Theists, I want your best reasoning
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 08:19 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  You haven’t been ignored, you have been thoroughly refuted. Big difference.

I don't see how I've been thoroughly refuted, when all that we've been dealing with is addressing miscommunications, unlike tides of course for which there's never a miscommunication.

That's at least the second time you have said this about tides. What do you mean?

The tides are fully explained by gravity and fluid dynamics; do you not know this?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
Maybe Tomasia should communicate what they mean by miscommunication and how it relates to tides.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 09:49 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 09:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  That's at least the second time you have said this about tides. What do you mean?

I was joking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 10:01 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 09:19 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  You can't properly describe your god, because you have no idea what it is. You can only describe what it isn't. It isn't material. It isn't part of nature. It isn't in this universe. You can't see it. You can't touch it. You can't hear it.

What I just described is something that is by definition non-existent.

Well, no one believes in God because he isn't material, isn't part of nature, isn't a part of the universe, or because he is invisible. In fact the reason why God is often defined but what he isn't, is to convey the reasons for why we don't believe in him. A claim that God is immaterial, can be understood to mean that the question of his materialism isn't the reason why we believe in him.

God is not believed based on what is unknown, but what is knowable, in whatever ways he has revealed himself, whether in the song playing overhead, or in a reviled and murdered political criminal, the light of the human race.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 10:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  God is not believed based on what is unknown, but what is knowable, in whatever ways he has revealed himself, whether in the song playing overhead, or in a reviled and murdered political criminal, the light of the human race.

Ah, but can't a song, or a murder, or the "light" of the human race (by this I think you mean good-will, brotherhood, etc.) exist WITHOUT a god? So if it's acknowledged that god can't be "detected" in any material sense; and only revealed through phenomena which COULD occur without god; isn't far more reasonable to conclude god simply isn't there at all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mr. Boston's post
05-12-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 10:13 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  Ah, but can't a song, or a murder, or the "light" of the human race (by this I think you mean good-will, brotherhood, etc.) exist WITHOUT a god?

It depends, if the god you have in mind is something that's additional to these thing, then sure we can say this god doesn't exist. If god is something other than what I mean by these things, or the conditions of possibilities for these things, the sort of ground, and source such things would need to be, then sure we can say they can exist without this other.

But if the meaning of these things, the song, the murder victim, the light that John speaks of, that came to dwell among men, the true light that came to enlighten the world, are tied to the very meaning of the God we are speaking about, then no, they cannot exist without him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 08:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 03:52 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  An anthropologist working with a qualified historian, sociologist and psycologist.

But not someone who studies literature? A Shakespeare scholar wouldn’t be the best resource to turn to for interpreting Shakespeare? Do you think psychologist and historians and sociologist, and anthropologists are better equipped for this? Are Shakespeare scholars scientist in your view? If so, can New Testaments scholars be?

You specified scientists. Even then anybody well versed in literary theory would be well served by a thorough understanding of the social context in which the text was made and the cultural influences the author was under. (They are distinct.)

Quote:But I do find something contradictory about this statement. Here you seem to suggest that such individuals can come closer to the true meaning of a text than others, while at the same time claiming:

Quote:There are no wrong interpretations in textual analysis either. Only more correct interpretations.

If there is no such thing as a wrong interpretation, then all interpretations are equally correct. So how can the interpretations of anthropologist etc.. be any more closer to the truth than any other interpretations?

The actual validity of an interpretation of a text is actually fairly interesting. (I'm not going to get into it too deeply.) In modern works it generally breaks down into weather or not an auteur (or a coherent message evidently present in a work) is focusing on manipulate the audience, the medium or the autuer. (Message, function, form.)

Theme, narrative, and plot are mechanical things. I can show that a theme is present here and elaborated upon here, for this purpose as supported by element X. Storytelling is essentially applied sociology and we can assume a certain commonality of experience between an auteur and his/her audience.

Which is great because then we can essentially remove authorial intent and focus on the evidence present in a work: If an element isn't there, it can't act as a mechanism in the work. Mechanisms are only there in order to communicate meaning and so unless an audience member projects their personal bias onto a work can be viewed with some certainty.

Literary analysis isn't science:
It's not objective.
It makes no predictions and cannot be used to make models or describe reality.
It doesn't need to include all the evidence in the text to support a valid interpretation.

The only thing it shares with science is that it is performed properly when it's grounded in evidence and sensible interpretations of that evidence.

Quote:And more importantly, if someone interprets life as having no intrinsic meaning, as being in essence nothing but meaningless noise, would you say his interpretation is no less true or false, than an interpretation that life does have an intrinsic meaning, that human history has a moral arc, etc..? Or do you think one of these interpretations is wrong? Or are they just two correct ones?

I’m also curious as to how this plays out in regards to the scripture.

Take a passage like this:

“"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”

Interpreter A, claims in this verse John is saying that jesus is a crocodile that makes giraffes.

In your view this is not a wrong interpretation? Just one more correct one?

Your chosen interpretation, (though it has nothing to do with the section of text cited, which makes it sloppy work that you should be spanked for) can be said to be true, if not accurate.

Jesus is god. God is in everything and it's material form (that which it can be said to be given the evidence present in the text) can be said to be the entire universe as a result of that. Crocodiles are a part of the material universe.

God made everything. Giraffes are part of everything.

Therefore: Jesus is a crocodile (among other things) that makes giraffes (among other things).

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 10:55 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2014 11:09 AM by Mr. Boston.)
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
Tomasia - You're implying that a song HAS a meaning beyond any literal meaning of the lyrics themselves; not sure if you mean instrumental music or music with lyrics. You're implying a murder has a "meaning" beyond just the murderer's own motive. You're implying there IS a "light of the human race," or some kind of common unifying spirit between all people. This is all "special pleading" it seems to me. First it has to be convincingly argued these phenomena even exist; that there IS in fact meaning behind music or murder, or that there IS a binding human spirit, before it can be argued that they are proof of a higher power. You're sort of saying that unicorns must be real because, fairies, gnomes, and leprechauns believe in them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr. Boston's post
05-12-2014, 12:10 PM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 02:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 02:52 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. On what basis do you know me or know anything about me, that I am "seriously delusional"? I pass myself off, I'll have you know, as a strong family man, church leader, hard worker and all-around-sane-dude. Angel

The continued irrational content of your posts is the basis.

Quote:2. More to the point, if I present evidence that a) Jesus is an existing person, b) that he desires a relationship, c) that I have actual knowledge of that - all three - will you do as I do and swear fealty to Him for the rest of your life? Will you become a Bible believer and preach Jesus here at this forum? Will you trust Jesus for salvation?

Present your evidence.

Quote:3. If I fail to present evidence on some or all of your three points, does that let you off the hook?

Let me off what hook?

Quote:Are all your existential problems solved already? Are you 100% sure that nothing happens when you die? Do you know your position in this world, your purpose in life, and is your life abundantly lived? Do you have a great "transcendent" peace that is peace and joy despite difficult life circumstances?

Are you offering solutions based on fantasy and delusion to imagined problems?

Quote:Are you confident that you have surrendered to a higher power?

What are you on about? Surrender what?

Quote:A friend told me this morning about her NA meetings (recent) and how she could not be admitted to the program until she had a higher power. "Why?!" she asked her sponsor/group leader. They said, "You CANNOT get over your addictions without first admitting the universe doesn't revolve around you and that there is a higher power than you in it. You will fail." I'd present "the good news" differently, sure, but...

I've been sober for nearly 25 years. Fuck your higher power.

I congratulate you on your sobriety. That is awesome. May I ask, when you first began the program, was there a higher power invoked by you or by the insistence of the program itself? Or did you go without a traditional AA or NA program?

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 12:22 PM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 10:42 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  It's not objective.

I don’t see why it can’t be.

Quote:It makes no predictions and cannot be used to make models or describe reality.

Of course it is, it’s an attempting to describe the reality of the text.

Quote:It doesn't need to include all the evidence in the text to support a valid interpretation.

No, a valid interpretation requires evidence to support it, evidence such as context, etc…

Quote:The only thing it shares with science is that it is performed properly when it's grounded in evidence and sensible interpretations of that evidence.

I’m assuming that you’re not the sort of person, who believes science is the only way to discover the truth, or that evidence is a term that’s only applicable in a scientific context? An informed reader of a text can derive at the likely meaning of it, by being critical, and reasonable, and taking into account the evidence, but would the methodology in which he derives at this truth, would be something other than a scientific methodology?

(05-12-2014 10:42 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 08:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Interpreter A, claims in this verse John is saying that jesus is a crocodile that makes giraffes.

In your view this is not a wrong interpretation? Just one more correct one?

Your chosen interpretation, (though it has nothing to do with the section of text cited, which makes it sloppy work that you should be spanked for) can be said to be true, if not accurate.

Jesus is god. God is in everything and it's material form (that which it can be said to be given the evidence present in the text) can be said to be the entire universe as a result of that. Crocodiles are a part of the material universe.

You see what you did there, I asked about interpreting that particular passage I quoted, and you didn’t want to explicitly admit it, but your accusations of sloppiness, that I should be spanked for it, that it has nothing to do with the actual passage, are just ways of saying that the particular interpretation of this passage was blatantly, and absurdly wrong. I chose an interpretation that was so obscene intentionally, so that it’s pretty obvious that there are wrong interpretations, and that the interpretation provided wasn’t just another correct one of the particular verse in question.

The point I’m making is that there are reasonable interpretations of text, of passages, even if there are more than one. In fact reasonable and unreasonable interpretations are deemed as such by how likely they are to be what the original writer intended, by how likely they are to be faithful to the reality of the text.

Maybe I misunderstood your initial point, but perhaps you can understand and maybe even agree with the one being made here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: