About Belief, Religion and God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

jglickfield:

…i’ll get back to you on the links when i’ve had time to read them…

[quote]The words you wrote don’t make much sense as the ‘therefores’ don’t follow from the ‘sinces’. I will have to assume what you must have meant. So let’s analyze your assumptions here.

  1. Social inferiors are necessarily unhappy in relation to social superiors.
  2. Happiness is a positive value.
  3. We’re human.

I will challenge you that social inferiors are not necessarily less happy because of it. It is widely known that rich people and celebrities have much higher rates of suicide, divorce, depression, and even criminal behavior than regular people. If you will argue that they are not really our social superiors then how come when they are caught for say, driving a car into a mall (Tara Reid) they don’t get punished?

I agree that happiness is a positive value, but objectively it is nothing worth discussing as it is immeasurable. As far as our shared humanity goes, it is a complete non-sequitor. Perhaps smarter people deserve more rights than dumber ones? You need a source which tells you that all people are equal and deserve to be treated so, otherwise how do you know? By definition the only such source must be a supra-human one.[/quote]

…i don’t understand why you take my opinion on the matter and make it universal? I don’t speak for others, only for myself. This: …because if i am the lesser of you, i’m not happy. And since i don’t want you to be unhappy, i’m not your superior. We’re human after all… applies to me, not you, not my neighbour or fellow countrymen, but only to me…

…i don’t need any other source than my opinion on these issues. Having a supra-human source adds nothing of validity to your argument since this supra-human source cannot be verified, and appealing to such sources is, TO ME, an exercise in futility…

[quote]Because it really is a belief system. To me it seems sort of like a Christian denomination, as it relies on all the trappings of christian society and law to function. Unless you go over to someone like Nietzsche. His point was to remake a new morality in light of the failure of Christianity to maintain people’s interest.

At best, you seem to wish to mock other people’s belief systems as foolish and baseless while not even having a belief system of your own of any substance. It’s sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, except that the kettle is trying to clean itself.[/quote]

…if you think this way there’s nothing i can do to change your mind, but strange as it may sound to you, it is possible to live your life without a structure of religious belief, to have peace of mind, a loving relationship and happiness without religion. If you can’t accept that then just let this part of the discussion go, 'kay?

[quote]Why can’t you explain God in rational terms? Use the negative attributes method? God is incomprehensible to us, possesses all possible perfections, and we cannot describe him in human terms at all because by definition his attributes are beyond ours.

God does explain the universe. If there is a God (who merely acts as a first mover) existence is explained. If there is no such God, how did we get here? Under the laws of physics matter cannot be created or destroyed. How did things get set in motion? If you don’t accept God, then you have a hole. You don’t seem to mind a hole though, you say you don’t know. This turns atheism into a type of faith.[/quote]

…you are hellbent on turning atheism into religion, are you? Explain how saying i don’t know what caused the universe turns atheism into a type of faith?

…this is why so many believers are mocked. You rationalised taking people into slavery. People who happened to be women and children of defeated tribes. They’d done nothing wrong. You’re quite something…

…now, my source of morality has nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade. Remember i said slavery is wrong? So what is there for me to defend?

402

[quote]Meatros wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
The Epic of Gilgamesh corroborates the biblical flood story.

King Ahaz’s seal http://www.archaeological-cent…
[/quote]

No it doesn’t. Further, science and reason disprove the global flood account. Also, why is it that only ancient societies that had localized floods had ‘global flood accounts’? Further, why did the Chinese have a global flood account, where the global flood was prevented? [/quote]

Don’t bring a “we know from science” argument to me when too many geologists claimed that California would be an island by now. You are saying that today’s geologists no more about what once transpired that the people living there. Again, this is merely a corroboration, which is all that Ephrem asked me for. He said “give me a third party source to back up the bible”. I did that.

In order to argue this type of minutiae you need to be a real expert in historical sources outside of the bible, and sources that put it into context (Catechism, Talmud, etc). I would suggest that you back down now, I won’t hold it against you.

But, if you are very stubborn and want to fight an uphill battle see Gedalyah Nadel’s explanation of the flood.

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
Ipuwer Papyrus corrorborates (at least in part) the plagues in Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Ipuwer_Papyrus
[/quote]

No it doesn’t - in the Bible account the poor do not become rich. [/quote]

Look, please don’t argue about books you have never read. The bible says that the Israelites went around “borrowing” the gold and silver of the Egyptians towards the end of the plagues. So the slaves became the rich folk.

The fact that some people choose not to interpret this as evidence of the Exodus takes nothing away from the fact that others do. Please learn how to interpret what you read better before you argue with me.

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
Josephus, Philo and Herodotus also corroborate biblical accounts.
[/quote]

Again, no they don’t. At best, they corroborate the fact that there were Christians who believed certain things. The silence of the various historians of the period (about 40) strongly argues against the ideas presented in the new testament. Also, let’s realize that none of those people you listed are contemporary - all of them are several decades after the events of the bible.[/quote]

Josephus never mentions Christianity (except in one edition which is regarded as a medieval forgery). Philo and his works were too early for Christianity to even be known. Herodotus lived in the 5th century BC. So, uh, what were you saying?

Also, many historical accounts were destroyed when the Muslims sacked Alexandria and destroyed her library. Surely the first things to go would be histories contradicting the Koran, right? The fact that we have these few is impressive.

I am not bothered by the silence of historians regarding Jesus. It takes nothing away from the existence of God. At best it challenges the scriptural accuracy of the NT.

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
I will remind you again that this is not independent proof beyond a shadow of doubt that there is a God and he wants you to do x,y, and z. It is merely third party verification of the veracity of the bible in some areas, which leads us to see it as reliable in others.
[/quote]

It’s not proof or evidence that there is a God. At best you have evidence that people believed X or Y about what they thought was god.[/quote]

No, that certain historical figures existed, often in the way that they are portrayed in the bible. For me to be correct, I don’t need all of Jeremiah’s prophecy to be true. I just need one instance of interaction between God and man. Even without this, I need only a likelihood that given the evidence we have it is more likely to have happened than not to make atheism irrational in face of the option of agnosticism.

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
Because it really is a belief system.
[/quote]

Nonsense. [/quote]

Thanks for proving your point there. You do a great job of clearly and logically explaining your position.

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
To me it seems sort of like a Christian denomination, as it relies on all the trappings of christian society and law to function. Unless you go over to someone like Nietzsche. His point was to remake a new morality in light of the failure of Christianity to maintain people’s interest.
[/quote]

Really? So what are the code of conducts for atheists? What are the beliefs that all atheists adhere to? You are simply being ridiculous. [/quote]

First of all, I was originally debating Ephrem and he (happens to be along with many atheists) believe that contemporary western ideas and social mores were always true. So there you have a code of behavior. How is this like a Christian denomination? Because these ideas and institutions could not have existed without christianity.

Not anti-intellectual so much as denying individuals the ability to fully actualize themselves. But whatever we probably agree here. I only brought Nietzsche as a coherent ‘atheist ethic’ that doesn’t require Christianity. It is mutually exclusive with western liberalism too, but that’s irrelevant.

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
At best, you seem to wish to mock other people’s belief systems as foolish and baseless while not even having a belief system of your own of any substance. It’s sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, except that the kettle is trying to clean itself.
[/quote]

You are trying to jam all atheists into one thing, which is as ridiculous as trying to jam all theists under one thing. [/quote]

No I’m not, I am discussing the type of atheism Ephrem posited, you are tuning in halfway through the broadcast.

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
Why can’t you explain God in rational terms? Use the negative attributes method? God is incomprehensible to us, possesses all possible perfections, and we cannot describe him in human terms at all because by definition his attributes are beyond ours.
[/quote]

If you negatively define god, you, in reality, DON’T define god. If you admit that god is incomprehensible then your belief is automatically irrational since there is nothing coherent to believe in. In short, atheism (non cognitivism with respect to religion) is justified.[/quote]

I think you confuse rationalism with materialism. Please read the works of Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides or Aquinas before trying this again.

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
God does explain the universe. If there is a God (who merely acts as a first mover) existence is explained. If there is no such God, how did we get here? Under the laws of physics matter cannot be created or destroyed. How did things get set in motion? If you don’t accept God, then you have a hole. You don’t seem to mind a hole though, you say you don’t know. This turns atheism into a type of faith.
[/quote]

This is untrue - You are simply saying ‘magic explains the universe’, by referring to God in this context. You are explaining precisely nothing.

It is better to say ‘I don’t know’ then to call ‘magic’ or ‘the unknown’ by the name ‘God’.[/quote]

Don’t put words in my mouth. I was showing the comparable merits of two beliefs. One answers questions, the other doesn’t.

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
Please don’t bother arguing how great it is to have mysteries in the universe (a common atheist claim) because this is mysticism, which is a type of religion.
[/quote]

?

The fact is, the universe is mysterious. Pretending that ‘god did it’ is an answer is dishonest. Just admit that you don’t know and be on par with the Atheists.[/quote]

If that is a fact, prove it. If you are a theist you say there are no mysteries, only undiscovered facts capable of being comprehended by humans and things beyond us. When you say this stuff you venture away from atheism into mysticism and paganism.

If that’s what you think you have misunderstood me. The fact that the universe exists begs a question as to where it comes from. The fact that everything which we can explain where it came from was made by some being superior to the creation is merely evidence that the universe too was created by someone superior to it.

You are the one arguing from ignorance. “Since we don’t know how the universe was created, it couldn’t have been God.”

[quote][quote]jglickfield wrote:
So there, does biblical slavery sound so terrible? Any worse than prison today? I think it sounds way better. You on the other hand, must ethically explain the Atlantic slave trade to defend your source of morality.
[/quote]

Please read your bible, this is not what slaves were nor how they were treated. Let’s remember that the bible has provisions on how hard you can beat your slaves - if they survive a beating for a few days and then die, you are off the hook.
[/quote]

Chapter and verse please? The only verses that I know are the ones that say that if you would hit your slave, you better not do any damage because if you do, he goes free. Your lack of expertise in the bible showed itself earlier in the post, but perhaps you noticed something that I didn’t.

403

The contradictions contained within this know no boundaries. I don’t know if you purposely miss the forest for the trees, but I think that these line by line quotes certainly contribute to the confusion.

(For those just now tuning in: I originally argued with the video ephrem posted, pointing out contradictions found within the ideology of the atheist in that video. Ephrem stuck up for the guy with the following arguments, and made much of the issue “personal”. I am returning the discussion to its real content and away from irrelevant side issues.)

  1. You posited that atheists can be moral people. I asked you what the basis for said morality was. You said “culture and law”. Therefore, in a slave holding society, slavery is 100% moral. Torture was moral in the middle ages. Although you may have confused the issue a bit, these still remain.

  2. If you claim that your morality is a subjective system that you created yourself, it is not actually morality, because it has no means of evaluating the world at large. If you want to say “I do what I think is right” then ok. I believe you and I hope for your sake it is true. But you have failed to establish that there is morality within atheism.

  3. I never at any point claim that an atheist cannot be happy and enjoy good relations with others. This is certainly not what he needs Christianity for. He needs Christianity to provide him with a liberal environment in which he can believe what he wants and enjoy the Christian legal system and all of its trappings. Ideas like “common law” and “equality” are not naturally self evident, and require someone to tell us them. If there would be an atheist country, there is no reason to believe that the legal system would provide these christian values within it. For a perfect example look at China. Humanity only has INHERENT value that everyone recognizes if you have some reason for it to be so, otherwise it’s the law of the jungle. Why do I say “Christian beliefs”? Because in Muslim countries, there are no such cultural institutions as to allow you to believe what you want and say what you want. The Far East is also pretty parochial, and you get caned for things that would be considered ‘expression of free speech’ in the US. Only Christianity’s cultural liberalism allows such notions to exist and be tolerated. Atheists NEED Christians, as ironic as it sounds.

  4. Defending penal slavery is not a philosophical problem. In the 13th amendment of the US constitution it says “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime.” Penal labor is normal in most countries. Biblical slavery exists only as a punishment for thieves. Not debtors. Just thieves. Oh, and why do you have to deal with the Atlantic slave trade? Because it represents a paradox in your beliefs. You believe that slavery was always immoral while simultaneously believing that what is legal is also moral.

I am not trying to convert you, for all I care you don’t have to read any of the biblical archeological information. It is irrelevant. You have made no coherent, consistent points. You change your answers every time I bring up a problem with the previous one. I think that given the above four points I have shown numerous flaws in your beliefs, and hopefully the ones of the guy in the video, as that was my original goal.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
jglickfield:

…i’ll get back to you on the links when i’ve had time to read them…

[quote]The words you wrote don’t make much sense as the ‘therefores’ don’t follow from the ‘sinces’. I will have to assume what you must have meant. So let’s analyze your assumptions here.

  1. Social inferiors are necessarily unhappy in relation to social superiors.
  2. Happiness is a positive value.
  3. We’re human.

I will challenge you that social inferiors are not necessarily less happy because of it. It is widely known that rich people and celebrities have much higher rates of suicide, divorce, depression, and even criminal behavior than regular people. If you will argue that they are not really our social superiors then how come when they are caught for say, driving a car into a mall (Tara Reid) they don’t get punished?

I agree that happiness is a positive value, but objectively it is nothing worth discussing as it is immeasurable. As far as our shared humanity goes, it is a complete non-sequitor. Perhaps smarter people deserve more rights than dumber ones? You need a source which tells you that all people are equal and deserve to be treated so, otherwise how do you know? By definition the only such source must be a supra-human one.[/quote]

…i don’t understand why you take my opinion on the matter and make it universal? I don’t speak for others, only for myself. This: …because if i am the lesser of you, i’m not happy. And since i don’t want you to be unhappy, i’m not your superior. We’re human after all… applies to me, not you, not my neighbour or fellow countrymen, but only to me…

…i don’t need any other source than my opinion on these issues. Having a supra-human source adds nothing of validity to your argument since this supra-human source cannot be verified, and appealing to such sources is, TO ME, an exercise in futility…

[quote]Because it really is a belief system. To me it seems sort of like a Christian denomination, as it relies on all the trappings of christian society and law to function. Unless you go over to someone like Nietzsche. His point was to remake a new morality in light of the failure of Christianity to maintain people’s interest.

At best, you seem to wish to mock other people’s belief systems as foolish and baseless while not even having a belief system of your own of any substance. It’s sort of like the pot calling the kettle black, except that the kettle is trying to clean itself.[/quote]

…if you think this way there’s nothing i can do to change your mind, but strange as it may sound to you, it is possible to live your life without a structure of religious belief, to have peace of mind, a loving relationship and happiness without religion. If you can’t accept that then just let this part of the discussion go, 'kay?

[quote]Why can’t you explain God in rational terms? Use the negative attributes method? God is incomprehensible to us, possesses all possible perfections, and we cannot describe him in human terms at all because by definition his attributes are beyond ours.

God does explain the universe. If there is a God (who merely acts as a first mover) existence is explained. If there is no such God, how did we get here? Under the laws of physics matter cannot be created or destroyed. How did things get set in motion? If you don’t accept God, then you have a hole. You don’t seem to mind a hole though, you say you don’t know. This turns atheism into a type of faith.[/quote]

…you are hellbent on turning atheism into religion, are you? Explain how saying i don’t know what caused the universe turns atheism into a type of faith?

…this is why so many believers are mocked. You rationalised taking people into slavery. People who happened to be women and children of defeated tribes. They’d done nothing wrong. You’re quite something…

…now, my source of morality has nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade. Remember i said slavery is wrong? So what is there for me to defend?
[/quote]

404

Ephrem, you may want to get into reading Marx. He talks about history as moving in an evolutionary (or more aptly, revolutionary) pattern in which earlier, bad institutions (dictatorship, slavery, etc) were good in their time and place because it brought us to the next step which was better, all leading to the Worker’s Paradise of equality for all.

405

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Don’t bring a “we know from science” argument to me when too many geologists claimed that California would be an island by now.[/quote]

So you don’t accept modern science?

If that’s the case, I’m not sure there’s much to discuss.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
You are saying that today’s geologists no more about what once transpired that the people living there.[/quote]

Yes, and so do rational people. OR are you suggesting that astrology yields true results? That the sun revolves around the earth?

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Again, this is merely a corroboration, which is all that Ephrem asked me for. He said “give me a third party source to back up the bible”. I did that.[/quote]

It’s corroboration that it’s made up, that localized floods were metaphorically expanded to global ones by ignorant tribesmen.

Your sources do not back up the bible - they back up the idea that some (not all) ancient cultures had flood myths. They do not actually back up a global flood or that all the myths come from a similar source. The more rational explanation is that the ancient people who lived on plains that flooded often came up with global flood myths. This would explain why not all ancient people had flood myths and why there is no scientific evidence of a global flood - it would also explain the scientific evidence AGAINST a global flood (like varves, mayflies, logic - regarding the ‘ark’, etc, etc).

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
In order to argue this type of minutiae you need to be a real expert in historical sources outside of the bible, and sources that put it into context (Catechism, Talmud, etc). I would suggest that you back down now, I won’t hold it against you.[/quote]

Nonsense, you just have to have read the sources.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
But, if you are very stubborn and want to fight an uphill battle see Gedalyah Nadel’s explanation of the flood. [/quote]

Link to it.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Look, please don’t argue about books you have never read. The bible says that the Israelites went around “borrowing” the gold and silver of the Egyptians towards the end of the plagues. So the slaves became the rich folk.[/quote]

Look, please don’t make assumptions about what I’ve read. I certainly have read the bible and I can’t remember, but if you ‘borrow’ gold, doesn’t that mean you owe a debt?

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
The fact that some people choose not to interpret this as evidence of the Exodus takes nothing away from the fact that others do. Please learn how to interpret what you read better before you argue with me.[/quote]

The fact that it’s not rational to interpret it as evidence takes away from the fact that others do. You are appealing to authority here. Please present rational arguments.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Josephus never mentions Christianity (except in one edition which is regarded as a medieval forgery). Philo and his works were too early for Christianity to even be known. Herodotus lived in the 5th century BC. So, uh, what were you saying?[/quote]

Josephus references the beliefs of Christians. He has no first hand knowledge of the origins of Christianity - he could NOT have, since he was born after Jesus supposedly lived. As to the others, I am talking about Christian beliefs, which necessarily include the old testament, don’t they?

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Also, many historical accounts were destroyed when the Muslims sacked Alexandria and destroyed her library. Surely the first things to go would be histories contradicting the Koran, right? The fact that we have these few is impressive.[/quote]

?

How does a lack of evidence constitute evidence???

Again, why is it that the only evidence we have is after the fact by decades? Did the Muslims specifically target the contemporary account? Where’s your evidence for this nonsense? You have none. the rational explanation is that there are no contemporary accounts because there were no contemporary accounts. That’s why we don’t see references to them in the later accounts that survived the sacking of alexandria! Another data point your explanation doesn’t explain.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
I am not bothered by the silence of historians regarding Jesus. It takes nothing away from the existence of God. At best it challenges the scriptural accuracy of the NT.[/quote]

This is a strawman. The silence references the reliability of the NT, not whether or not God exists. I have not suggested what you are pretending I suggested.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
No, that certain historical figures existed, often in the way that they are portrayed in the bible. [/quote]

Why? Because you say so? Please rationally justify this assertion.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
For me to be correct, I don’t need all of Jeremiah’s prophecy to be true. I just need one instance of interaction between God and man. Even without this, I need only a likelihood that given the evidence we have it is more likely to have happened than not to make atheism irrational in face of the option of agnosticism.[/quote]

This is more nonsense. I could make 1,000 predictions and according to your reasoning, if 1 is correct then I’m legitimate.

Agnosticism is not a middle ground on atheism/theism. This has been discussed.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Thanks for proving your point there. You do a great job of clearly and logically explaining your position. [/quote]

You are welcome.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
First of all, I was originally debating Ephrem and he (happens to be along with many atheists) believe that contemporary western ideas and social mores were always true. So there you have a code of behavior. How is this like a Christian denomination? Because these ideas and institutions could not have existed without christianity.[/quote]

So Ephrem and these other atheists believe that contemporary western ideas are always true - please rationally link this to your claim that all atheists believe this. This is not an atheist code or morality. With your reasoning you could argue that since the majority of people with hair believe in X, therefore people with hair is a belief system.

The fact is, atheism is a position on whether a person believes in god or not, as is theism. Neither is a belief system. You may wish to believe otherwise, but this just betrays your bias.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Not anti-intellectual so much as denying individuals the ability to fully actualize themselves. But whatever we probably agree here. I only brought Nietzsche as a coherent ‘atheist ethic’ that doesn’t require Christianity. It is mutually exclusive with western liberalism too, but that’s irrelevant.[/quote]

Actually he did very much link Christianity with anti-intellectualism, especially in the Anti-Christ. He goes on and on about the fact that God didn’t want A&E to eat from the tree of knowledge, among other points (I believe he brings up some of Paul’s words as well).

Your bringing up of Nietzsche destroys your point about an atheist ethic. Again, atheism is a position on god’s existence. That’s it. It is not a system of beliefs, a morality, etc. It can be incorporated into those things (a la humanism, buddhism, materialistic communism, etc, etc). The same goes for theism.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
No I’m not, I am discussing the type of atheism Ephrem posited, you are tuning in halfway through the broadcast. [/quote]

Now you are moving your goalposts.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
I think you confuse rationalism with materialism. Please read the works of Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides or Aquinas before trying this again.[/quote]

I am doing no such thing - I was articulating an atheological argument. I have read most of those works, I suggest you do as well and do read something modern on the topic while you are at it. Philosophy has progressed over the millenia.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Don’t put words in my mouth. I was showing the comparable merits of two beliefs. One answers questions, the other doesn’t. [/quote]

You were doing no such thing - you were trying to say the emperor was wearing clothes and I showed you that he was bare. You don’t like that your ‘explanation’ equates to magic, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not true. In short, you don’t have an explanation - you have a mystery masquarading as an explanation. I’m asking that you quit pretending and admit that you don’t know.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
If that is a fact, prove it.[/quote]

You are just being silly now.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
If you are a theist you say there are no mysteries, only undiscovered facts capable of being comprehended by humans and things beyond us.[/quote]

This is incoherent. You are saying that there are mysteries that we will not be able to uncover WHILE also claiming that there are no mysteries. Please pick one and be consistent. Either we don’t know - and these things are beyond us OR we do know.

Which is it?

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
When you say this stuff you venture away from atheism into mysticism and paganism.
[/quote]

Nonsense and irrelevant.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
If that’s what you think you have misunderstood me. The fact that the universe exists begs a question as to where it comes from.[/quote]

This assertion appeals to the logical fallacy of begging the question. You are assuming that the A theory of time is true (despite the fact that it doesn’t reconcile with relativity).

Please demonstrate this instead of begging the question.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
The fact that everything which we can explain where it came from was made by some being superior to the creation is merely evidence that the universe too was created by someone superior to it.[/quote]

You are begging the question again. We have NO experience with something coming into existence. All we have experience with is matter and energy transforming by various agents within time and space. Water turns into snow flakes because of the cold and chemstry - not because it was made by some superior being.

So not only are you begging the question, you are also factually wrong.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
You are the one arguing from ignorance. “Since we don’t know how the universe was created, it couldn’t have been God.” [/quote]

That’s not what I’m arguing. This is called a strawman argument. Instead of arguing against what I’ve presented you have made up a position (and then dishonestly wrapped it in quote marks) and tried to defeat that.

The fact is, I don’t think the universe WAS created (or didn’t exist at one time) - as I implied when I accused you of begging the question.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Chapter and verse please? The only verses that I know are the ones that say that if you would hit your slave, you better not do any damage because if you do, he goes free.[/quote]

In otherwords you aren’t familiar enough with the bible to correct me, but even you admit that hitting your slaves is acceptable.

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Your lack of expertise in the bible showed itself earlier in the post, but perhaps you noticed something that I didn’t.[/quote]

Ha! Nice, so you claim that my lack of expertise is evident, while being demonstrably wrong on the topic of slavery.

How about you keep your trap shut in regards to ‘expertise’, M’kay?

Here’s the verse, btw:

Exodus: 21:20 - 21

"21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. "

406

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:
Eye-witness accounts are generally perceived as the best possible evidence[/quote]

No they aren’t.[/quote]

In fact they are very unreliable, they are just considered to be reliable which got more than one innocent man killed.

407

…i say morality in general is a human construct that is only attributed to a divine source by religious people who are unable to think for themselves. There cannot be a ‘within atheism’ because atheism is invidivually defined. Do you understand that? There is no umbrella atheist organisation that makes the rules regarding atheism. For someone who claims to have an high IQ your reading comprehension lacks severely…

…how wrong you are. During the '50s and '60s in the Netherlands people fought hard against the Catholic Church and it’s religious oppression. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that this wasn’t the case back then. Our current secular state was built in their struggle to break free from the strangle hold Rome had back then…

…i don’t enjoy my freedom because Christianity has granted my that freedom; i enjoy my freedom because my parents’ generation fought to free themselves from Christianity. Huge difference…

…it is a boldfaced lie that “Biblical slavery exists only as a punishment for thieves”…

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

…what you did was show how you, as a believer, will twist, lie, deny and misrepresent anything that might comprimise your beliefs. Thank you for doing that…

408

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]jglickfield wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…your fallacious appeal to authority is noted ZEB. Did the smartest man prove God yet?
[/quote]

Did anyone disprove God yet either? No? So it looks like you are about on equal footing[/quote]

…how can you disprove something that exists nowhere else but in beliefs? And that which exists in beliefs only needs no proof, otherwise if someone, at one point somewhere, had found a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that [a] God exists, you’d no longer need faith and beliefs to sustain your religion, and atheism would no longer exist…[/quote]

Is your IQ higher than those in Mensa? Ah, never mind.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority[/quote]

The flaw in your logic is that you assume that I think my recommendation is infallible, I do not. I just thought you might want to give it another look based upon the fact that those with much higher IQ’s than you think that there is a God.[/quote]

Now you ask him to jump on the bandwagon? These are emotionally good arguments, but not sound proofs.

Besides, if high IQ’s and Mensa membership impressed Ephrem, he would have given in to me. ;)[/quote]

I wonder how many see the irony of college kids downing God on Christmas break. Ha ha, good stuff, can’t beat it.

409

My advice is to just ignore ZEB. He has no rational arguments to offer and is only here to ridicule. He thinks that anyone under 40 is a ‘college kid’ and that when you point out his logical fallacies (of which there are many) you aren’t worth listening to.

In short, he’s what’s wrong with fundamentalism.

410

My, my there’s so much wrong with this little diatribe.

[quote]Meatros wrote:
My advice is to just ignore ZEB.[/quote]

Ignoring what you cannot respond to?

Sometimes the truth seems like ridicule, especially when it hurts, sorry about that.

I never once said that and I think you probably know it, so why are you lying? In fact, I’ve said on many occasion that anyone who has worked for a few years sees things differently. Let’s see, how old would that make someone? If they graduated college at the age of 21 and worked for say three years they’d be 24. 24 is hardly 40 is it? You’re not paying attention, or you are deliberately lying. Which is it?

I don’t recall you ever pointing out any logical fallacy on my part. Am I wrong on this? Please point it out if that’s the case. If you can’t then it seems that you are either lying again, or just confused, which is it? Perhaps you’ve tried to point out other posters logical fallacies and have become confused?

Seems there’s some stereotyping going on here. What a shame such things from someone so young and open minded. You see junior, I’m not a fundamentalist, you would know that if you would have paid attention to what’s actually being written and not on what you think is being written. Those Professors of yours wouldn’t be very proud of you right now would they?

Ah, you’ll learn in time, don’t be too hard on yourself.

Zeb

411

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ignoring what you cannot respond to? [/quote]

All you’ve done is argued from authority. It’s been pointed out to you and you ignored the fact that you were appealing to a logical fallacy. If you aren’t interested in reasoning, then you aren’t worth engaging in.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sometimes the truth seems like ridicule, especially when it hurts, sorry about that. [/quote]

When you engage in irrational reasoning, you betray no understanding of the truth.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I never once said that and I think you probably know it, so why are you lying? In fact, I’ve said on many occasion that anyone who has worked for a few years sees things differently. Let’s see, how old would that make someone? If they graduated college at the age of 21 and worked for say three years they’d be 24. 24 is hardly 40 is it? You’re not paying attention, or you are deliberately lying. Which is it?[/quote]

Nonsense, in the other thread you referred to me as a kid, even though you knew I was in my thirties. In short, you are being dishonest here. I ask that you please remember your story, you will, at least, be consistent with your taunts, as opposed to incoherent.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t recall you ever pointing out any logical fallacy on my part. Am I wrong on this? Please point it out if that’s the case. If you can’t then it seems that you are either lying again, or just confused, which is it? Perhaps you’ve tried to point out other posters logical fallacies and have become confused?[/quote]

Please learn to read more critically, I didn’t say I pointed out any logical fallacies in this thread. I stated that logical fallacies had been pointed out to you. Further, I do have experience with pointing out your irrationality in other threads - which means I can personally comment on this. Again, I ask that you read more critically in the future.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Seems there’s some stereotyping going on here. What a shame such things from someone so young and open minded. You see junior, I’m not a fundamentalist, you would know that if you would have paid attention to what’s actually being written and not on what you think is being written. Those Professors of yours wouldn’t be very proud of you right now would they? [/quote]

I don’t believe you ZEB. I don’t think you know what a fundamentalist is, ergo, your denial of it is meaningless.

In short, you are to be ignored and you are absolutely worthless to talk to. You cannot reason effectively and you can’t even recognize simple logical fallacies (such as when you argue from authority). I don’t know why I bother saying this to you as I’m sure your next post will misquote me and completely ignore the substance, but I’ll give myself a pat on the back for trying.

This will be my last response to you in this thread Zeb, unless you actually have something constructive to add to any of the arguments here (as opposed to your incessant personal attacks).

In summary, please let the adults talk and leave the area Zeb - all you are doing is wasting our time.

412

…a very interesting, and short, lecture about his subject. Have a look and listen:

For tens of thousands of years our ancestors understood the world through myths, and the pace of change was glacial. The rise of scientific understanding transformed the world within a few centuries. Why? Physicist David Deutsch proposes a subtle answer.

413

[quote]pat wrote: That morality exists does not automatically lead towards a creator in the sense that you cannot use the line of reasoning that: “Morality exists, therefore
God exists.” But that’s not how it works. Morality exists, what is morality? It is good vs. evil? What is good? what is evil and where did it all come from. As continue to regress as to the origin it will eventually lead you to an uncaused-cause.

Time is the measurement of movement and change. If nothing moved and nothing changed, there would be no time. Time does not itself exist as a separate entity. It’s just a measurement. It is a sticky thing to say time does not exist when it is necessary for the sciences, for you cannot measure against that which does not exist. But we can measure with time.
As to the universe, well where did it come from? Big Bang? OK where did that come from? And so on. An infinite regress cannot be the answer as the answer eventually begs the question. The only way to stop it is to have an uncaused-cause. That which can cause and not be caused itself. When you think about the properties an uncaused-cause must have, it must be eternal and sit outside the causal chain, necessarily. The buck stops there.

One of the main goals of philosophy is to explore what actually can be “known” and when I say known, I mean with 100% certainty. You say the universe exists and you can verify that. Really, how do you know? Books, TV, your senses? Can books TV not be wrong? Can I not fool your senses?

Could I not take a couple hundred micrograms of LSD and totally alter your sense of reality?
Des Cartes went through this rather painful exercise where finally determined that the only thing he could prove is that he has thoughts and can think and therefore, he does in fact exist. So goes his famous quote “I think, therefore I am” Des Cartes was wrong. All he could prove is that something exists, he could not prove that he existed or has possession of it. Kant stated that “Reality exists, but we cannot know what it is.” That’s more like it.

The reason I am name dropping dead guys is to assert that these exercises have been done and the conclusions tend to be that we cannot know with 100% certainty that everything we know about our universe isn’t some sort of grand illusion. It’s not that I think it is, it’s just not provable.

So empirical / a posteriori knowledge is useful knowledge. A priori knowledge is real knowledge as it functions on pure reason. You need both to get through life. Most things fall under the first, but what is truly knowable falls under the latter.
Damn, that wore me out…[/quote]

…i’m very sorry i missed this post from you Pat. I don’t know if you’re still reading the thread but i’d like to respond to it anyway. You obviously want to have an answer to that age-old question: “Where does all of this come from?”, and i can’t fault you for that because at one point or another we all ask those kinds of questions…

…what i don’t understand though, and this pertains to all religions basically, is that you not only choose one answer out of many possible answers that are just as viable, but you also refuse [i’m generalising here, so don’t take this too personally] to apply the reasons for dismissing all those other religions, on your own religion. Why?

…what does believing in God does for you? And why is it seemingly hard to understand for believers that not everyone feels that same need to believe?

414

[quote]Meatros wrote:
I don’t believe you ZEB. I don’t think you know what a fundamentalist is, ergo, your denial of it is meaningless.[/quote]

Oh now that’s just down right mean man, sheesh that really hurt. But, you’re so smart I better check to make sure that I’m right.

Fundamentalist: “A religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States”

Hmm, let’s see, judging by the intolerance part I’d say you and the rest of the wide eyed liberals are fundamentalists. No? Oh well, I could be wrong let’s see what else.

I don’t think I have a rigid adherence to any principles other than getting up and going to work each day, (something you should try) and of course trying to always do the right thing for my family, community and others.

I do go to church does that make me a fundamentalist? Naw, I don’t think so.

Let’s see what else? Militant? I haven’t hit anyone or even raised my voice since I was a kid no older than you.

Hey you seem a bit militant on this thread and you are quite intolerant of others views, hmm are you a fundamentalist? I think we discovered something here.

Anyway meatyross, calm down you’re going to blow a liberal gasket if you keep up this level of nonsense. Relax breath a little. (looks around)

You’re in your 30’s huh?. If you remember I asked once and you never replied. Now that I know you are in your 30’s I won’t refer to you as junior any longer. Unless you’re lying to me, are you lying? Naw, are you? this is the Internet after all. Anyway being in your 30’s and still believing what you do is just, well, frightening, sort of like watching a 14 year old still believing in Santa Claus. It tells me that you’ve either been protected from the real world by the shield of the university system, just like our wonderful President was, or you’re on some sort of union tit sucking it for all it’s worth. Could it be something else? Sure it could, some other system which relies heavily on others who actually work hard supporting it. Or your parents could have dropped you on your head when you were an infant, ha (shakes head) I don’t know.

Sniff, sniff, now you’ve hurt my feelings. Hey look kid, oops I called you kid sorry, you’re in your 30’s right? Anyway, I know how you feel I actually hurt your feelings with the truth. The truth is ugly sometimes it’s probably best you ignore it, but at some point in your life you’re going to have to face it. You’re going to have to take a long hard look at the truth and it won’t be pleasant for you, at least not at first.

Oh I don’t know about that, I’ve “reasoned effectively” many times on this site, ask around. I usually only bother with those that I actually have at least an ounce of respect for, you just didn’t make the grade sorry. I look at you as some sort of balloon head (note, term not often used, but accurate in this case). You’re filled with futile lofty thoughts which are impractical, useless and actually make me laugh. I should spend time debating these things with you on the Internet? I don’t think so, yet I can’t help but stop point and laugh. Go figure, Im not perfect man.

Yes you should give yourself a pat on the back. I’ll give you one too, good boy, well done. Keep up the good Internet work that you’re doing. Someday everyone will see things just as you do and it will be a perfect world. And if they don’t see things your way you can always throw another hissy fit and really bear down on them, on the Internet, during your vacation time, when you have nothing else to do. Yea :slight_smile: Good stuff. Ha ha.

Okay, but be careful because I’m going to hold you to that promise.

Hey thanks for summarizing kid, er, I mean guy in his 30’s, otherwise no one would possibly understand all of your deep insights-Deep, very deep.

I was about to suggest the same thing to you junior, DANG I keep forgetting your a guy in his 30’s. Sorry guy in his 30’s.

Will you call the police if I don’t leave the area? I think liberals should have the right to squelch all sorts of free speech that they don’t agree with don’t you? Maybe you can get behind the fairness doctrine and silence those mean nasty conservatives who tend to call out Obama all the time. Racists, that’s what they are AND THEY DON’T DESERVE TO SPEAK! Sorry I get carried away when I think of all that free speech going to waste, Yea, you do. :slight_smile:

[quote] all you are doing is wasting our time.
[/quote]

But with Christmas vacation you have plenty of time to waste. Anyway, I’m certainly glad that you responded to me I feel somehow enlightened and the better for it. Do you realize that when you post there’s a certain something that emanates from my screen, it’s, well it’s almost magical. I feel blessed to have been here living at the same time as you so that I could benefit from your great knowledge that you’ve acquired in your 20 years on this earth, oops I mean the 30 some years you’ve lived. Sorry, I just can’t keep up with you, no one can let’s face it you’re it man, you are IT!

:slight_smile:

415

Sorry Zeb, I glanced at your reply and determined that it’s not worth reading or giving an indepth response to.

When you argue with idiots they bring you down to their level and then beat you through experience.

You have way to much experience with idiocy for me Zeb. Congrats.

416

[quote]Meatros wrote:
Sorry Zeb, I glanced at your reply and determined that it’s not worth reading or giving an indepth response to. [/quote]

Oh stop it, you know you read it, you couldn’t help but read it, it’s in your nature. You’re an inquisitive little lad, that’s what I like about you. It’s a good thing don’t ever change.

You’ve disappointed me meatros. Isn’t it you who said in your previous post that you were not going to respond to me anymore? Yes it was:

Now how do you expect anyone on this thread to take you at your word? Pay attention now, when you are done reading this kick the side of your moms desk, go ask her for some gas money, get together with a few of your friends and talk about how great the world would be if there were no gun rights, no free speech and taxes were 90% of everyones income. See how much better you feel just reading those things?

All kidding aside relax, you are entirely too wound up for one who is at such a tender age. What are you going to be like when you’re all grown up? My gosh you’ll be on blood pressure meds before you’re 30th birthday, do you want that? No, of course not, learn to take yourself a little less seriously, come down from your high horse. Learn to take your beating like a man keep your head held high and your nose in the air so that your fellow liberals will recognize you.

If I don’t hear from you again (I’ll be so very disappointed) have a Happy and safe New Year.

Zeb

417

Nobel Prize-winning philosopher/mathematician, Bertrand Russell, explains why he does not believe in God.

418

1024×768 83.8 KB

419

We hear the same Creationist arguments SO OFTEN, we decided to assemble our 10 favorites and address them here.

420

I don’t think it’s fair to charge all religions with arbitrary morality. Certainly there are big swaths of people who subscribe to the absurdity that is Divine Command Theory, but I’ve met Christians who don’t hold to that.

Good vids though.