Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
What makes you think that good/evil don't have laws? Doesn't everything else?

I don't think they have absolute laws. No, I don't think everything has absolute laws which govern them. What do you find attractive? Do we all abide by absolute laws there?

Okay. Matters of opinion (like what is attractive or not, or any other CHOICE is not subject to law. (I hope you recognize the circle we've run with this.........).

Are you now suggesting that good and evil are fully matters of opinion?

Quote:
Why not?

Who are you to dictate whether or not faith is acceptable?

Are you God?

Don't need to be God here. Admitting that it is based on faith renders your analogy of absoluteness comparable to gravity simply incorrect.

Admitting that my acceptance of God is based on faith is simply writing the truth. Theorizing that good/evil is related to spiritual law is accepting the teachings of theologians. Admitting that spiritual law cannot be tested, measured, quantified, or otherwise manipulated by man with physical measures is simply stating the obvious.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that good/evil do not have observable effects?

Observable perhaps, but observable with objective results, hardly. Remember your making an analogy with absolute laws; such laws would require objective right or wrong answers. You know, like the mathematics of gravity.

Mathematics is physical law. Good/evil, God/Absence-from God is not.

Quote:
Our understanding of physical law has come through experimentation with physical tests. You cannot experiment with spiritual law with physical tests or measurements and expect accurate answers.

Oh, I don't require physical tests. Any tests that can produce some objective answers will suffice. Can you think of any, or is it completely immeasurable?

It is measurable with faith.

Quote:
The effects of spiritual law cannot be "measurable" with physical tests or measurements.

How do you know there are effects for these laws? What evidence are you basing this assumption on?

My experience in prayerful life.

 

[I less than three logic]

Okay. Matters of opinion (like what is attractive or not, or any other CHOICE is not subject to law. (I hope you recognize the circle we've run with this.........).

Are you now suggesting that good and evil are fully matters of opinion?

What one considers good or evil is dependent on one’s moral philosophy, which is formed by a variety of factors. The environment they grew up in, aspiring to be like those they admire, lessons learned through action and consequence (based on the moral philosophies of others around them), predictions on what others will think of certain actions to name a few. So yes, I consider good and evil to be matters of opinion, although I prefer terms right and wrong or, perhaps, just and unjust since good and evil carry with them a lot of religious baggage.

Within society, it is generally a consensus of opinions that determines what is considered good or evil within that society. Some are rather common, such as not killing or stealing. Others, such as polygamy, may be less common. What one society views as evil may not be seen that way by another. I see no evidence that any view of good or evil is absolutely correct the same way that no matter what society you inhabit on Earth, rocks still fall at the same speed.

Admitting that my acceptance of God is based on faith is simply writing the truth. Theorizing that good/evil is related to spiritual law is accepting the teachings of theologians. Admitting that spiritual law cannot be tested, measured, quantified, or otherwise manipulated by man with physical measures is simply stating the obvious.

You are attempting to make an analogy that good/evil are as absolute as the laws of gravity. One can not make claims of the absolute on faith, faith deals with unknowns. If you admit it is unknown, how can then state you know it is absolute, let alone prove it is absolute? It would be far easier just to admit your analogy is incorrect.

It is measurable with faith.

Oh, well in that case the absolute laws of good and evil are obviously those of the Muslim extremists. Hands down, their faith is measurably more devout than any others. I doubt you’re willing to blow yourself up to prove your faith.

My experience in prayerful life.

Which could just as easily be evidence you’re suffering from some mental disorder as it could for the existence of these effects of these laws, what makes you convinced it’s the latter?

ETA - Seems I forgot one of the most obvious bases for one’s moral philosophy, the tenets of their religion. Not one I put much value in, but many people at least unitize the tenets of their religion in determining their moral philosophy. This is what I’d believe Huntster does. Others use the tenets themselves as their moral philosophy, such as KuriousKathy seems to.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Okay. Matters of opinion (like what is attractive or not, or any other CHOICE is not subject to law. (I hope you recognize the circle we've run with this.........).

Are you now suggesting that good and evil are fully matters of opinion?

What one considers good or evil is dependent on one’s moral philosophy, which is formed by a variety of factors. The environment they grew up in, aspiring to be like those they admire, lessons learned through action and consequence (based on the moral philosophies of others around them), predictions on what others will think of certain actions to name a few. So yes, I consider good and evil to be matters of opinion, although I prefer terms right and wrong or, perhaps, just and unjust since good and evil carry with them a lot of religious baggage.

So, it is perfectly "right" for a New Guinea tribesman to kill a visitor and eat him because that is the moral environment he grew up in, he aspires to succeed in that moral environment, and he has learned that lesson through observing it done.

Thus it is "good" because he "opines" that it is good based on his life experiences, even though a 25 year old college student in a California suburb might "opine" that it is "wrong" (or the Huntster "opine" that it is "evil", because the Huntster is religious).

Sorry. I reject that. I say it is "wrong" or "evil" (whichever you prefer) because spiritual law dictates that it is "wrong" or "evil."

Within society, it is generally a consensus of opinions that determines what is considered good or evil within that society. Some are rather common, such as not killing or stealing. Others, such as polygamy, may be less common. What one society views as evil may not be seen that way by another. I see no evidence that any view of good or evil is absolutely correct the same way that no matter what society you inhabit on Earth, rocks still fall at the same speed.

And what I am saying is that society doesn't have the authority or an understanding complete enough to dictate morality. They can establish civil law (which might be moral or not), but they can no more establish morality any more than they can legislate whether gravity will exist in their political jurisdiction.

Quote:
Admitting that my acceptance of God is based on faith is simply writing the truth. Theorizing that good/evil is related to spiritual law is accepting the teachings of theologians. Admitting that spiritual law cannot be tested, measured, quantified, or otherwise manipulated by man with physical measures is simply stating the obvious.

You are attempting to make an analogy that good/evil are as absolute as the laws of gravity. One can not make claims of the absolute on faith, faith deals with unknowns.

That's right. I can no more establish spiritual law based on faith than you can claim that it doesn't exist based on physical law, because (like you write), it is unknown. However, I can believe in an unknown with faith. You are locked up in physics. You cannot fully rule out unknowns. You can only fail to test and verify them physically, then admit that you cannot find proof either way.

If you admit it is unknown, how can then state you know it is absolute, let alone prove it is absolute?

I state that I believe spiritual law is absolute. Faith allows me that right.

I've already stated that I cannot prove it, and I have repeatedly outlined why.

Quote:
It is measurable with faith.

Oh, well in that case the absolute laws of good and evil are obviously those of the Muslim extremists. Hands down, their faith is measurably more devout than any others. I doubt you’re willing to blow yourself up to prove your faith.

Even though you don't seem to be getting it (or are dancing around the debate, not liking what I'm writing), you're right. I'm not willing to blow myself up to prove anything because:

1) It wouldn't prove anything about my faith to God
2) It would be a sin in the Catholic tradition, and thus evil
3) It is probably immoral in the eyes of God
4) Mrs. Huntster would be really pissed off, and thus God would be very disappointed in me
5) and I hate the injuries associated with blasts; they really hurt.

Quote:
My experience in prayerful life.

Which could just as easily be evidence you’re suffering from some mental disorder as it could for the existence of these effects of these laws, what makes you convinced it’s the latter?

Because the psychological testing I've undergone for employment purposes have indicated good psychological health, and even a high degree of many traits which many people consider "moral".

Those were tests based on scientific knowledge of psychology. You wouldn't debate the results of those, would you?

Now, do you have any evidence whatsoever that a reflection of life's experiences in prayer are any evidence whatsoever of a mental disorder?

I've been subjected to a various number and types of psychological examinations for employment purposes.

When was the last time you were psychologically evaluated?

 

[RandFan]

RandFan: I have the truth because I say so.

Wrong. Strawman.

I seek truth through objective means relying on the scientific method.

Huntster: I don't have the truth, but being raised Catholic and finding Catholic theology as sound as any other (and sounder than many), choose to seek Truth in the Catholic tradition, recognizing that no person has Truth in a cage.

Sounds like pro-hoc reasoning to me.

Good luck. Go with...........Whoever or Whatever.

"Good Luck"? This is the method that unlocked the secrets of the atom and of DNA. This is the method that took humans to the moon and sent probes to the outer most regions of our solar system, created computers, airplanes, automobiles, technology to grow sufficient food, medicine, etc.

None of this was based on luck.

Your method has given us many incompatible religions that have caused people to strap on bombs and kill people.

I would take my method exclusively over yours any day. ANY DAY.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
RandFan: I have the truth because I say so.

Wrong. Strawman.

I seek truth through objective means relying on the scientific method.

So, do you freely admit that you don't "have the truth" if the scientific method is incapable of determining it?

Quote:
Huntster: I don't have the truth, but being raised Catholic and finding Catholic theology as sound as any other (and sounder than many), choose to seek Truth in the Catholic tradition, recognizing that no person has Truth in a cage.

Sounds like pro-hoc reasoning to me.

Reasoning it is.

Quote:
Good luck. Go with...........Whoever or Whatever.

"Good Luck"? This is the method that unlocked the secrets of the atom and of DNA.

Both of which are physical phenomena.

This is the method that took humans to the moon and sent probes to the outer most regions of our solar system, created computers, airplanes, automobiles, technology to grow sufficient food, medicine, etc.

All of which are physical phenomena.

None of this was based on luck.

And none of that was spiritual phenomena.

Your method has given us many incompatible religions that have caused people to strap on bombs and kill people.

Religion and spirituality don't cause people to strap on bombs and kill people.

Evil does.

I would take my method exclusively over yours any day. ANY DAY.

Then take it and go with..........................Science.

(I'd wish you luck, but you don't seem to like that. Should I just say don't leave angry..............just leave?).

 

[RandFan]

I don't know if I want to get into this. Many things that have been claimed to be fallacious were shown to be not-fallacious. Fallacy is dependent, and not the other way around. If something hasn't been shown to be fallacious *yet*, oh well, that doesn't mean that our declarations of fallatio are anything more than what we are currently able to understand.

This is very misleading. It's true that there were things in the past that were believed to be correct that turned out not to be later. That said, there is no controversy or mystery about logic and fallacy. This is jut a great big red herring.

I was, and still am to a small degree, a programmer. I worked full time for nearly 20 years as a programmer. I can tell you that logic just doesn't work the way that you suggest. If you get an opportunity I recommend a course in logic or philosophy. I can assure you that if you understood what you are talking about as it concerns logic you wouldn't make such an error. I apologize for being patronizing but I've got to insist on sticking with logic and avoiding fallacy. Otherwise there really is no point in logically debating anything.

First, *which of your assumptions are you actually questioning*.

At the moment I'm not actively questioning any specific assumption. I do so on an as needed basis. I will tell you that when I first discovered that many of my assumptions were tenuous and subject to error I seriously examined my held beliefs. Based on the philosophical work of Descartes I started by questioning everything. Eventually I came to even question Descartes only certainty. "I think, therefor I am" (but that is another subject). This gave me a baseline and for the first time in my life I acquired knowledge not by simply relying on others to tell me what was correct and was not but I could critically examine the data and form for myself an opinion much the way a scientist tests a hypothesis by first finding a base line. I have been building on that ever since. Adopting the scientific method I hold no absolutes and that which I do hold I only hold provisionally. I can go back to my baseline at anytime. My foundation for my knowledge is strong because like science it is built on empiricism and critical inquiry rather than simply relying on intuition and emotion.

Second, I'd argue that Muslims tend *not* to use the Koran to try to convince everyone else that they are right. I've known many Muslims, and I've never experienced Koran fueled proselytizing.

Poor choice of words on my part.

1.) Muslims hold the that the Koran is their source of truth.
2.) Many Muslims believe that Christianity must be abolished and infidels converted.

I hope that clarifies things.

Seriously, wrong about *what* in particular?

If I adopted your view point I would assume that salvation comes only by Jesus Christ.

If I'm wrong and that is not your belief the please accept my apology. If I was wrong then let me ask you, do you belief that any set dogma or any specific theology incidental to salvation?

 

[RandFan]

So, do you freely admit that you don't "have the truth" if the scientific method is incapable of determining it?

Where did you get this notion? Let me quote someone else who is better than I at explain what I mean by "the truth".

Laurence Moran

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. ... In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Reasoning it is.

Yes, but pro-hoc is an extremely poor and notoriously unreliable method of reasoning. It is completely rejected by the scientific community. I wouldn't recommend it but I understand why you might want to use it. Pro-hoc is popular among those who would rather figure out what they believe and then prove that belief rather than simply find out the truth first and then decide what to believe.

Oh, oh, oh...

This is a great time for a great SNL quote.

Theodoric of York: [ steps toward the camera ] Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly follow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method". Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance! [ thinks for a minute ] Naaaaaahhh!

You see Huntster, post-hoc was the method employed during the dark ages.

But you are right, it IS reasoning.

Both of which are physical phenomena.

Ok and?

All of which are physical phenomena.

Ok and?

And none of that was spiritual phenomena.

I prefer "none of that is superstition".

Religion and spirituality don't cause people to strap on bombs and kill people.

Evil does.

Oh right, when "The God of Abraham" told his "people" to slaughter men, women and children that was not EVIL!

Huntster, one man's evil is another mans command from god.

Then take it and go with..........................Science.

(I'd wish you luck, but you don't seem to like that. Should I just say don't leave angry..............just leave?).

Oh hell, I'm not going anywhere. I rather like it here. Science, skepticism and reason have something to say in the Religion and Philosophy forum. And you can be damn sure I'm not angry. I leave that to the folks who get emotional and call others "stupid".

So, stick around, I'm here, we'll discuss enlightenment.

 

[Wheezebucket]

Evil?! THAT'S what makes us fight and kill?! Pssshh, who know it was that simple? All this time we've been arguing like schmucks, turns out - it's evil. And I should have known, really, I mean come on...it IS evil we're talking about. Well, that's that then. Evil is caused by evil, let's call it a night.

 

[jjramsey]

It occurs to me that to say, "The Gospels are contradictory, so they cannot be used as evidence" rests on the hidden assumption "false in part, false in all." That may be a useful legal rule for erring on the side of caution, but it just does not fit how humans actually behave. Not only do people tend to lie about some things more than others, but they also often make mistakes when they lie, and those mistakes can be used to figure out bits and pieces of the truth.

The Gospels are lousy evidence for miracles, true. However, given that crucifixion was regarded as degrading and dishonorable, it is unlikely that the doctrine was created de novo. The theology around the crucifixion makes far more sense as a post-hoc rationalization of an unfortunate event.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, do you freely admit that you don't "have the truth" if the scientific method is incapable of determining it?

Where did you get this notion?

From the fact that you indicate everybody else doesn't have the truth. I wanted to ensure that you aren't claiming to have it, and to have obtained it with the scientific method.

Let me quote someone else who is better than I at explain what I mean by "the truth".

Quote:
Laurence Moran

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. ... In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Spirituality is also "not about the empirical world". It is, by nature, not physical. It does not react to science.

Quote:
Reasoning it is.

Yes, but pro-hoc is an extremely poor and notoriously unreliable method of reasoning. It is completely rejected by the scientific community. I wouldn't recommend it but I understand why you might want to use it. Pro-hoc is popular among those who would rather figure out what they believe and then prove that belief rather than simply find out the truth first and then decide what to believe.

Then it doesn't apply to me, since I have no intent to try to prove my beliefs, have repeatedly stated that, and state it is not possible to prove them.

You see Huntster, post-hoc was the method employed during the dark ages.

Yup. Even physical, scientific phenomena was treated in such a way then.

But you are right, it IS reasoning.

That's right.

Quote:
Both of which are physical phenomena.

Ok and?

The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

Quote:
All of which are physical phenomena.

Ok and?

The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

Quote:
And none of that was spiritual phenomena.

I prefer "none of that is superstition".

Superstition and spirituality are two different things.

Quote:
Religion and spirituality don't cause people to strap on bombs and kill people.

Quote:
Evil does.

Oh right, when "The God of Abraham" told his "people" to slaughter men, women and children that was not EVIL![/QUOTE]

Apparently not.

Huntster, one man's evil is another mans command from god.

I say God doesn't command evil acts.

 

[RandFan]

From the fact that you indicate everybody else doesn't have the truth. I wanted to ensure that you aren't claiming to have it, and to have obtained it with the scientific method.

When did I indicate this? Please to stick with what I say and not what you think I said.

Spirituality is also "not about the empirical world". It is, by nature, not physical. It does not react to science.

That's right. So why should anyone rely on it? How many "truths" does it generate? There are hundreds of incompatible religions. Since none of them can be empirically tested how does one find the truth?

Then it doesn't apply to me, since I have no intent to try to prove my beliefs, have repeatedly stated that, and state it is not possible to prove them.

Follow the responses back to the beginning of our exchange and you get this "You are free to do what ever you want (so long as it is legal) but that won't change the fact that it is still a fallacy."

It is still fallacy.

Yup. Even physical, scientific phenomena was treated in such a way then.

What? I don't know what this means.

That's right.

Bad, dangerous reasoning.

The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

No kidding. It's a crap shoot. It depends... oh, how did you say it?

...but being raised Catholic and finding Catholic theology as sound as any other (and sounder than many),

(emphasis mine) That's it, it depends on how you are raised. Odd way for god to disseminate the truth. Oh, and have you noticed that everyone's religion is "sounder than many". That's kind of like asking people to rate their driving abilities. Most people are better than average.

The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

You and I agree. We must rely on how we were raised.

Superstition and spirituality are two different things.

There is no such thing as superstition to the superstitious.

Oh right, when "The God of Abraham" told his "people" to slaughter men, women and children that was not EVIL!

Apparently not.

Wow, so evil is determine by god? Any time someone kills in the name of god it is not evil. Muslims say there god tells them to kill non-Muslims. By your logic, so long as they believe this, it is not evil. And let's be intellectually honest here, you have admitted that the spiritual can't be proven. It is simply to be believed. Good job, you just found a way for anyone to defend evil. They need but honestly believe that god told them to act in a way that would otherwise be evil. Apparently 9/11 wasn't evil.

I say God doesn't command evil acts.

That's what the terrorists keep telling us. Allah Akbar.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
From the fact that you indicate everybody else doesn't have the truth. I wanted to ensure that you aren't claiming to have it, and to have obtained it with the scientific method.

When did I indicate this? Please to stick with what I say and not what you think I said.

By listing others who you claim claim to have the truth, and not listing your own position, you indicate that you have something they don't. I asked to verify this wasn't the case.

Quote:
Spirituality is also "not about the empirical world". It is, by nature, not physical. It does not react to science.

That's right. So why should anyone rely on it?

Because it's an issue that science apparently can't verify, and which requires either faith, rejection, or indifference.

How many "truths" does it generate? There are hundreds of incompatible religions. Since none of them can be empirically tested how does one find the truth?

I don't believe any of them have truth caged. The best one can do is study and pray.

Quote:
Then it doesn't apply to me, since I have no intent to try to prove my beliefs, have repeatedly stated that, and state it is not possible to prove them.

Follow the responses back to the beginning of our exchange and you get this "You are free to do what ever you want (so long as it is legal) but that won't change the fact that it is still a fallacy."

It is still fallacy.

That is your opinion, and you are free to hold it dear.

Quote:
Yup. Even physical, scientific phenomena was treated in such a way then.

What? I don't know what this means.

Physical science wasn't treated or exercised in the Dark Ages like it is today.

Quote:
That's right.

Bad, dangerous reasoning.

Your opinions are yours, but calling my reasoning "dangerous" is coming close to stepping over the line.

Quote:
The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

No kidding. It's a crap shoot. It depends... oh, how did you say it?

I don't know. How do you say it?

Quote:
...but being raised Catholic and finding Catholic theology as sound as any other (and sounder than many),

(emphasis mine) That's it, it depends on how you are raised. Odd way for god to disseminate the truth.

No, it doesn't fully depend on how you are raised, although that is a significant factor. That's why raising children is such a critical effort.

And who are you to determine what God should do and why?

Oh, and have you noticed that everyone's religion is "sounder than many". That's kind of like asking people to rate their driving abilities. Most people are better than average.

Ever consider the possibility that the religion people are familiar with is the one they have studied, understand, and otherwise are most knowledgable about?

Does it take a "scientific" study to figure that one out, Einstein?

Quote:
The scientific method is appropriate to test and learn of these phenomena. It is not appropriate to test and learn of spirituality, because it won't work.

You and I agree. We must rely on how we were raised.

Again, not necessarily. How we were raised will dominate our learning processes and what we learned at an early age, but it shouldn't necessarily be the "only way."

Quote:
Superstition and spirituality are two different things.

There is no such thing as superstition to the superstitious.

But there are faulty superstitions that are recognized by many religious people.

Quote:
Oh right, when "The God of Abraham" told his "people" to slaughter men, women and children that was not EVIL!

Maybe the person who claimed God told his "people" to slaughter men, women, and children was evil, and falsely claimed that "God told me to do it".

Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just.

I don't know. Neither do you.

Quote:
Apparently not.

Wow, so evil is determine by god?

Yes. More precisely, since God is good, evil is the opposite of God.

Any time someone kills in the name of god it is not evil. Muslims say there god tells them to kill non-Muslims. By your logic, so long as they believe this, it is not evil.

That is not true. I've already pointed that out in this post:

Originally Posted by I less than three logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Okay. Matters of opinion (like what is attractive or not, or any other CHOICE is not subject to law. (I hope you recognize the circle we've run with this.........).

Are you now suggesting that good and evil are fully matters of opinion?

What one considers good or evil is dependent on one’s moral philosophy, which is formed by a variety of factors. The environment they grew up in, aspiring to be like those they admire, lessons learned through action and consequence (based on the moral philosophies of others around them), predictions on what others will think of certain actions to name a few. So yes, I consider good and evil to be matters of opinion, although I prefer terms right and wrong or, perhaps, just and unjust since good and evil carry with them a lot of religious baggage.

So, it is perfectly "right" for a New Guinea tribesman to kill a visitor and eat him because that is the moral environment he grew up in, he aspires to succeed in that moral environment, and he has learned that lesson through observing it done.

Thus it is "good" because he "opines" that it is good based on his life experiences, even though a 25 year old college student in a California suburb might "opine" that it is "wrong" (or the Huntster "opine" that it is "evil", because the Huntster is religious).

Sorry. I reject that. I say it is "wrong" or "evil" (whichever you prefer) because spiritual law dictates that it is "wrong" or "evil."

And let's be intellectually honest here, you have admitted that the spiritual can't be proven. It is simply to be believed. Good job, you just found a way for anyone to defend evil. They need but honestly believe that god told them to act in a way that would otherwise be evil. Apparently 9/11 wasn't evil.

You call that intellectual honesty?

Give me a break.........

Quote:
I say God doesn't command evil acts.

That's what the terrorists keep telling us. Allah Akbar.

God is great.

And that has nothing to do with killing innocent people.

 

[RandFan]

By listing others who you claim claim to have the truth, and not listing your own position, you indicate that you have something they don't. I asked to verify this wasn't the case.

In all honesty I have no idea what you are talking about.

Because it's an issue that science apparently can't verify, and which requires either faith, rejection, or indifference.

That's not an answer to the question.

I don't believe any of them have truth caged. The best one can do is study and pray.

That doesn't inspire confidence.

That is your opinion, and you are free to hold it dear.

More than mere opinion but you are free to think that it is.

Physical science wasn't treated or exercised in the Dark Ages like it is today.

That's right. We gave up on pro-hoc reasoning. There is a message there for anyone willing to recieve it.

Your opinions are yours, but calling my reasoning "dangerous" is coming close to stepping over the line.

Faulty reasoning is dangerous which is why science has stopped using it. Faulty reasoning is the reason so many people died because their doctors removed the patients blood when doing so only made things worse.

I don't know. How do you say it?

"Coincidental"

No, it doesn't fully depend on how you are raised, although that is a significant factor. That's why raising children is such a critical effort.

I never said fully. But it is a fact that Muslims raise Muslims, Sikhs raise Sikhs, Buddhists raise Buddhists, Mormons raise Mormons, etc. This is a fact that can't be reasonably denied.

And who are you to determine what God should do and why?

I'm only noting that it is a poor way to do something.

Ever consider the possibility that the religion people are familiar with is the one they have studied, understand, and otherwise are most knowledgable about?

Of course. That IS my point. The results still leave incompatible religions.

Does it take a "scientific" study to figure that one out, Einstein?

Not called for especially since that was the very point that I was trying to make.

Again, not necessarily. How we were raised will dominate our learning processes and what we learned at an early age, but it shouldn't necessarily be the "only way."

Of course not but it renders consistent results.

But there are faulty superstitions that are recognized by many religious people.

One person's faulty superstition is another's religion.

Maybe the person who claimed God told his "people" to slaughter men, women, and children was evil, and falsely claimed that "God told me to do it".

You've lost me, are you saying that the events depicted in the bible could have been the result of evil men?

Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just.

(emphasis mine)

1.) Women, children and infants?
2.) If you say yes to #1 then is it not reasonable that God directed the 9/11 conspirators to kill Americans because we are evil?

I don't know. Neither do you.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" --6th Commandment.

In all honesty, I don't know. I do know that killing humans in the name of god is fairly universal.

Yes. More precisely, since God is good, evil is the opposite of God.

Therein lies the problem. Since god is good (translated "allah akbar") killing infidels for allah and his one true prophet, Mohammad, is good. Nice.

That is not true. I've already pointed that out in this post:

This is contradictory with your above post. Who are YOU to tell god what he can and can't do (please see your response above).

1. You admit that god can't be proven, only believed.
2. You stated "Maybe the people who were killed were evil, God did direct the massacre, and it was just."
3. If the fact that god can't be proven and it can only be believed then we must accept that simply believing that god wants you to kill people is sufficient justification.

Huntster, I know that you don't like this and I'm sorry but there simply is no escape from your own logic.

• Either god can be proven or god can't.
• If god can't be proven then either belief is sufficient for killing or it isn't.

You call that intellectual honesty?

I don't simply call it intellectually honesty, the logic compels an intellectually honest person to accept the result of the logic. The choice is yours.

God is great.

Tell that to all who have died to please god.

And that has nothing to do with killing innocent people.

Really?

Tell that to the baby boys killed by the destroying angel as a result of god's wrath against Pharaoh.
Tell that to the innocent children who were the victims of god's command to Moses "Kill every male among the little ones".

You can't reasonably have your cake and eat it to. If you get to say that you don't have to prove that god lives and ordered these killings and therefore they are just then the terrorists get to say that they don't have to prove that god told them to kill innocents.

 

[elliotfc]

In all honesty I don't understand your point. You say that the law of gravity can no more be "proven" than gravity. I disagree. In the scientific sense it can be proven. Moral laws can't.

The law of gravity *is* gravity. That's my point. You could just call it gravity, or, in your case, you call it the "law of gravity". I guess it's no biggie. It's gravity.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, but what significance. That there exists some significance is no reason to elevate what ever it is we are talking about.

No, we already *have* elevated what ever it is we are talking about. Whether we ought to or not...too late for that, right?

There was a time lots of people believed in leprechauns and that he leprechauns were significant in the lives, culture and customs of those people, so what?

I dunno, you tell me, you bring it up. I never brought up leprechauns, and you're trying to pull a "so what" on me?

So what? I hardly see the difference except your brother is bigger than the schools bullies brother. Who cares about how grand the fantasy is?

Well I see a lot more differences, so I don't accept your premise. As for the who cares, apparently a lot of people, including yourself, care.

Ally beliefs in mythologies exist for reasons, so what?

I think it's good to understand reasons, personally.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

This is very misleading. It's true that there were things in the past that were believed to be correct that turned out not to be later. That said, there is no controversy or mystery about logic and fallacy. This is jut a great big red herring.

Logic and fallacy are proclaimed. Invoked. Promulgated. I get that this is the *thing* that you HAVE to be dogmatic about, as it enables the classifications of others as illogical, irrational, etc. Logic and fallacy are not disembodied entities that exist. It is what is, and what isn't. And there is a hell of a lot of controversy/mystery about what is and what isn't. You *prove* that by talking with me. I'd take you more seriously if you acted as if there was no controversy/mystery, but you prove the opposite by having a discussion. It strikes me as desparate. Your turn to invoke the phrase "canard" or "strawman" or "red herring". The ubermenschian playbook hasn't changed in the two years I've been here.

You say there is no controversy/mystery about logic and fallacy, and human history proves otherwise.

I don't accept you as the articulator of logic/fallacy, it's bluster, and I'll spare you my reactions to your bluster for the rest of this thread.

I was, and still am to a small degree, a programmer. I worked full time for nearly 20 years as a programmer. I can tell you that logic just doesn't work the way that you suggest. If you get an opportunity I recommend a course in logic or philosophy. I can assure you that if you understood what you are talking about as it concerns logic you wouldn't make such an error. I apologize for being patronizing but I've got to insist on sticking with logic and avoiding fallacy. Otherwise there really is no point in logically debating anything.

I don't think you're being patronizing, I just think you're being a blusterbuss.

At the moment I'm not actively questioning any specific assumption. I do so on an as needed basis. I will tell you that when I first discovered that many of my assumptions were tenuous and subject to error I seriously examined my held beliefs.

I recognize my assumptions and understand that my beliefs may be wrong. I have zero expectation that anyone in this forum take my assumptions and beliefs as their own. You may or may not be implying that I don't seriously examine my held beliefs. If you aren't, fine, and if you are, there's an objective answer to the matter, but the result I think would determine whether or not you'd agree.

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The Gospels are lousy evidence for miracles, true. However, given that crucifixion was regarded as degrading and dishonorable, it is unlikely that the doctrine was created de novo. The theology around the crucifixion makes far more sense as a post-hoc rationalization of an unfortunate event.

That's merely an assumption. Why wouldn't the writers of the Bible fiction use a horrible, but common, tragic death?

 

[elliotfc]

This is very misleading. It's true that there were things in the past that were believed to be correct that turned out not to be later. That said, there is no controversy or mystery about logic and fallacy. This is jut a great big red herring.

Another response, I was quite miffed with the first one, but geniality has returned.

Re: logic/fallacy, if you're talking about mathematical reasoning, I get yer point. I think we agreed that this stuff is not exactly the same (going back to the laws question, "gravity" laws vs. moral/legal laws).

Also, you're just saying Q.E.D. over and over again. You're saying you're being logical, others aren't, all that. Fine. Q.E.D. I'm not content with just that obviously.

I was, and still am to a small degree, a programmer. I worked full time for nearly 20 years as a programmer. I can tell you that logic just doesn't work the way that you suggest.

Well you're an intelligent designer, right? What you say works, works within the confines of your intelligent design. I get that. I don't know if the totality of the understanding which you have in the *world* of programming necessarily translates and dictates the totality of how logic/reason works, or ought to work, in this one. You can be adamant that it does, but I dunno.

If you get an opportunity I recommend a course in logic or philosophy.

Tickled that you would make a statement, but it's a manifestation of your particular faith.

Based on the philosophical work of Descartes I started by questioning everything.

No problem with that.

My foundation for my knowledge is strong because like science it is built on empiricism and critical inquiry rather than simply relying on intuition and emotion.

I'm not questioning either your knowledge, or your foundation. I would disagree if you assert that certain things/opinions *necessarily* follow from your knowledge or your foundation.

1.) Muslims hold the that the Koran is their source of truth.
2.) Many Muslims believe that Christianity must be abolished and infidels converted.

I hope that clarifies things.

If I adopted your view point I would assume that salvation comes only by Jesus Christ.

Yes, it's a very curt way of putting it, but this is correct.

If I'm wrong and that is not your belief the please accept my apology. If I was wrong then let me ask you, do you belief that any set dogma or any specific theology incidental to salvation?

I think that I was thinking that you were saying that all religious arguments are essentially the same and how the hell do you know which to go with, if Christianity why not elves or whatever.

I'm saying, and these aren't connected really...

1)If you examine Christianity closely, and examine elves closely, the differences are quite astounding, and you can probably figure out why people tend to go with Christianity and not elves, even if you have no use for either

2)There are specific dogmas that Muslims and Christians would mutually reject, but others can be harmonized. Kind of like how you actually can be a Christian and a Zen Buddhist at the same time.

3)I've been told that you can't understand the Koran unless you know Arabic and that it's a fool's errand to preach the Koran in English because the Koran can't be appreciated in English. I don't know if that's a majority or minority opinion in Islam.

4)Objections to my particular religion are real, and I recognize that if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then I'm right. If I'm right, I'm not going to taunt others (in the next one) for being illogical, unreasonable, irrational. Who the hell cares.



And finally, and in general, I have *never* had a problem, in this forum, of talking about *specific* points regarding what is reasonable, or rational, etc. Mantras invoking logic/fallacy as general rules are annoying.

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

No, we already *have* elevated what ever it is we are talking about. Whether we ought to or not...too late for that, right?

I haven't elevated it and don't think it should be. That's my point. It's not too late. Let's simply say that it shouldn't be. That's all.

I dunno, you tell me, you bring it up. I never brought up leprechauns, and you're trying to pull a "so what" on me?

Yes, I am. It's called making a point by counter example. "So what" for one earns a "so what" for the other. Your response is simply evasive.

Well I see a lot more differences, so I don't accept your premise. As for the who cares, apparently a lot of people, including yourself, care.

Of course you see a lot more differences, it's your belief. The premise however stands. Whether or not I "care" is not proof of anything. This is a non point.

I think it's good to understand reasons, personally.

Having a reason to think or do something doesn't make the reason valid. You are simply arguing that people have reasons. So what?

 

[RandFan]

The law of gravity *is* gravity. That's my point. You could just call it gravity, or, in your case, you call it the "law of gravity". I guess it's no biggie. It's gravity.

I shrug my shoulders. This is a non-point. At best it is a semantic quibble.