The TTA Theological Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2013, 12:05 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 12:42 PM by StorMFront.)
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 12:00 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Bucky,
I appreciate that you read a book that offers a reasonable explanation for the devil or opposition. But two opposing forces would explain a lot about the human condition.
Why do you always assert facts? it can be easily argued that good and evil is a spectrum issue, not just two sides.

Example: If a starving child stole some food to feed his/her family and himself. Would that be bad or good?

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
15-02-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 10:58 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  What do you think of this syllogism?
Most religions have a Satan or adversary or opposing force. It inspired false religious texts. The many texts are proofs of an adversary to some truth or some God.
Not much, I'm afraid.
I'm OK with the first premise as you say 'most'.
The second premise sounds reasonable but 'false' is subjective and imprecise.
The conclusion, however, requires a leap of faith.

Fan fiction for e.g. the Twilight nonsense could fit the premises but would not be considered 'truth'.

Nice idea though.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 12:09 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 12:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 12:00 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Bucky,
I appreciate that you read a book that offers a reasonable explanation for the devil or opposition. But two opposing forces would explain a lot about the human condition.

No Pleasy Jeeby, all scholars know that the Hebrew business of "evil" came form the Sumerian myth system of "chaos and order". You didn't read the link. I actually first learned about it from Martin Buber, and Paul Tillich, not Pagels, (even though she did write a definitive look at the history of the idea, and she is a professor at Princeton). Of course you never heard of any of those people, as you must have gone to "Bible College", or it's equivalent. Two opposing forcing may "appear" to offer an explanation, there however are much better explanations when one gets to Neuroscience. Since you stopped LONG before you got there, you need to make up shit, like "opposing forces" as that's the pathetic level you are left with. Do you ever plan on getting an education, PleesyJeeby ? It would really help you.

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
15-02-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
Quote:Why do you always assert facts? it can be easily argued that good and evil is a spectrum issue, not just two sides.
What? I put forth the theory, not fact, that two opposing forces would explain a lot about the human condition.
Quote:It can be easily argued that good and evil is a spectrum issue, not just two sides.

Example: If a starving child stole some food to feed his/her family and himself. Would that be bad or good?
It would be neither good nor bad. Good and bad are human constructions and adhere to that most nefarious of forces, religion. There is no good and there is no bad. The fittest steal from the weakest. That's life, I guess.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
Quote:No Pleasy Jeeby, all scholars know that the Hebrew business of "evil" came form the Sumerian myth system of "chaos and order".
Since you are more logical and educated than I, perhaps you can explain how the existence of an older system is factual proof that one theological system stole or borrowed from the other? There was a novel that spoke about planes used as weapons, but is that proof that terrorists read that novel rather than made a 9/11 plan on their own? Please explain the line of reasoning you didn't conjecture on your own but adapted from scholars to suit your purposes. I'm guessing you are misrepresenting their higher criticism and textual redactions as facts when they are promulgating theories.
Had a tour of the Princeton libraries when I was there last, by the way. They have some lovely old Bibles and illuminated manuscripts you might want to read as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(14-02-2013 10:50 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Sitting here, enjoying my morning hot chocolate, I had a revelation. I've solved the dilemma of religion.

I present... the TTA Theological Argument.

1. A religious text requires human beings to exist;
2. A religious text does not require a god to exist;
3. If one religious text can exist without a god, then all religious texts can exist without a god;
Therefore:
4. Religious text is not proof of a god;

You're welcome, human race. Let's now celebrate an era of world peace with another hot chocolate.
Hmm, invalid logic leading to the desired conclusion. Are you sure you're not a Christian? Wink

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 12:00 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Bucky,
I appreciate that you read a book that offers a reasonable explanation for the devil or opposition. But two opposing forces would explain a lot about the human condition.
Just two? Ohmy

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 01:31 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(14-02-2013 10:50 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Sitting here, enjoying my morning hot chocolate, I had a revelation. I've solved the dilemma of religion.

I present... the TTA Theological Argument.

1. A religious text requires human beings to exist;
2. A religious text does not require a god to exist;
3. If one religious text can exist without a god, then all religious texts can exist without a god;
Therefore:
4. Religious text is not proof of a god;

You're welcome, human race. Let's now celebrate an era of world peace with another hot chocolate.
Hmm, invalid logic leading to the desired conclusion. Are you sure you're not a Christian? Wink
I was Christian a long time ago. Maybe this is just some left over debris...

What's my logical flaw? I use 'can,' rather than 'must,' to avoid making absolute statements.

If I had to pick a mistake I'd say it's #2 since I don't know 100% if gods exist or not.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 02:22 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 01:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:No Pleasy Jeeby, all scholars know that the Hebrew business of "evil" came form the Sumerian myth system of "chaos and order".
Since you are more logical and educated than I, perhaps you can explain how the existence of an older system is factual proof that one theological system stole or borrowed from the other? There was a novel that spoke about planes used as weapons, but is that proof that terrorists read that novel rather than made a 9/11 plan on their own? Please explain the line of reasoning you didn't conjecture on your own but adapted from scholars to suit your purposes. I'm guessing you are misrepresenting their higher criticism and textual redactions as facts when they are promulgating theories.
Had a tour of the Princeton libraries when I was there last, by the way. They have some lovely old Bibles and illuminated manuscripts you might want to read as well.

If you had bothered to actually read the fucking link I provided you would have your answer. The Hebrews borrowed their system from the Babylonians. It's a long story, of how we know that, and when it happened. The proof is the ELEMENTS. It contains many of the SAME elements. Now before you ask any more stupid questions, how about you actually read the damn link I gave you in the first place. Then go read "How the Bible Became A Book", and "Who Wrote the Bible", and AFTER you have done your homework, come back, and maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.

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
15-02-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
"since I don't know 100% if gods exist or not."

The descriptor "god" creates a testable hypothesis. We know that 100% of tests that have been done have resulted in the conclusion that gods don't exist.

How much more certainty does one need?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: