:
- It is an emotion. Emotions have been proven to exist as a neuro-chemical response in human beings to certain stimuli.
- I have felt it. Humans feel emotions and therefore me feeling it is evidence for its existence.
- I have seen the actions other people take because of love. The result implies the cause.

Your brain is absolutely broken and I wash my hands of you and your ridiculous conciousness.

Dave!

Zillah wrote:

Your brain is absolutely broken and I wash my hands of you and your ridiculous conciousness.

Yeah agreed.

What kind of stupid reasoning is that?

I don't think that anyone of even moderate intelligence could believe in god for the reasons you've provided, so I'm going to assume that (a) you are taking the p*ss, or (b) you aren't of moderate intelligence.

Just my opinion!

Zillah

DaveMcG wrote:

(b) you aren't of moderate intelligence.

Thats the weird thing, aside from his insane God-logic he actually seems relatively intelligent.

Dades

DaveMcG wrote:

I don't think that anyone of even moderate intelligence could believe in god for the reasons you've provided

Before we judge let's not forget people have very different ideas of what "God" actually is.

5uspect

But thats the problem, Its at the stage where God is anything we wish it to be. The Biblical god is no longer seen by most theologians to be the intelligent entity that created and commands the world speaking to his chosen people punishing and slaughtering the unworthy. God has been defined so vaguely that the concept is outside criticism (other than the idea is now meaningless).

John Wine saying god is emotion is like that tosser John Quinn from the indo "debating" with Dawkins on the radio with Tuberity the other week saying that matter exists hence god exists validating any belief we wish to conjour up. This is utter nonsense.

How do you correlate any religious teaching ever with this wishy washy vague idea that the emotions we feel (which we know are a result of chemicals interacting in our brains) is god?

This is one thing I cannot understand. We don't know the origin of the universe beyond the big bang (I'm wary of saying before the big bang) so this story from the bronze age is adequate as an unquestioned solution but we'll only take these bits of the story ignore that nasty business with the killing and then twist the idea so those nasty logical types cannot possibly disprove it.

The very idea of convincing yourself that god exists on a personal whim without the slightest need to question your personal judgment is lost on me. You must appreciate that your mind is a machine evolved to survive in a particular environment it does not necessarily have to tell you the truth or give you accurate representations of the real world. You must doubt everything you see hear and feel as these are just the interpretations of your senses. That is why I trust science, it at least tries to eliminate or reduce these potential mental lies. Religion and blind faith are the opposite in that they positively wallow in it.

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

But thats the problem, Its at the stage where God is anything we wish it to be. The Biblical god is no longer seen by most theologians to be the intelligent entity that created and commands the world speaking to his chosen people punishing and slaughtering the unworthy. God has been defined so vaguely that the concept is outside criticism (other than the idea is now meaningless).

John Wine saying god is emotion is like that tosser John Quinn from the indo "debating" with Dawkins on the radio with Tuberity the other week saying that matter exists hence god exists validating any belief we wish to conjour up. This is utter nonsense.

How do you correlate any religious teaching ever with this wishy washy vague idea that the emotions we feel (which we know are a result of chemicals interacting in our brains) is god?

Easy. Follow these steps:

1. say "you should do X, it's in the Bible"
2. when challenged as to why, state impossibility of disproving God
3. allow definition of God to become incredibly vague to allow him to slip past logical problems
4. satisfy self atheist cannot disprove incredibly vague God
5. state that as God cannot be disproved, he exists
6. state that as God exists , we should do as He commands
7. repeat step 1

Vast logical chasms, unbridgeable abysses of unreason, all happily leapt over in single bounds of assertion. Simple when you don't try to think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Just looking at some of the recent comments:

1. [Zillah] Your brain is absolutely broken and I wash my hands of you and your ridiculous conciousness.
2. [DaveMcG]
I don't think that anyone of even moderate intelligence could believe in god for the reasons you've provided
3. [5uspect]
John Wine saying god is emotion is like that tosser John Quinn...

Several atheists think they have a monopoly on reason, but this is not reason, it is intolerance and biggotted. This brings me back to the OP, why do some of you guys get so freaked out?

Sometimes, I feel you fear diversity.

Existence is a deep philsophical concept. Existence for me, may be non existence for you, but non existence for you does mean non existence for me.

I belief God exists, but I accept I could be wrong, just as Einstein was wrong about a static universe.

There are several other places where you do not apply strict logic to your reason. Just for example, 5uspect you say: 'on a personal whim',
how do you deduce my feelings are a whim? They are not, they are deep, instrinsic and innate. I cannot ignore or avoid them.
This seems like a straw man. Again, following Dawkins debating tactics.
I trust science, most of it anyway, but it doesn't answer important questions for me.

Scofflaw, you are misunderstanding general Christianity and describing extreme fundamentalism.
The majority of Christians do not obey the Bible literally. There are parts in the Bible for example about stoning Children, I don't know any Christian who would believe this.
My view is: part of faith / theism / christianity is to question everything in the Bible.
Have a look at this for example:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html


PS
5uspect, it's David Quinn not John Quinn.

5uspect wrote:

But thats the problem, Its at the stage where God is anything we wish it to be. The Biblical god is no longer seen by most theologians to be the intelligent entity that created and commands the world speaking to his chosen people punishing and slaughtering the unworthy. God has been defined so vaguely that the concept is outside criticism (other than the idea is now meaningless).

John Wine saying god is emotion is like that tosser John Quinn from the indo "debating" with Dawkins on the radio with Tuberity the other week saying that matter exists hence god exists validating any belief we wish to conjour up. This is utter nonsense.

How do you correlate any religious teaching ever with this wishy washy vague idea that the emotions we feel (which we know are a result of chemicals interacting in our brains) is god?

This is one thing I cannot understand. We don't know the origin of the universe beyond the big bang (I'm wary of saying before the big bang) so this story from the bronze age is adequate as an unquestioned solution but we'll only take these bits of the story ignore that nasty business with the killing and then twist the idea so those nasty logical types cannot possibly disprove it.

The very idea of convincing yourself that god exists on a personal whim without the slightest need to question your personal judgment is lost on me. You must appreciate that your mind is a machine evolved to survive in a particular environment it does not necessarily have to tell you the truth or give you accurate representations of the real world. You must doubt everything you see hear and feel as these are just the interpretations of your senses. That is why I trust science, it at least tries to eliminate or reduce these potential mental lies. Religion and blind faith are the opposite in that they positively wallow in it.

Dades

John Wine wrote:

Several atheists think they have a monopoly on reason, but this is not reason, it is intolerance and biggotted. This brings me back to the OP, why do some of you guys get so freaked out?

To try and clarify, I don't think the reactions are related to atheism as such. The posters you mention are arguing that they are using logic, and you are not, which is not to say they have a monopoly in reason.

And again, "freaked out" is a very inaccurate description of what you are witnessing.

John Wine

The Atheist wrote:

The posters you mention are arguing that they are using logic, and you are not, which is not to say they have a monopoly in reason.

Well I would disagree with that. I have pointed several examples where they have not been using logic throughout this debate.

Dave!

John Wine wrote:

I trust science, most of it anyway, but it doesn't answer important questions for me.

See, you're showing us time and again the reasons why you believe in a creator and so on.

You just said you trust science. So why do you think that there is a scientific explaination for most things in the world, yet the origin of the universe is somehow exempt from this?

You're showing your petty human psychology here by saying "oh, this hasn't been explained adequately -- yet -- so it must have been god". Yet you fail to appreciate that historically this was the case for just about EVERYTHING until it was explained.

But because it's such an important question, you can't simply settle for not knowing -- you have to project a ridiculous explaination onto it. What's more, you then have to buy into a book written 2 millenia ago, AND the teachings of a church that has changed through the years and which has political history entangled in it.

You're showing a weakness in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with weakness, don't get me wrong. But you're not only showing it, you're then demonstrating that weakness to the whole world! You just can't settle for not understanding something.

Well I can. I'm happy to not know, because I know that there are intelligent and well trained people who are constantly trying to find the answers to these questions -- just like there always has been.

Some people are just too impatient.

Zombrex

John Wine wrote:

I believe in God because:
- It is an emotion. Emotions have been proven to exist as a neuro-chemical response in human beings to certain stimuli.
- I have felt it. Humans feel emotions and therefore me feeling it is evidence for its existence.
- I have seen the actions other people take because of love. The result implies the cause.

I suppose those are all as valid reasons to believe in God as any of the other nonsense that is posted on the Christian and Islamic forums, better than "Because the Bible says so" arguments I guess.

I would point out though that neither you "feeling" God, or the fact that emotions do exist, are evidence that God exists.

Me feeling that I look really good in my new leather pants doesn't mean I actually do. I might, but then again I might not. My feeling that yes this week I am finially going to win the Lotto certainly isn't evidence that I actually am going to win the Lotto. I might, but then again I might not. The feeling I have is largely irrelivent to if I will or will not win

Would you take someone seriously if the stated they believe they are going to win this weeks Lotto and that the solid evidence they have for this is that they had a deep feeling that it will happen?

Would you go "wow, that is quite a convincing position"? Or would you go "you had a feeling?? Don't be silly" and walk off?

You say that atheists should not be so quick to dismiss your feeling about God. Why? Why not dismiss it. It is a feeling, a feeling doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. I had a feeling that my bus would be late today so I went to the Spar shop only to watch my bus go flying by. Everytime I buy a Lotto scratch card I have a feeling that I'm going to win the €10,000.

Theists always seem to think that their feeling towards God is some how much more special and important than any other feeling towards anything. Why?

As I am constantly telling theists (every second post it feels like ... of course that isn't evidence that it is every second post ...) never underestimate the minds ability to trick itself.

John Wine

DaveMcG wrote:

You just said you trust science. So why do you think that there is a scientific explaination for most things in the world, yet the origin of the universe is somehow exempt from this?

There are many things exempt from the remit of Science and always will be.
The God questions is always outside the remit of Science as far as I am concerned and I see no reason why both can coexist. I think Le Maitre and Copernicus proof this.

DaveMcG wrote:

You're showing your petty human psychology here by saying "oh, this hasn't been explained adequately -- yet -- so it must have been god". Yet you fail to appreciate that historically this was the case for just about EVERYTHING until it was explained.

No, my belief in God derives more an innate intrinsic wonderful feeling.
It is driven more emotion not lack of Scientifuc reason.

DaveMcG wrote:

What's more, you then have to buy into a book written 2 millenia ago, AND the teachings of a church that has changed through the years and which has political history entangled in it.

No, my belief in God derives more an innate intrinsic wonderful feeling.
It is not driven by ancient literature. I see that only as a good reference point on how my ancestors felt about it.

DaveMcG wrote:

You're showing a weakness in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with weakness, don't get me wrong. But you're not only showing it, you're then demonstrating that weakness to the whole world! You just can't settle for not understanding something.

You are using rhetoric implying I am weak. How do you define weakness? Someone who doesn't agree with you?

DaveMcG wrote:

Some people are just too impatient.

Poor argument, brushing in wide strokes, we're not all the same, even within theism / Christianity.

DaveMcG

DaveMcG wrote:

You're showing your petty human psychology here by saying "oh, this hasn't been explained adequately -- yet -- so it must have been god". Yet you fail to appreciate that historically this was the case for just about EVERYTHING until it was explained.

Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?
I don't know so it must be GOD!