You can say no. But then why are you trying to take a moral high ground over God, a being with the power to be the final authority and judge.
You can say yes, but then I’ll ask you to prove that “evil” is a thing that exists.
See, a reasonable skeptic can not say that child rape is “evil.” Perhaps risky, but not evil.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And you have no proof it’s a ‘fairy tail’ nor that it didn’t happen.[/quote]
There is a mountain of evidence that says that things in the Bible didn’t happen. You may not think it’s been “proved,” but the evidence is there and it’s a hell of a task for anybody to reasonably deny it.
[/quote]
Which things are these? You know that the bible isn’t a history book right? Not everything in it is a historical account? Make sure this supposed evidence is dealing with something that is actual and non allegorical.
[quote]
But forget that. The burden of proof lies with the guy who believes in miracle, not the guy who doesn’t. If you tell me that you own a talking hermit crab, I don’t say to myself, “well, maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t.” I assume that it’s nonsense until it says “hello” to me.[/quote]
Burden of proof lies with the one who makes a claim. You just made the claim the whole bible is false. Okay, the Bible is the object which has the claims. So that part of burden of proof is fulfilled. You have the claim and it’s explanation written in black and white. I don’t have o do anything but present the book. Your the one who said the whole thing was wrong, so prove the whole thing was wrong.
You’re the one making the claim.
The object in question doesn’t beget burden of proof, somebody who makes a claim about the object is assuming the burden of proof. You assumed the burden that the whole Bible is false, so get to it. You made the claim, you back it up. [/quote]
Pat, you know as well as anyone that one cannot “prove” a negative.
All one can do is attempt to verify a claim of veracity with evidence supporting it, and failing that, conclude that the initial claim was false.
SMH can no more “prove” that the whole Bible is false than you could prove that elves and pixies and the gods of Asgard don’t exist. Absence of evidence of elves and pixies and Asgardian gods not equalling evidence of their absence, after all.
What SMH can do, and likely does, is view extraordinary claims such as those found in the Bible with no evidence supporting them, such as nine-hundred year old men, a planet stopping its entire rotation for several hours so that a battle on a dusty field may continue in sunlight, or five loaves of bread and two fish increasing parthenogenically so that they were able to feed a crowd of five thousand people, with a degree of skepticism and incredulity.
You’re not stupid, Pat. Not a caveman by any stretch, which probably adds to SMH’s amazement: that you find it so easy to believe the entirety of the implicit claims of the Bible without evidence, going so far as to say that they have been proven, by virtue of their being in the Bible, and that you find it just as amazing that anyone would not believe them.
No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
More simply, my claim is this: that it’s written that it happened is not sufficient proof for a reasonable person to believe that a man rose from the dead three days after his murder.
[/quote]
Is child rape evil?
Prove to me “evil” so that this thing then may indeed fall within it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]
You holding that firearm?
Do you believe you have an inherent right to it?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can say no. But then why are you trying to take a moral high ground over God, a being with the power to be the final authority and judge.
You can say yes, but then I’ll ask you to prove that “evil” is a thing that exists.[/quote]
Evil is knowingly and willingly doing the opposite of what one believes to be good. If you believe pedophilia is wrong and you still engage in it then that is evil. If you were taught that it is OK then you are not evil. Whoever taught you it was OK, provided they believed it was wrong, would be evil. Now, as a society we may view pedophilia as evil, as we believe it’s “opposite” would be good, so we may condemn a man to prison for committing it regardless of his morality on that issue. We can say that maybe he isn’t evil but his act was and it is illegal so that’s how it goes. But that’s why he have laws: to remind certain people that regardless of what they personally believe is right or wrong society has made that choice for everyone.
At least that’s how I look at good and evil. And both do exist, at the very least, as concepts.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can say no. But then why are you trying to take a moral high ground over God, a being with the power to be the final authority and judge.
You can say yes, but then I’ll ask you to prove that “evil” is a thing that exists.[/quote]
Evil is knowingly and willingly doing the opposite of what one believes to be good. If you believe pedophilia is wrong and you still engage in it then that is evil. If you were taught that it is OK then you are not evil…[/quote]
Or, you realize and believe what you just described, so that you may change your “opinion” to make everything permissible (good) for yourself.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]krillin wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…
If I’m going to burn in hell for not believing that Jesus was divine–or, at least, no more divine than anybody else–then…
So, if the conditional clause is fulfilled, then it really doesn’t matter what I say in the consequent clause. Unless, of course, you think I’ll be punished all the harder for what I’ve said here…in which case, while you’re right that it’s unwise of me to say it, He deserves the censure all the more, so far as I’m concerned.[/quote]
You are off the proverbial hook.
And I get to play the Devil’s Advocate. (The pun is intended.)
(Let’s leave the New Testament out of this discussion for a moment–it’s cosmology and dicta are interwoven with Hellenist and Persian notions.)
-
Where, in the Old Testament, does it command people to believe anything? My answer is, “nowhere.”
Belief is not the same as action, obedience, etc. Since lack of belief (of some dictum) by someone is not commanded, it is not punishable. -
Next: Where, in the Old Testament, is there a description of a Hell?
Nowhere. Oh, dear readers, do not bother trotting out references to “sheoul” or to “Gehenna.” These were simply the over-interpreted terms for a pit (or grave) and the valley outside Jerusalem where the garbage was burned. (Hell and an afterlife were concepts which pre-exilic Israelites implicitly abhorred because they were notions nurtured by hated Egyptians, Chaldees, Assyrians.)
So, smh, there is no thoughtcrime, and belief (or lack thereof) is not punishable by exile to a place that does not exist–at least not until after Alexander’s armies came visiting a desolate backwater of the Persian empire. [/quote]
Your statement (Dr. skeptix) about hell not being in the Old Testament interested me, and the only place I can think of that may suggest an everlasting hell is Isaiah 66:24, when he talks about how the faithful will look out and see the dead bodies of those who have transgressed, where “their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched.” A few times in this chapter, the fire refers to God’s judgment and wrath; and if it is something that is undying and unquenchable, it could suggest a picture of God’s wrath unending and continually being poured out on those who have died.
Now I know from other threads that you have a very good knowledge of the Hebrew and are extremely familiar with the Old Testament. I ask as a serious question, what do you think the worm and the fire refer to in this text looking into the original hebrew and such? Admittedly, this text is not an extremely clear and straighforward support of hell in the Old Testament but I’d like to hear your take. [/quote]
Isaiah also says several times that God’s wrath would be poured out on eaters of the flesh of swine.
Hope you don’t like bacon.
The verse just prior to the one you quoted says that “it shall be from new moon to new moon and from Sabbath to Sabbath, that all flesh shall come to prostrate themselves before Me”.
So the whole worms eating the corpses in the burning garbage dump thing seems to be talking about that one month. Nothing about eternity, near as I can see.
Incidentally, do Christians prostrate themselves when they pray?
[/quote]
Sure, but look at the context of those who eat swine, v.17 is a way of specifically addressing those who participated in idol worship (context might suggest here they were apostate Israelites who were forsaking the Law to go the way of the pagan nations) and the reason for their judgment is v.18, their works and their thoughts were evil. Things need to be understood as the writer saw in that time period. There may be other places in Isaiah that speak about this, but again it would be used in reference to pagan nations or those who forsook the law.
Interesting point about the 1 month thing, I saw it as a more continual thing, since I see it connected to v.22 talking about an enduring offspring suggesting a longer time period. I’d have to look at this more. No way I can keep up with this whirlwind of a thread, since I am going to work now and they block the forums :(.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If there is a God, science is simply the process of trying to better understand the Being’s work…
[/quote]
Very true. But what do we do when the fruits of that endeavor stand in opposition to what’s said to be the Word of God?[/quote]
Realize our previous interpretation was FUBAR. We are human, we do make mistakes.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And you have no proof it’s a ‘fairy tail’ nor that it didn’t happen.[/quote]
There is a mountain of evidence that says that things in the Bible didn’t happen. You may not think it’s been “proved,” but the evidence is there and it’s a hell of a task for anybody to reasonably deny it.
[/quote]
Which things are these? You know that the bible isn’t a history book right? Not everything in it is a historical account? Make sure this supposed evidence is dealing with something that is actual and non allegorical.[/quote]
Genesis makes no claim of allegory for itself. And if you say that it is indeed allegory, then I say so is the resurrection of Jesus.
[quote]
[quote]
But forget that. The burden of proof lies with the guy who believes in miracle, not the guy who doesn’t. If you tell me that you own a talking hermit crab, I don’t say to myself, “well, maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t.” I assume that it’s nonsense until it says “hello” to me.[/quote]
Burden of proof lies with the one who makes a claim. You just made the claim the whole bible is false. [/quote]
I made no such claim.
My claim is that it is the one who avers miracle who must prove miracle. It was on Joseph Smith to prove that he was visited by Moroni, not on the people to whom he was recounting the tale.
Christians aver miracle, and so they must prove it.
More simply, my claim is this: that it’s written that it happened is not sufficient proof for a reasonable person to believe that a man rose from the dead three days after his murder.
Or, if it is sufficient proof, then so must be the Upanishads for everything therein.[/quote]
Ok so the miracle in discussion then is the Resurrection? Or every miracle?
Are you simply going to dismiss the Bible as a resource? And why would you dismiss it outright? It has many authors and collections of documents. It’s not a book, it’s a collection of books and other writings. I could understand that point of view if it was one person making the claim, but there are many. Just because it’s collected together in one book doesn’t make it one work.
And what would you consider sufficient proof outside of witnessing it yourself?
And would it really matter to you if He did rise from the dead?
Just because something happens outside what we presume to be the natural order of things and the laws of nature doesn’t mean anything other than the fact that we don’t understand everything.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can say no. But then why are you trying to take a moral high ground over God, a being with the power to be the final authority and judge.
You can say yes, but then I’ll ask you to prove that “evil” is a thing that exists.[/quote]
Evil is knowingly and willingly doing the opposite of what one believes to be good. If you believe pedophilia is wrong and you still engage in it then that is evil. If you were taught that it is OK then you are not evil…[/quote]
Or, you realize and believe what you just described, so that you may change your “opinion” to make everything permissible (good) for yourself.
[/quote]
There is still right and wrong. You can do something wrong and also be evil. You can do something wrong and not be evil.
If your sense of what is good or evil changes it would depend on how real the change is. It still doesn’t matter because even if you change your opinion to just feel better about something you did, it won’t change the law. It won’t make it right. But like I said, I believe evil is the state of mind behind an action. The action itself, even if we regard it as evil, cannot be since it lacks a conscience.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]
You holding that firearm?
Do you believe you have an inherent right to it?
[/quote]
I believe that inherent rights are meaningless without the means to physically defend them. I am alive, but I don’t believe that my right to life is sufficient to prevent someone from killing me. I am free, but my right to liberty by itself doesn’t prevent my enslavement. I may be armed, but my right to remain so exists only insofar as I am able to physically remain in possession of a weapon, and the skills necessary to use it.
In short, while I am a great fan the idea of Jeffersonian rights and the documents penned to uphold them, I have little faith in them being mystical forces that will shield me from harm. I have seen too much evidence, in this country and abroad, to suggest that there are no inherent rights, only the contest of wills. The strong will do what they want, and the weak will endure what they must. Regardless of what who believes is their inherent right.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No, I want to know the ‘truth’ that zcarlo speaks of. The truth that man does not know and invents gods to take it’s place. What is that truth.
I am not looking for some dead guy quotes whose opinion is as wrong then as it is now.
Cavemen used gods to explain not understood natural phenomena. We haven’t done that since at least Greek times, perhaps even earlier. [/quote]
Voltaire was right otherwise you are wrong. You have a choice: either all gods ever mentioned were real, some or one were real or none were/are real. If Voltaire was wrong then man has never invented any gods which means they are all real. You don’t believe that so you agree with Voltaire. Voltaire did not say all gods were invented.
What about the questions of good and evil? What about the purpose of our existence? You don’t look to religion and God for those answers? [/quote]
Not necessarily. I look at what religion says about those things, but not as an answer, per se. Religion didn’t ‘invent’ morality, morality exists whether religion does or not. Religion takes a moral stance which I mostly agree with. I agree with it because it’s right, not because said religion said so.
The purpose of our existence? I wish religion had the answer because that’s a good question. Nobody really knows why anything exists at all.
Where do you look for these answers?
What is morality? What do you think you exist? What makes things what they are?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]
You holding that firearm?
Do you believe you have an inherent right to it?
[/quote]
I believe that inherent rights are meaningless without the means to physically defend them. I am alive, but I don’t believe that my right to life is sufficient to prevent someone from killing me. I am free, but my right to liberty by itself doesn’t prevent my enslavement. I may be armed, but my right to remain so exists only insofar as I am able to physically remain in possession of a weapon, and the skills necessary to use it.
In short, while I am a great fan the idea of Jeffersonian rights and the documents penned to uphold them, I have little faith in them being mystical forces that will shield me from harm. I have seen too much evidence, in this country and abroad, to suggest that there are no inherent rights, only the contest of wills. The strong will do what they want, and the weak will endure what they must. Regardless of what who believes is their inherent right. [/quote]
Those pesky Melians.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
More simply, my claim is this: that it’s written that it happened is not sufficient proof for a reasonable person to believe that a man rose from the dead three days after his murder.
[/quote]
Is child rape evil?
Prove to me “evil” so that this thing then may indeed fall within it.
[/quote]
I cannot, and neither can anybody else.
Being what I call an agnostic theist, however, I have the possibility of an objective morality. That I cannot prove it to you or anybody else is a universal feature of life on this planet, not a deficiency in my worldview. Because you, in fact, can’t prove a single this to me about evil either.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can say no. But then why are you trying to take a moral high ground over God, a being with the power to be the final authority and judge.
You can say yes, but then I’ll ask you to prove that “evil” is a thing that exists.[/quote]
Evil is knowingly and willingly doing the opposite of what one believes to be good. If you believe pedophilia is wrong and you still engage in it then that is evil. If you were taught that it is OK then you are not evil. Whoever taught you it was OK, provided they believed it was wrong, would be evil. Now, as a society we may view pedophilia as evil, as we believe it’s “opposite” would be good, so we may condemn a man to prison for committing it regardless of his morality on that issue. We can say that maybe he isn’t evil but his act was and it is illegal so that’s how it goes. But that’s why he have laws: to remind certain people that regardless of what they personally believe is right or wrong society has made that choice for everyone.
At least that’s how I look at good and evil. And both do exist, at the very least, as concepts. [/quote]
Does anybody ever do any research at all? Moral relativity has been a dead argument for centuries. Yet, it keeps getting dredged up over and over again.
Moral relativity fails because it ignores one very important aspect, the victim.
You honestly believe that if one thinks that child rape is ok, that makes it ok? Or if society thinks it’s ok to rape and kill children, then it’s ok? What about the kids, don’t their opinions count?
Tell me what scenario justifies child rape as morally a-ok? That’s you job as a relativist, you have to take the most evil acts and justify them as being ‘good’ because it’s accepted by society.
The reason why relativity is a fail is because nobody can justify evil.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]
You holding that firearm?
Do you believe you have an inherent right to it?
[/quote]
I believe that inherent rights are meaningless without the means to physically defend them. I am alive, but I don’t believe that my right to life is sufficient to prevent someone from killing me. I am free, but my right to liberty by itself doesn’t prevent my enslavement. I may be armed, but my right to remain so exists only insofar as I am able to physically remain in possession of a weapon, and the skills necessary to use it.
In short, while I am a great fan the idea of Jeffersonian rights and the documents penned to uphold them, I have little faith in them being mystical forces that will shield me from harm. I have seen too much evidence, in this country and abroad, to suggest that there are no inherent rights, only the contest of wills. The strong will do what they want, and the weak will endure what they must. Regardless of what who believes is their inherent right. [/quote]
Those pesky Melians. [/quote]
Uh huh. They believed in unalienable rights, and look what happened to them. I can’t count on the Spartans coming to my aid, so I have to be a Spartan myself.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
More simply, my claim is this: that it’s written that it happened is not sufficient proof for a reasonable person to believe that a man rose from the dead three days after his murder.
[/quote]
Is child rape evil?
Prove to me “evil” so that this thing then may indeed fall within it.
[/quote]
I cannot, and neither can anybody else.
Being what I call an agnostic theist, however, I have the possibility of an objective morality. That I cannot prove it to you or anybody else is a universal feature of life on this planet, not a deficiency in my worldview. Because you, in fact, can’t prove a single this to me about evil either.[/quote]
So reasonable people CAN have devout faith in things they can not prove empirically.
[quote]pat wrote:
And what would you consider sufficient proof outside of witnessing it yourself?[/quote]
Not that it was written down by some people many years after it “happened.”
Or are the Upanishads themselves sufficient proof of their claims?
[quote]
And would it really matter to you if He did rise from the dead? [/quote]
Of course it would.
[quote]
Just because something happens outside what we presume to be the natural order of things and the laws of nature doesn’t mean anything other than the fact that we don’t understand everything.[/quote]
Of course, but in order to say that something has happened outside of what we presume to be the natural order of things, we first must establish that the thing has indeed happened. This has not be done to anything close to my satisfaction.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
More simply, my claim is this: that it’s written that it happened is not sufficient proof for a reasonable person to believe that a man rose from the dead three days after his murder.
[/quote]
The above is in response to statements like this.