Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2013, 04:40 PM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2013 11:26 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
(19-11-2013 04:25 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  All you're doing is asserting that you're right and I'm wrong so nanna-nanna-boo-boo.

That is not true.

Quote:You haven't provided one iota of anything except trying to be an atheist e-thug.

Oh, look, the loving Christian called me a name. How....Christian.

Quote:Fact 1) I never asserted that my faith or God was empirically provable (in fact I said the opposite). I hold no burden of proof. You are the one asserting that Christianity is a fairy tale; therefore, it is YOUR burden to prove that.

You are DODGING your burden of proof. You have already admitted elsewhere that even the fairy tales you and other xtards can't get straight aren't "accurate". You assert the existence of your Gawd-figure, you get the burden of proof. You can't just wave it away with a bullshit claim that it's "not empirically provable". That's a bullshit cop-out.


Quote:
Quote:Fact 2) You asserted that it was empirically provable that Christianity is a fairy tale and/or God does not exist. You have yet to back that claim with empirical evidence.
I pointed out obviously wrong claims in your fairytale book about the nature of the world. I have said NOTHING about "Gawd does not exist". Put the strawman away.


Quote:Fact 3) You claim that because PJ and I don't agree is empirical evidence against the existence of God. This is completely non-sequitur. Dissenting opinions do no invalidate a position.

I didn't say that at all. Strawman. Baby Jeebus cries when you lie.


Quote:Fact 4) Your riff on the fairies and a sky city show your lack of overall knowledge and inability to participate in a theological debate. Again, this is completely non-sequitur and proves nothing and is certainly not empirical evidence against the existence of God or the validity of Christianity.

Your fairytale book is what claims a flat earth the sun and stars travel around and sky fairies in the clouds. I've BEEN in the fucking clouds, I know there's no magical kingdom there.

Quote:I have given you organized answers addressing each of your points.

Nope, you've done a lot of dodging.


[quote[ I have also provided sound arguments which you have not addressed.
In your dreams.

Quote:Instead, you just make quips and try to "bully" your way out of actually answering or participating. Stop playing semantic games and trying to do burden shift crap.

LOL, that's precisely what YOU are doing, Bucko!

Quote:You made a claim, now back it with sound evidence.

Bullshit.

Quote:What I want you to answer:

Show me empirical evidence that God does not exist as you asserted.

Fuck you. I didn't make that assertion. You are being willfully disingenuous and intellectually dishonest and you're getting called on it. No wonder you don't want to debate atheists any more.

[Image: straw-man.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
19-11-2013, 04:53 PM
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
Lolz. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
19-11-2013, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2013 05:37 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
(19-11-2013 04:34 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 04:24 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Hold on; that sentence is self-contradictory. You say the elect are more important to the plan and then immediately say they are not more important than anything else, which of course, is in the plan, therefore making the statement a contradiction.

They are the most important part of the plan, but no more important that anything else... don't really know another way I can say it.

Let's say you had to break through enemy lines. The demo team is no more important than the scouts, the points, or air support, but if the plan is to demolish a bunker, the demo team is the most important and vital part of the plan.

Another example is the end of Ender's Game... really the best way I can explain it.

Problem is, you're still saying that elects are simultaneously the most and not the most important part of the plan. Either you need to get a way to accurately state the presupposed importance of elects, or you need to re-evaluate your position and remove the self-contradiction.

I also find your 'Enemy Lines' analogy to be lacking; for one, due to mobility of modern armies, lines don't really exist outside armour formations, and most armies have artillery with can utilise armaments to beat even heavily reinforced static defences into the dust. That aside, I would argue that your demolition team is not the most important. While they are supposed to blow your hypothetical bunker, should they go dark or unable to complete their objective, the scouts and spotters can direct aerial and artillery strikes to achieve the objective, but even they can be replaced with other units. No sane commander would place a plan solely on a single unit. That is just begging for Mr. Murphy to come and say hello to the vital men.

Quote:But this doesn't explain why Christ's sacrifice was necessary for this plan.
Unless of course, Christ's's sacrifice was needed to make the elect, the existence of which, made Christ's sacrifice necessary; this of course is pointless circular reasoning...

(19-11-2013 04:34 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I have no idea why His sacrifice was necessary to the plan. I don't know, nor do I pretend to know. In fact, only God could know that for sure because only He knows His plan.

You claim you don't know god's plan, but you claim to know that elects are vital to it and that it exists. This implies that you do know at least something which is, of course, another contradiction. Sure one could argue that only god has complete knowledge of his plan, but you did say you have 'no idea', implying you know nothing.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 05:48 PM
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
(19-11-2013 05:33 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 04:34 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I have no idea why His sacrifice was necessary to the plan. I don't know, nor do I pretend to know. In fact, only God could know that for sure because only He knows His plan.
You claim you don't know god's plan, but you claim to know that elects are vital to it and that it exists. This implies that you do know at least something which is, of course, another contradiction. Sure one could argue that only god has complete knowledge of his plan, but you did say you have 'no idea', implying you know nothing.

Consider I don't know about that. I think this portion - "only" know there is a plan and "only" know I am a part of it - might fall under the definition of "blind faith". I think that it's weak but, there it is. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?C
KC, I prefer reasoned discourse. I would sincerely like to hear you address the morality of Rom 9:22-23. If one believes in predestination, the problem of evil is centered on God's decision to create what he knew would be a fallen race in the first place. How was it moral for him to create vessels of wrath fitted for destruction before the foundation of the world? What of his motive in v 23, 'that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'. Did god decide that it was a worthwhile exchange to have the non-elect suffer for eternity to bring glory to himself in the eyes of the elect?
I'm sure you recognize that these questions demand answers from believers and unbelievers alike.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes freetoreason's post
19-11-2013, 11:05 PM
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
(18-11-2013 01:04 PM)Yasmin Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 03:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Is that one of Paul's authentic letters, or one of the forgeries? It's no surprise that Paul would contradict 'himself' when he's only believed to have authored half of the letter attributed to him in the Epistles. And yes, that is the consensus of mainline Christian scholarship.
Source? I think you missed my point here. I never said there was contradictions I merely pointed out that a letter of teaching and advice answering the questions and issues of one church would necessarily be different to the concerns of another. Paul isn't just writing to one church here, but many spread throughout the Empire. All I was asking for is that if someone criticises a point of advice Paul's giving, I would also expect them to do that because they had the answers to the questions I posed.

Authorship of the Pauline epistles.

Wikipedia Wrote:There is wide consensus, in modern New Testament scholarship, on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - 2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.

Let me refresh your memory.

(18-11-2013 02:53 AM)Yasmin Wrote:  But, and I'm going to focus on Paul here, I don't think Paul's teachings are understood properly and they shouldn't be judged on how they can be imposed today, or the half a dozen lines every critic knows at the expense of anything else. Why would Paul refer to deaconesses or commend them in his letters if he didn't think they were worthy of the authority?

So you simply can't understand how Paul can be misogynistic in one letter, and more ecumenical in another. You didn't quote specific letters that contest each other, and so I suggested that they might stem from an authentic Pauline letter contrasting with one of the pseudonymous letters written in his name. Whatever the answer is, it does nothing to suggest divine authorship of the Bible or the existence of a god.


(18-11-2013 01:04 PM)Yasmin Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 03:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Simple sexism, treating women differently because they are women. There doesn't appear to be any greater reason than that. Women simply were second class citizens, and that was a cultural norm then as it is now in many parts of the world. It does nothing to speak for the divine inspiration of any writing attributed to Paul.

Yes, thanks for reminding me that Paul also endorsed slavery instead of speaking out against it. Paul could have told them to free their slaves and treat them as equals worthy of all human dignity, and not own and treated like farm equipment. He did not. I expect better from someone claiming divine inspiration from on omni-benevolent being, and I daresay you should too.
I think we have to be careful when talking about anything that we're not defining the thing we want to criticise. It seems like you're reading Paul saying 'if he was saying something worthwhile he would be saying this,' and that's no way to start analysing a text. How familiar are you with ancient roman society and slave system from which you can base your criticisms? And I would say that the teachings of Jesus and Paul do more against sexism in the early Church than what has often been witnessed since.

Bullshit, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. If people are going to hold the writings of Paul up as being divinely inspired, a source of moral or cultural authority, or even as a guide for how to live your life; then they are going to get critiqued against our modern standards. Hold Paul to the standards of his time if you want to critique him within his own time against his own contemporaries. But as soon as you suggest he might have something useful to say to us now, I get to critique him according to our modern standards; and in this Paul fails miserably in a number of places (including but not limited to, sexism and slavery).

If Paul was getting his advice through divine inspiration, and that divine entity is in any way good and even slightly superior to us, then we would expect Paul to condemn slavery. That is an issue upon which the entirety of civilized society can agree upon, that slavery is wrong; owning other people as property is immoral. Slavery was practiced back then, and instead of condemning it, Paul tells slaves that they should serve their masters all the better because they too "are believers and beloved". We do not see what we should expect to see if Paul had that sort of benevolent divine inspiration as he claims. So what is more likely? That Paul had hallucinations colored by his culture and experiences? Or that he was getting divine inspiration from a benevolent higher power that had every instance to condemn the immoral practice of slavery, but didn't?

Slavery might have been acceptable in their time, but it is not anymore (and for good reasons). Forgive me if I don't give your god a pass for not doing better than the cultural standards of thousands of years ago... Drinking Beverage


(18-11-2013 01:04 PM)Yasmin Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 03:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yep, try studying your text at the very beginning; with the pagan polytheistic origin of your religion. Or how about with the multiple authors and revisions that formed the basis Christianity/Paulinity was built upon?
I have studying my text, for four years at university with some excellent teachers not afraid to acknowledge possible objections. I would love to know your sources, and how much study of the text you personally have done, or whether your evidence lies solely in other people's works (a danger for both atheists and believers I might add, so I'm not having a go at you Smile). I've watched the videos you posted, and while it was interesting to understand the thought process, I thought it was a bit lacking. But very interesting, thank you Smile

Be careful, wouldn't want to be making an appeal to authority now, would you?

A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Karen Armstrong

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails - John W. Loftus

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus - Richard Carrier

The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave - Robert M. Price

Gospel Fictions - Randel Helms

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) - Bart Ehrman

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are - Bart Ehrman


And lastly...

The End of Biblical Studies - Hector Avalos

Quote:In this radical critique of his own academic specialty, biblical scholar Hector Avalos calls for an end to biblical studies as we know them. He outlines two main arguments for this surprising conclusion. First, academic biblical scholarship has clearly succeeded in showing that the ancient civilization that produced the Bible held beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose of the world and humanity that are fundamentally opposed to the views of modern society. The Bible is thus largely irrelevant to the needs and concerns of contemporary human beings. Second, Avalos criticizes his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still relevant in today’s world. In effect, he accuses his profession of being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith communities.

Dividing his study into two parts, Avalos first examines the principal subdisciplines of biblical studies (textual criticism, archaeology, historical criticism, literary criticism, biblical theology, and translations) in order to show how these fields are still influenced by religiously motivated agendas despite claims to independence from religious premises. In the second part, he focuses on the infrastructure that supports academic biblical studies to maintain the value of the profession and the Bible. This infrastructure includes academia (public and private universities and colleges), churches, the media-publishing complex, and professional organizations such as the Society of Biblical Literature.

In a controversial conclusion, Avalos argues that our world is best served by leaving the Bible as a relic of an ancient civilization instead of the "living" document most religionist scholars believe it should be. He urges his colleagues to concentrate on educating the broader society to recognize the irrelevance and even violent effects of the Bible in modern life.

Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-11-2013, 11:22 PM
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
(19-11-2013 11:01 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  KC, I prefer reasoned discourse. I would sincerely like to hear you address the morality of Rom 9:22-23. If one believes in predestination, the problem of evil is centered on God's decision to create what he knew would be a fallen race in the first place. How was it moral for him to create vessels of wrath fitted for destruction before the foundation of the world? What of his motive in v 23, 'that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory'. Did god decide that it was a worthwhile exchange to have the non-elect suffer for eternity to bring glory to himself in the eyes of the elect?
I'm sure you recognize that these questions demand answers from believers and unbelievers alike.

What did you expect from a fairy tale?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 11:50 PM
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
(19-11-2013 05:48 PM)kim Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 05:33 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  You claim you don't know god's plan, but you claim to know that elects are vital to it and that it exists. This implies that you do know at least something which is, of course, another contradiction. Sure one could argue that only god has complete knowledge of his plan, but you did say you have 'no idea', implying you know nothing.

Consider I don't know about that. I think this portion - "only" know there is a plan and "only" know I am a part of it - might fall under the definition of "blind faith". I think that it's weak but, there it is. Dodgy

But it's still asserting knowledge of something unknown...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 01:15 AM
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
(19-11-2013 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Bullshit, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. If people are going to hold the writings of Paul up as being divinely inspired, a source of moral or cultural authority, or even as a guide for how to live your life; then they are going to get critiqued against our modern standards. Hold Paul to the standards of his time if you want to critique him within his own time against his own contemporaries. But as soon as you suggest he might have something useful to say to us now, I get to critique him according to our modern standards; and in this Paul fails miserably in a number of places (including but not limited to, sexism and slavery).

Despite not really thinking there is a nice way to saw 'bullshit' I'm not going to deny that you're bringing up some objections that have been brought up before. But every time I ask you for an understanding of context, you seem to come back with talking about judging by these times, or divine inspiration. I was asking for us to go back to basics. For example, if you want to criticise something in Galatians, demonstrate a knowledge of the context of the church to which it is addressed. Then we have a starting point for addressing specific points rather than Paul as a whole.

Unfortunately, I'm about to go on a week long self-imposed exile while I finish up some assignment work, so as much as I'm tempted to keep going, it's goodbye for now. But I just thought I'd reply and say that I'm familiar with some of the works you listed and were wondering how much of biblical scholarship that disagrees with your views have you read? Seeing as I watched the videos you recommended, can I recommend one to you? I was watching this lecture by Gary Habermas about his minimal facts argument regarding the resurrection. But he speaks a lot about Paul, skeptical scholarship (such as the books and authors you were recommending) and how Biblical literature is seen today. I really enjoyed it- the lecture's about 50mins and the rest is question time. Doesn't cover any women or cultural issues like we've talked about here, but still relates, I think. I'll look forward to maybe hearing what you thought about his approach when I come back from study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 01:41 AM
RE: Don't Theists ever think about how insanely out of proportion their beliefs are?
(20-11-2013 01:15 AM)Yasmin Wrote:  Despite not really thinking there is a nice way to saw 'bullshit' I'm not going to deny that you're bringing up some objections that have been brought up before. But every time I ask you for an understanding of context, you seem to come back with talking about judging by these times, or divine inspiration.

Understanding the writing in their own context is great, for judging them in their own context. By the standards of his time, Paul was not out of line. Slavery was an accepted part of the society he lived in, which makes his remarks on it par for the course within his own cultural and historical context. Just because slavery was acceptable back then, does not make it any more acceptable now. Paul's social context help explain his remarks, they do not however excuse then for being backwards and ignorant by our standards. So context is great for understanding Paul from a secular historical perspective. Such context does nothing to legitimize his teaching, or excuse his failing, for our lives today.


(20-11-2013 01:15 AM)Yasmin Wrote:  I was asking for us to go back to basics. For example, if you want to criticise something in Galatians, demonstrate a knowledge of the context of the church to which it is addressed. Then we have a starting point for addressing specific points rather than Paul as a whole.

My point has been, many times over, that such context is rather pointless in regards to how people use the text today (also keep in mind that this is come from someone living in the very religious United States). The context is important for secular history, it is irrelevant to applied morality and ethics. Anyone that tries to support their modern opinions by quoting the teaching of Paul does themselves no favors. It simply doesn't matter how much context there is behind Paul's remarks on slavery, by modern standards slavery is immoral; and no amount of historical context makes Paul's remarks any better in trying to support slavery (or racism, or sexism) in our modern lives. That debate is over, slavery is immoral. Those supporting slavery might have been acceptable within their own context, but that doesn't make it any less of a moral failing on their part.

I really hope you're not one of those apologists that tries to excuse biblical slavery with the excuse that 'it wasn't as bad back then' in their incessant cries for 'context'.



(20-11-2013 01:15 AM)Yasmin Wrote:  Unfortunately, I'm about to go on a week long self-imposed exile while I finish up some assignment work, so as much as I'm tempted to keep going, it's goodbye for now. But I just thought I'd reply and say that I'm familiar with some of the works you listed and were wondering how much of biblical scholarship that disagrees with your views have you read?

The mainstream support for the historicity of Jesus, when the evidence for his existence is just as weak as that for the mythical Jewish patriarchs (Moses, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, etc.).


(20-11-2013 01:15 AM)Yasmin Wrote:  Seeing as I watched the videos you recommended, can I recommend one to you?

Of course.


(20-11-2013 01:15 AM)Yasmin Wrote:  I was watching this lecture by Gary Habermas about his minimal facts argument regarding the resurrection. But he speaks a lot about Paul, skeptical scholarship (such as the books and authors you were recommending) and how Biblical literature is seen today. I really enjoyed it- the lecture's about 50mins and the rest is question time. Doesn't cover any women or cultural issues like we've talked about here, but still relates, I think. I'll look forward to maybe hearing what you thought about his approach when I come back from study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M

Will do, I will give it a view when I have some downtime at home. Thumbsup

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: