Attack a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2013, 03:19 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 02:35 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Morondog,

This is the first thing I've read on here that utterly confounds me! :-) What do you mean by TL; DR me?

Sincerely,

Mojch



Tl;DR
is "too long, didn't read"

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 02:35 PM)Mojch Wrote:  This is the first thing I've read on here that utterly confounds me! :-) What do you mean by TL; DR me?

It's an abbreviation for Too Long; Didn't Read. Standard reply for anyone who posts some book length post e.g. as an explanation for the divinity of the Son of Man. Everyone's guilty of it to some degree, except Chas.

People sometimes append a "TL;DR" version summarizing their post at the end, so that poor sods who want to rip their ideas to shreds and call them stoopid comment can read the summary first and decide if they want to dive into the main text...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 04:36 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 06:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (Actually, while making the claim, Islam is NOT an "Abrahamic tradition". It's an Arabic moon-god cult tradition which *claimed* they had the same origins as the Abrahamics. In fact they had nothing in common, at all. Also in fact, the god "Sin" from which Allah was taken, was the ENEMY of Yahweh).
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ns?page=25

But my main point is that constantly, religionists, in using both the Old Testament and New Testament, commit the Genetic Fallacy. The origins of their customs were not from "religions" or gods. They came directly from their cultures, and appropriated by the cults. The cults were not responsible for the cultural innovations or advances. They merely sanctioned what was already going on in the general culture, and turned them into religious laws and teachings.
Religions advanced nothing. They originated nothing, that was not already going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

I entirely agree that Islam does not have its roots in Judaism, nor does its adherents descend from Abraham, but that's doesn't prove that it isn't an Abrahamic tradition. By definition it is included (as cited), because they claim to have roots in Abrahamic beliefs, which is all that is required for it to be true.

Furthermore, did you read your own citation on the genetic fallacy? The genetic fallacy is not a mistake in claiming where's a group's beliefs originated from but rather a mistake in drawing a conclusion about a group's current state based on its origin. An example would be arguing that Planned Parenthood is racist (it isn't) because it was based on eugenics when it was founded (it was)... just because it was at one time doesn't mean that it still is. So while it may be true that the cultures around the Jews had the same sexual practices as the Jews and thus the Jews weren't "the origin" of such sexual practices, it's not an example of the genetic fallacy.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
My grand idea is on hold. Hopefully, it will see light soon. Back to business. No editing due to no time. This is me thoughts to paper so apologies for obvious mistakes.

***Revanant: Although we have now discussed in another thread, thanks for the warm welcome here. You define your morality as "first do no harm". Can I ask how you apply this in real life? Does this mean harm on an individual level or a social level? Example: Is it morally right to terminate one life to save, with 100% confidence, two lives?

And, for the record, I think the shrub REVEALED the morals but that morality itself is a consequence of human evolution. :-)

***Houseofcantor: What, in the name of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, is a Gwynnie?

***Morondog: So you accept that some "low level" morality has been built into us based on evolution? Could you tell me what those "low level" principles are in your opinion?

***Momsurroundedbyboys: To be honest, I didn't get the shoo fly thing until I read some of your other posts. Then, I got it! Now...now...I fear it... ;-)

***The Bearded Dude:

1. No, Christians are not persecuted in America today.
2. No, Christians were never persecuted wholesale in America.
3. I, personally, would feel discriminated against if I was denied opportunity or otherwise negatively impacted based on my religion alone. Persecute is a much stronger word then discriminate though. I would have to say that for me to feel "persecuted" I would have to feel that the majority of society rejected me AND took action serious action against me based on that rejection. Mere condemnation would not be enough.

Sorry if #3 is a little vague. If I may ask, why the focus on persecution.

**CJS: Thank you. I am sorry to see our discussion end. Thanks for your kind words and I hope we converse again.

***ReadandConsider: I said, "If and when I have less on my plate with others, we can discuss this at length, perhaps even in the Boxing Arena." You will notice that I offered to discuss this with you ONE on ONE because I thought it was that important. I did not refuse to discuss because I am "dismissive of / unwilling to engage on a question that is essentially at the foundation of any sort of religion that involves a personal god." If you are keeping track, I am currently engaged in two Boxing Arena matches (with skilled opponents I might add), trying to reply to everyone here, and attempting to remain somewhat kind, rational, and coherent. I am sorry if I failed in your eyes. Additionally, I was shocked when you made this statement: "To be clear, by saying that it's "logically unsound" to examine communication with a deity from a moral standpoint, you're saying that there is no logical way to engage with a god." You will notice that I never told you which portion of your argument I found logically unsound in my first reply post. Please explain how, without having the slightest inkling beyond the fact that my ultimate conclusion was that your argument is not logically sound (in the technical Philosophy 101 sense), you can deduce that I was saying "there is no logical way to engage with a god"? In fact, I directly challenge you to show your intellectual honesty and do one of two things:

1. Prove, using something approaching basic syllogistic reasoning (formal logic is unnecessary), that, given the language of your first post, the only possible conclusion from my statement that the APPROACH is logically unsound is that there is no logical way to engage with a God.

2. Admit that you assuming the conclusion of an argument you have not heard was improper.

***Full Circle: Amazing post and I agree with nearly everything you said. Much, MUCH more importantly, how awesome was the new Trek? Are you a fan of older Trek as well? If so, favorite series? (I know this is the wrong forum but I don't really want to start another thread right now. I am treading water to meet everyone!)

Also, I have a question for you based on the quote from Mark. Please forgive me if this comes across agressive. This is very important to me because I think it is one of the fundamental problems with may atheist criticisms of religion. You (and Mark) are evaluating the actions of Christian parents from YOUR perspective, not THEIRS. This is totally unfair. Think how most Christian parents see it...

1. Christ is the only way to heaven. If my child dies without Christ, he goes to Hell.
2. Hell is the absolute worst possible thing that could happen to my child.
3. Therefore, as a loving parent, I do EVERYTHING in my power to prevent my child from going there.

Now, I understand that YOU don't believe the child is in danger of Hell. However, this does not change the PARENTS belief. Mark, and you by your agreeing with him, asked, "Why not teach it when children are experienced enough to reason for themselves?" The simple answer is because doing so INCREASES the risk that the kid will go to Hell from the PARENTS perspective. Your belief that Hell doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that a parent is morally obligated to do what he or she believes is in the best interest of the child. Do you disagree that a parent should do everything in their power to maximize the best interests of their child? And don't parents, as the guardians of children too small to reason well until they are older, have to make certain decisions for the child based on good faith efforts by the parents to determine truth? If the parents exhibit good faith efforts to determine truth and arrive at a religion as in the best interest of their child, how is it morally objectionable for them to teach that to their child?

***Starcrash: QUOTE: "So does the alleged correctness of "Qur'anic sexuality as a moral precept" prove that the god of the Qur'an is a real and true god? I contend that you agree that it doesn't. Biblical/Qur'anic sexuality is irrelevant to those who want to debate the existence of a god."

I find your use of the phrase "I contend that you agree" to be very interesting. Since when is it proper discussion technique to assume an fellow discussion member's position and then attack it? For the record, I would COMPLETELY agree with the statement that "the alleged correctness of "Qur'anic sexuality as a moral precept" [is evidence that] the god of the Qur'an is a real and true god." Logic requires me to do so. Note that I would NOT say PROVES (this is a word that gets thrown around way too much) because it is far too strong. I cannot stress this enough, we aren't going to get anywhere if you change my arguments. I never said that it PROVES God. Nothing PROVES anything since one of the most basic tenants of science is that NOTHING can be known with absolute certainty. I did say it was EVIDENCE (and, to be clear, evidence is something that increases or decreases the likelihood of a particular fact being true) of God. The reasoning is simple and I challenge you to refute it. (1) If the Bible is infallible, then the sexual morality of the Bible must be correct. (2) Therefore, if the sexual morality of the Bible is incorrect then the Bible is not infallible. (3) The Bible is the only "evidence" (I use this term loosely) for the existence of the Christian God. (4) Therefore, if Biblical sexual morality is incorrect then the Bible is not infallible and cannot be trusted to reveal anything about the existence of the Christian God. (5) If Biblical sexual morality IS correct, then this removes one possible way of disproving the Christian God, and, through the basic process of finding true argument by eliminating those arguments which are not true, makes the existence of the Christian God slightly more likely. (IE: If there are only 5 ways to disprove a proposition, and we find out that one of those ways to disprove it doesn't work, then do you assert that this has not made it more likely that the proposition is true? The logic is the same even if their are five billion ways to disprove Christianity.)

***Bucky Ball: QUOTE "Religions advanced nothing." This is a VERY ambitious claim. Are you asserting that no religion at any point in human history has advanced anything at all? I don't want to argue this if it was simply a rhetorical statement made for effect. If you really are asserting that, how would you define religion?

Forgive the rushed nature of this post. Keeping up with all of you is keeping me on my toes. But it is fun...I am just hoping against hope that I don't get a...

Shoo fly.

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 10:00 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 09:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  My grand idea is on hold. Hopefully, it will see light soon. Back to business. No editing due to no time. This is me thoughts to paper so apologies for obvious mistakes.

***Revenant: Although we have now discussed in another thread, thanks for the warm welcome here. You define your morality as "first do no harm". Can I ask how you apply this in real life? Does this mean harm on an individual level or a social level? Example: Is it morally right to terminate one life to save, with 100% confidence, two lives?


Sincerely,

Mojch

First off I hold that everyone has the right to his or her own person. Thus we can dispense with the strawman of organ harvesting (not saying you were gonna go there but I have seen people use that argument and have no desire to hash that one out) Now what I mean by my "precept" was in day to day living on a personal level though I do reflect it in my politics as well so I guess you could say both to a degree. To answer your question more accurately I would need some details because there are circumstances which either yes or no is correct.

Here is such a scenario You are standing on a bridge over railway tracks and see 2 people stuck on the tracks below. A train is coming and has no chance of stopping You can pull a switch and have the train change over to the other track but that means that a worker who is standing there will be hit. In this instance the more moral thing to do is pull the switch and sacrifice the worker for the 2 others.

Same scenario only this time instead of a switch you are standing next to a very fat man and you know if you throw him in front of the train it will slow it down enough to let the 2 people escape. Same ratio of 2 to 1 but in this instance it is immoral to kill the 1 to save the 2.

With the do no harm concept here the Worker has a chance to get out of the way. However you are murdering the fat guy. Does this help explain it at all?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 10:02 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2013 11:08 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 04:36 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  By definition it is included (as cited), because they claim to have roots in Abrahamic beliefs, which is all that is required for it to be true.

By whose or what "definition" ? "By definition" it would have to actually INCLUDE elements of Abrahamic tradition to BE an Abrahamic tradition.
Anyone can claim anything. The claim does not make it true.
I was speaking of the fallacy that the cultural origins of any religious practice does not originate with the religion but with the culture.
If you have an example of one, lets see it.

(23-05-2013 09:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  1. Christ is the only way to heaven. If my child dies without Christ, he goes to Hell.
2. Hell is the absolute worst possible thing that could happen to my child.
3. Therefore, as a loving parent, I do EVERYTHING in my power to prevent my child from going there.

***Bucky Ball: QUOTE "Religions advanced nothing." This is a VERY ambitious claim. Are you asserting that no religion at any point in human history has advanced anything at all? I don't want to argue this if it was simply a rhetorical statement made for effect. If you really are asserting that, how would you define religion?

Yes I am. Every religion came from it's culture, and existed ONLY in that culture. There is nothing unique about any religion that was not already in the culture. If you know of something, name it.

You are wrong about "most Christian parents" thinking that your christ is "the only way to heaven". Christian Theology would say that the billions of humans who were never exposed to Christianity, and are not, and will never be, but attempt to live moral lives, will go to heaven. Have you done a poll of "Christian parents" ?
From what you are saying, your god creates people NOT for heaven, and chooses to send them to hell : "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day" John 6:44. Now why would he say that if it were not actually the case, and there really are those who are not "drawn" ? If everyone is "drawn" then the statement is nonsense, and irrelevant. "For many are called, but few are chosen". Matthew 22:14. Is THAT more irrelevant nonsense ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 10:10 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 09:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Momsurroundedbyboys: To be honest, I didn't get the shoo fly thing until I read some of your other posts. Then, I got it! Now...now...I fear it... ;-)

*Snip*

Forgive the rushed nature of this post. Keeping up with all of you is keeping me on my toes. But it is fun...I am just hoping against hope that I don't get a...

Shoo fly.

Sincerely,

Mojch

I'll admit I haven't read every post you've written, from what I've seen you seem, at least to me, to be very understanding. You ask questions and you seem, at least for now, seem to respect the answers and don't keep repeating the same argument again.

I'll admit you're not at all like most of the theists we get here.

Unless you go all batshit crazy the shoo fly wouldn't need to come out...

Enjoy your evening. My grandma (on my mom's side) was a Lutheran too.

The services back then were very similar to Catholic. In fact some of it was exactly the same. Apostle creed/ nicene creed too, the part that mentioned the catholic church...lol. I used to giggle at that...

Seemed weird to me...I don't think they still say that one.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
23-05-2013, 11:25 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Bucky Ball: Thank you for replying.

(1) Alright, I think I understand what you are saying now. I thought your previous assertion was that religion had led to no advances of any kind. Instead, I now believe you to be saying that all religions are nothing more than an accumulation of various pre-existing cultural elements and that there is nothing that exists within a religion which did not originally exist with the culture itself. Is this correct?

(2) Earlier, you pointed out that it was unreasonable for me to generalize about all gay people by stating that there is a single “gay worldview”. In the post you just made, you stated, “Christian Theology would say that…”, thereby implicitly claiming, just as I did, that a group of people who have widely divergent views can be reduced to a single statement of belief. Why have you not just committed the same error I made earlier?

(3) More importantly, I note that your argument about “most Christian parents” is a basic red herring. Instead of refuting the argument actual argument I made (that Christian parents have a right to teach their children what they believe to be in the best interest of their children), you made an argument that was tangentially related, but, even if true, would not have changed the underlying logic of my primary assertion. Then, you changed the subject to ask if I had surveyed Christian parents. Do you deny this is a red herring response? If so, please explain how your response answers the actual argument I made and does not simply sidestep the issue.

(4) QUOTE: "From what you are saying, your god creates people NOT for heaven, and chooses to send them to hell : "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day" John 6:44. Now why would he say that if it were not actually the case, and there really are those who are not "drawn". If everyone is "drawn" then the statement is nonsense, and irrelevant.
You quoted two verses here. At this moment, I address only the first due to time.

First, I point out that you claim if everyone is drawn, this verse is NONSENSE. I assume that you mean the term NONSENSE as it is commonly understood and therefore that the verse conveys no meaning or that the meaning is so trivial as to be unimportant.

Let’s start with John 6:44. I will attempt a thought experiment to illustrate my point.

You are in a room, separated from 30 people by a vast gulf of lava. Each of the thirty people is dying of a disease for which you have the cure. Your boss, Bob, sent you into the room to rescue the people because you are only doctor trained to administer the cure. Bob himself is standing outside the room and has a switch which can lower a bridge between you and the thirty people. This is the only switch that can bridge the gap between you and the thirty people. In other words, you and Bob have to work together or else, individually, neither one of you can save any of the people.

In this situation, is the following statement NONSENSE? Does it convey NO meaning or only a TRIVIAL meaning?

“No one can come to me unless Bob who sent me lowers the bridge and, if he does, I will give them the cure.” It seems to me it conveys a very serious meaning…that YOU need BOB to rescue these people! You can’t do it on your own. With thirty lives on the line, that is by no means a trivial piece of information. How is this situation and statement different from John 6:44? And, if you can’t distinguish it, then how is John 6:44 nonsense but your statement in the hypothetical situation is not?

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 11:32 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(23-05-2013 09:31 PM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Morondog: So you accept that some "low level" morality has been built into us based on evolution? Could you tell me what those "low level" principles are in your opinion?

I limit myself to answering your question directed at me, since everyone else is dogpiling on ya with their own stuff Big Grin

Look it's not like I have some highly worked out theory of morality. As I said, there's no *rule* that says right or wrong, it's just evolutionarily what *works*. Low level stuff would be e.g. reluctance to kill, love for kiddie-poos, looking after weaker members of the tribe etc. These are probably evolutionary in the sense of built in to us rather than handed down as tradition. But I'm no expert... Just makes sense. Lots more sense than an invisible being giving us a sense of right and wrong 'cos some twerp scoffed an apple Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
24-05-2013, 12:19 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Mojch, I'll respond to the following. You wrote...
"Also, I have a question for you based on the quote from Mark. Please forgive me if this comes across agressive. This is very important to me because I think it is one of the fundamental problems with may atheist criticisms of religion. You (and Mark) are evaluating the actions of Christian parents from YOUR perspective, not THEIRS. This is totally unfair. Think how most Christian parents see it...

1. Christ is the only way to heaven. If my child dies without Christ, he goes to Hell.
2. Hell is the absolute worst possible thing that could happen to my child.
3. Therefore, as a loving parent, I do EVERYTHING in my power to prevent my child from going there.

Now, I understand that YOU don't believe the child is in danger of Hell. However, this does not change the PARENTS belief. Mark, and you by your agreeing with him, asked, "Why not teach it when children are experienced enough to reason for themselves?" The simple answer is because doing so INCREASES the risk that the kid will go to Hell from the PARENTS perspective. Your belief that Hell doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that a parent is morally obligated to do what he or she believes is in the best interest of the child. Do you disagree that a parent should do everything in their power to maximize the best interests of their child? And don't parents, as the guardians of children too small to reason well until they are older, have to make certain decisions for the child based on good faith efforts by the parents to determine truth? If the parents exhibit good faith efforts to determine truth and arrive at a religion as in the best interest of their child, how is it morally objectionable for them to teach that to their child?"


I agree the parents think they have the child's interest at heart. That doesn't excuse their behavior. They're subjecting an innocent susceptible child to a scary, irrational, unnecessary, untrue concept. That's evil. It's child abuse.

Hell was invented by the catholic church to scare people into submission. The same church today has backed away from the hell concept and no longer denies atheists a place in heaven.

These parents need a good whack with a reality stick. We're not living in the dark ages anymore, so they have no excuse for being uninformed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: