Logic vs. Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2017, 11:25 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:10 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  Slavery (servitude) was common at that time, and the Old Testament just regulates it, never endorses it.

Sorry, but that's a crock. Regulation implies at least tacit endorsement. When you set up rules for something you set up conditions under which it is permitted to take place and it's disingenuous to try to say that's not a form of endorsement.

It might be possible to argue that the OT does not promote slavery but, given the definitions of who you can enslave and how you can treat them, even that is a stretch.

Quote:The Old Testament addresses the issues of its time, but always in the right direction. For example servants are protected from excessive abuse.

Somehow, saying that you can beat them as long as they don't die within a couple of days is not my idea of protection from excessive abuse. Anything short of "people can not be held as property and can not be physically harmed" does not deserve much praise.

Quote:The Old Testament rules are considerably better than the American rules for slavery just 200 years ago.

That's irrelevant whether it is true or not.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
06-03-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 10:53 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 02:52 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I understand just fine. What the hell is a "mental resonance". Oh that's right, you can't tell me since this idea of yours has no objective meaning. There you have it folks, right from the horses mouth. Truth has no objective meaning. It corresponds to what's in one's mind. A is not A but it is whatever is in the mind of an individual. You can't get more subjective than this and it is an explicit affirmation of the primacy of consciousness.

This is your brain on theism.

Thank you for illustrating my bolded point. You don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I am saying, so I am not going to waste my time explaining more to you.

Yeah, THAT must be it. The cop out of so many thidiots.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kemo boy's post
06-03-2017, 11:32 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 02:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  So God has no will? That would seem to contradict God having a plan. It was not its will to create it just did it mindlessly. Genesis says that god spoke and, poof, the universe came into existence but now you're telling us that God's words had no will behind them. Interesting.

God spoke in a figurative sense, and speaks less and less through time. As I said, God is personified just to explain ideas. And yes, poof, the universe came into existence with the big bang.

Did god tell you this, or did you just pull it out of you ass?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 11:44 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:18 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 11:03 AM)unfogged Wrote:  So the thing you are calling "god" is not an agent, correct? It's just another label for natural forces and events?

That depends on how one defines "agent". If consciousness is not required, then natural forces qualify as agents.

I am assuming intentionality and conciousness as part of the term so natural forces do not qualify as I am using it.


Quote:
Quote:If so, I fail to see the utility in attaching a label that carries so much additional baggage. It not only doesn't help clarify what you mean but rather serves to obfuscate it. I accept that the universe exists and that there are forces that operate within it but see no advantage to calling any of that "god".

The God concept has tremendous utility. What it says is that there are unified, consistent forces acting across time and space. This concept makes inductive reasoning the only valid means of finding truth about the world. And it means that one has to respect the consistency of forces even if one doesn't understand the details of the forces.

I think I can agree to much of that but the term "god" is typically used to refer to a conscious, thinking agent that is intentionally manipulating some aspect of the universe. If you don't mean that then your choice of terms (especially when you capitalize the word which further links it to a specific god image) is misleading and if you want to get your ideas across that's not a good place to start.

I can respect and be amazed by and stand in awe of the universe and the various forces that operate within it without seeing any need to personify them or to "worship" them in any way. Labeling them as "god" only serves to add mental associations with concepts that don't apply to the thing being labeled.

ETA: You mentioned that communication can only take place when minds resonate; if I understand what you are saying, your use of "god" for natural forces is setting up something of a very different frequency in my brain that it apparently does in yours. There is no effective communication because you are triggering words that do not have the same concepts attached for me. If you have a new god concept you probably need a new word. It seems to be vaguely pantheistic/panentheistic but you are not being at all clear.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
06-03-2017, 11:39 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 10:53 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 02:52 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I understand just fine. What the hell is a "mental resonance". Oh that's right, you can't tell me since this idea of yours has no objective meaning. There you have it folks, right from the horses mouth. Truth has no objective meaning. It corresponds to what's in one's mind. A is not A but it is whatever is in the mind of an individual. You can't get more subjective than this and it is an explicit affirmation of the primacy of consciousness.

This is your brain on theism.

Thank you for illustrating my bolded point. You don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I am saying, so I am not going to waste my time explaining more to you.

You've already gone on record here that your words have no objective meaning, just what do you think you've explained. It's common for theists to acuse atheists of not understanding or not having the intellect to understand when they can't refute an argument. You reject the axiom of identity, the axiom of consciousness the axiom of existence and the primacy of existence. You keep using concepts as if they have meaning yet you reject the very concept of meaning thus you are guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept on a grand scale. Far from refuting my OP you've only confirmed my analysis. Go ahead and quit the discussion if you want, but if you keep making such fundamental blunders, I'll be happy to keep pointing them out. You're only bolstering my case.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
06-03-2017, 11:41 AM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 10:53 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 02:52 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I understand just fine. What the hell is a "mental resonance". Oh that's right, you can't tell me since this idea of yours has no objective meaning. There you have it folks, right from the horses mouth. Truth has no objective meaning. It corresponds to what's in one's mind. A is not A but it is whatever is in the mind of an individual. You can't get more subjective than this and it is an explicit affirmation of the primacy of consciousness.

This is your brain on theism.

Thank you for illustrating my bolded point. You don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I am saying, so I am not going to waste my time explaining more to you.

So it did speak. Your God is conscious after all. More contradictions.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 12:19 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 10:53 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 02:52 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I understand just fine. What the hell is a "mental resonance". Oh that's right, you can't tell me since this idea of yours has no objective meaning. There you have it folks, right from the horses mouth. Truth has no objective meaning. It corresponds to what's in one's mind. A is not A but it is whatever is in the mind of an individual. You can't get more subjective than this and it is an explicit affirmation of the primacy of consciousness.

This is your brain on theism.

Thank you for illustrating my bolded point. You don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand what I am saying, so I am not going to waste my time explaining more to you.
No, you are not making an intellectually sound point as it's purposely vague and unfalsifiable. It is legitimate to ask what you even mean by "mental resonance" and how that would be functionally different from "whatever one can imagine that is pleasing". How is this epistemologically sound and in what way is it grounded in actual reality outside of your personal subjective experience?

This is not an effort to attack or insult, it is simply honest critique -- in a forum that you have voluntarily entered, that is designed specifically to discuss and debate ideas, which means you will be obliged to explain and defend your ideas at times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 12:24 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:10 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 09:38 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  My personal favorite is Deuteronomy 25:44-46...

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

(Bold emphasis my own, of course.)

Even more appalling to me is when apologists try to cover this up by pointing to the previous verses, which cover the "not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly" bit, as if the more lenient Indentured Servitude rules applied to verses 44-46. Dodgy

Slavery (servitude) was common at that time, and the Old Testament just regulates it, never endorses it. The Old Testament addresses the issues of its time, but always in the right direction. For example servants are protected from excessive abuse. The Old Testament rules are considerably better than the American rules for slavery just 200 years ago.
A book that claims to be inspired could really impress by not always leading from behind. Since the Abrahamic deity is supposed to be omniscient and totally prescient, wouldn't it be great if the OT admonished the people of its era to rise to a much higher and enlightened standard, and foreswear human slavery as the evil it is, and to not participate in or tolerate it?

By contrast if all a book written 3,000 years ago does is "reflect its times" then it's evidence that it was simply written by men of the time, who could pat themselves on the backs for being relatively kindly owners of other humans and think it was Really Advanced of them to be so forward-thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
06-03-2017, 12:31 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:18 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 11:03 AM)unfogged Wrote:  So the thing you are calling "god" is not an agent, correct? It's just another label for natural forces and events?

That depends on how one defines "agent". If consciousness is not required, then natural forces qualify as agents.
Agency by definition requires choices and thus consciousness.

It is fine of course that you are a pantheist but my objection to pantheism and panentheism is that it tends to take things we have perfectly adequate words for with agreed meanings -- consciousness, existence, the universe, etc -- and call them "god" -- as if that somehow adds rather than subtracts meaning from the discussion space.
(06-03-2017 11:18 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  The God concept has tremendous utility. What it says is that there are unified, consistent forces acting across time and space. This concept makes inductive reasoning the only valid means of finding truth about the world. And it means that one has to respect the consistency of forces even if one doesn't understand the details of the forces.
That doesn't require a "god concept", it just requires a scientific approach to and understanding of the behavior of reality. God adds zero to that, and your last sentence illustrates why. The forces do what they do, and have consistency, and claiming they come from some special capital-S Source you label as god does not change what the forces do or how consistent they are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
06-03-2017, 12:38 PM
RE: Logic vs. Theism
(06-03-2017 11:10 AM)fschmidt Wrote:  Slavery (servitude) was common at that time, and the Old Testament just regulates it, never endorses it. The Old Testament addresses the issues of its time, but always in the right direction. For example servants are protected from excessive abuse. The Old Testament rules are considerably better than the American rules for slavery just 200 years ago.

To regulate something is to legalize and endorse it, under set guidelines determined by the state (or in this case, by the priest class).

Keep in mind that this book of scriptures claims to be a set of theocratic laws and moral absolutes From On High™, i.e. from God directly to man... or at least, that's the common assertion with which we are presented, when discussing the topic of morality and the Bible.

This same God that prohibited his people from doing other "common at the time" practices (such as wearing blended fibers, eating seafood and pork, et cetera) could just as easily have made the rules for people of other nations the same as the rules for fellow Israelites--which is indentured servitude--or simply prohibited the ownership of fellow human beings.

"Slavery is an abomination in my sight. For as I, the Lord your God, brought you out of bondage in Egypt, neither shalt thou my people own thy fellow human beings as property. Thus saith the Lord." - The Book of Rocket, chapter 2, verses 5-6.

Just that easy. No shellfish. No pork. No seething a goat in its mother's milk. No blasphemy. And no owning people. Easy-peasy.

Oh and by the way, no, the rules for slavery then and in the pre-Civil-War South are almost identical, and not by accident; they were modeled on the Biblical rules. That's why Europeans could be brought over to the colonies under rules for indentured servants (and freed after 7 years of service, as specified in the Old Testament), but people of other races (or "nations") could be permanent property. This is not my interpretation-- this is what the southern congressmen vehemently defended on the floor in debates on the subject, prior to the rise of the Confederacy.

The South prohibited (technically) the abuse of slaves, but it was much like stated in Exodus 21:20-21,

20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

The Bible clearly has no moral issue with slavery of people who are not members of one's own race, preferring to limit rather than prohibit the practice. The Southern states did the same, and both groups are equally morally culpable. A book of universal, divinely-inspired/dictated moral principles that manages to overlook one of the greatest civil rights issues of our age is pretty obviously not from a divine being, but a creation of the minds of humans.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: