Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Dancing Mustard]

I can only hope that someday people will be able to tell the difference between assumed reality and actual reality.

Yes, me to.

When that day finally comes we'll all be able to put these silly campfire stories behind us and stop believing in fantastical fairytales that were written by men in caves several thousand years ago. We'll all be able to live in an actual reality, instead of a bizarre fictionalised one, filled with invisible puppeteers, zombie half-gods, banished demons and judgemental spirits.

What a beautiful day that will be.

[tzor]

Obviously, since yahweh doesn't exist any more than allah or baal, (tribal) religions are fundamentally equivalent.

Speaking of my last post. Here we see the argument in principle.

It seems odd in the name of psudo-science how people can make blatent statements that things are false and not be called to the carpet to prove it.

Obviously, since Shakespeare doesn't exist any more than Robin Hood or King Arthur ...

You ignored my last response...

Suddenly you are arguing against 'blatant statements' of belief - or, in our case, of an absence of belief. Do you preface every prayer you make with 'bearing in mind the arguments for and against your existence....'?

speaking of which:
Blatant statement number 2:
A supernatural creator exists. He impregnated a virgin and sacrificed the resulting offspring. He is invisible to us but can read our thoughts.

Do you disagree with any of this?
Can you prove any of it?
I'm guessing the answer, in both cases, is 'no'.

Blatant statement no. 3:
Unicorns don't exist.

Call me to the carpet!

Sorry I will call you to the carpet. You seem to be missing the flaw in your own logic. Had you said "Obviously, since yahweh cannot be proven to exist any more than allah or baal, (tribal) religions are fundamentally equivalent" then you would have a better argument. A false one but none the less better. Even then not all things that cannot be proven are "fundamentally equivalent."

OJ was proven not to be a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I'm pretty sure that you would be proven not to be a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Just because you are both not proven to be murderers doesn't mean you're "fundamentally equivalent."

As for blatent statement number 2, yes it is the burden of proof for the one making the claim. Failure to provide that proof constitutes a lack of proof. It doesn't prove the negative.

As for blatent statement number 3, that needs to be prefaced with "as far as we know." I've never seen a unicorn. I know of no one who has seen a unicorn. I've heard of a one horned deer, and a one horned goat. I've heard of a narwhale.

In short there are three states to logic, what is known to be true, what is known to be false, and what is simply not known. It may be true, or it may be false, but it is not false simply because it is not known to be true. Nor are all things not known fundamentally equivalent since knowledge is never binary and all things are not known to some extent or other.

[Neoteny]

As for blatent statement number 2, yes it is the burden of proof for the one making the claim. Failure to provide that proof constitutes a lack of proof. It doesn't prove the negative.

Fair enough. Just don't ask me to respect the claim with words such as "logical" and "coherent."

[heavycola]

Obviously, since yahweh doesn't exist any more than allah or baal, (tribal) religions are fundamentally equivalent.

Speaking of my last post. Here we see the argument in principle.

It seems odd in the name of psudo-science how people can make blatent statements that things are false and not be called to the carpet to prove it.

Obviously, since Shakespeare doesn't exist any more than Robin Hood or King Arthur ...

You ignored my last response...

Suddenly you are arguing against 'blatant statements' of belief - or, in our case, of an absence of belief. Do you preface every prayer you make with 'bearing in mind the arguments for and against your existence....'?

speaking of which:
Blatant statement number 2:
A supernatural creator exists. He impregnated a virgin and sacrificed the resulting offspring. He is invisible to us but can read our thoughts.

Do you disagree with any of this?
Can you prove any of it?
I'm guessing the answer, in both cases, is 'no'.

Blatant statement no. 3:
Unicorns don't exist.

Call me to the carpet!

Sorry I will call you to the carpet. You seem to be missing the flaw in your own logic. Had you said "Obviously, since yahweh cannot be proven to exist any more than allah or baal, (tribal) religions are fundamentally equivalent" then you would have a better argument. A false one but none the less better. Even then not all things that cannot be proven are "fundamentally equivalent."

And you seem to be missing my point. Why must I equivocate?
In the homosexuality thread you said something like 'sexual impulses are occasions of sin'. This statement presupposes that sin exists. My statement presupposed that god doesn't exist. Do you preface every prayer with 'although your existence cannot be proven or unproven...'?

Presupposing that god is fictional, as atheists are wont to do, all tribal religions are in the position of worshipping fictional creations. That's a pretty fundamental link.
It wasn;t really my point, however, which was that the Israelites were monolatrous, not monotheistic. According to Karen Arsmtrong for one, anyway.


And by the way:
''Even then not all things that cannot be proven are "fundamentally equivalent."' - don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that, and nor would I. See above.

[Backglass]

In short there are three states to logic, what is known to be true, what is known to be false, and what is simply not known.

Using your line of reasoning, no one has disproven Leprechauns. Do you worship them as well?

They may be real after all.

The problem here is that some people are unable to discern the difference between fantasy and reality.

[Dancing Mustard]

The problem here is that some people are unable to discern the difference between fantasy and reality.

You're missing the vitally important third category of "Things which sound exactly like some of the very craziest fantasies around, that aren't backed by any proofs which aren't self-referencing hearsay or idle speculation, but which haven't been proven comprehensively and 100% impossible as, that flocks of people slavishly and unquestioningly base their lives around regardless of the fact that there are several hundred equally plausible fantasies to which they could subscribe"

[kletka]

The problem here is that some people are unable to discern the difference between fantasy and reality.

Can you? Then tell me which of the 5 superstring theories are fantasies, and which ones are realities Or have a good read of Kapustin-Witten http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0604151 and tell me what it has to do with reality...

Now, go back to my post above with "trinity for dummies"...

(1) Does the world exists? Yes it does and someone or something created it (according to modern physics)... Making an assumption that whoever created it, has a free will, gives you God-Father.

(2) Do you suddenly feel good at certain places, after doing certain things; do you feel this sudden divine supernatural presence? Well, I do... Here you go: Holy Ghost is around without any assumptions...

(3) JC is a different piece of bread as his life is described in the gospels. Do gospels constitute a proof? Sure not mathematical or scientific, but historical no doubt. If you use historic methodology, JC definitely existed and risen from the dead Now everyone needs an assumption: you either assume that he is the son of a god or assume that he faked his death somehow

Anyway, if you want to become a jedi, you just assume that the creator in (1) has no free will and it is the same as Holy Ghost in (2). Welcome to my temple

[joecoolfrog]

Surely, "Salem witches" and Tomas de Torquemada are Hollywood hoaxes , aren't they?

No, but they are often not what they appear. The problems at Salem are a good example. I don't have all the material in front of me as I did the due dilligence over twenty years ago but that's a fascinating story of politics. There is an element of religious politics as well, but not in the direction you would expect. Once the ball got rolling it was used as a method to take down a young preacher who was gaining in popularity.

Witch hunters in Europe are a similiar situation, like con men or ambulence chasing lawyers these were secular men who had a nice pyramid scheme going where they could make a ton of money. All they needed to do was accuse someone. Not only did they get their property, but after a little torture they could get the victim to give them ten more "friends" to get their property from. In this manner they moved from town to town and made a nice living in the process. Judging from their victims and the confessions thereof I would also say that they were sex perverts and pedophiles.

(But hey, getting 14 year old virgins to descibe in detail sex scenes with demons is priceless.)

Hee Hee nice try but nobody ( who wished to stay alive ) was truly secular at that time, at the very least you paid lip service to the church and the witch hunts were certainly carried out in its name. No doubt many who took part did so for money rather than in a spirit of religious zeal, but in all honesty can you deny that many of the actions of Rome were not for similar reasons.

[tzor]

And you seem to be missing my point. Why must I equivocate?
In the homosexuality thread you said something like 'sexual impulses are occasions of sin'. This statement presupposes that sin exists. My statement presupposed that god doesn't exist. Do you preface every prayer with 'although your existence cannot be proven or unproven...'?

No, my statement does nothing of the sort. My statement instead has a definition problem. "A is B of C" ... define C ... define B of C. It is not a question here of C existing but a question of C being defined.

Your statement, on the other hand was a "Since X does not exist any more than Y or Z then the superset of all of type XYZ are fundamentally equivalent" which is basically an insult to the rules of logic.

And presuposing is really functionally equivalent to assuming. The problem with assuming is that while you can prove things based on those assumptions the base assumptions themselves are just that, nothing more than base assumptions. If you simply assume god doesn't exist ... well there is not much farther you can go from there.

[jonesthecurl]

The problem here is that some people are unable to discern the difference between fantasy and reality.

Can you? Then tell me which of the 5 superstring theories are fantasies, and which ones are realities Or have a good read of Kapustin-Witten http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0604151 and tell me what it has to do with reality...

Now, go back to my post above with "trinity for dummies"...

(1) Does the world exists? Yes it does and someone or something created it (according to modern physics)... Making an assumption that whoever created it, has a free will, gives you God-Father.

modern physics does not say "someone or something" created the universe.

(2) Do you suddenly feel good at certain places, after doing certain things; do you feel this sudden divine supernatural presence? Well, I do... Here you go: Holy Ghost is around without any assumptions...

You feeling good does not prove the existence of the Holy Ghost

(3) JC is a different piece of bread as his life is described in the gospels. Do gospels constitute a proof? Sure not mathematical or scientific, but historical no doubt. If you use historic methodology, JC definitely existed and risen from the dead Now everyone needs an assumption: you either assume that he is the son of a god or assume that he faked his death somehow

That somebody says (ie the writers of the gospels) that someone said (ie the disciples) that someone rose from the dead, does not make it historical fact

Anyway, if you want to become a jedi, you just assume that the creator in (1) has no free will and it is the same as Holy Ghost in (2). Welcome to my temple

and if you want to become a {self-suppressed flame name} put up more silly posts

[tzor]

Using your line of reasoning, no one has disproven Leprechauns. Do you worship them as well?

But no one that I know has seen them. No one that I know has heard them. No one that I know has been annoyed by them. I have not seen, heard or have been annoyed by them. It is therefore probably unlikely that I will see, hear or be annoyed by them. Therefore I can safely ignore them.

[Backglass]

(1) Does the world exists? Yes it does and someone or something created it (according to modern physics)... Making an assumption that whoever created it, has a free will, gives you God-Father.

You know what happens when you assume. You assume that some being MUST have "created" everything. I do not believe this.

(2) Do you suddenly feel good at certain places, after doing certain things; do you feel this sudden divine supernatural presence? Well, I do... Here you go: Holy Ghost is around without any assumptions...

You are truly delusional. I feel good most of the time, but this is not because of some magical presence or "super ghost".

(3) JC is a different piece of bread as his life is described in the gospels. Do gospels constitute a proof? Sure not mathematical or scientific, but historical no doubt. If you use historic methodology, JC definitely existed and risen from the dead Now everyone needs an assumption: you either assume that he is the son of a god or assume that he faked his death somehow

Or neither. Political fish stories have been around since time began and continue today (sniper fire anyone?). None of this proves that a Sky-Daddy® exists...only that a human being named jesus once existed and was obviously very charismatic & influential for his time.

You choose to believe in Legend and Lore from an ancient people. I choose not to believe in fiction.


[SkyDaddy® is a Registered Trademark of Backglass Industries)

[tzor]

Hee Hee nice try but nobody ( who wished to stay alive ) was truly secular at that time, at the very least you paid lip service to the church and the witch hunts were certainly carried out in its name. No doubt many who took part did so for money rather than in a spirit of religious zeal, but in all honesty can you deny that many of the actions of Rome were not for similar reasons.

When I get the time I will try to dig out my Encyclopedia of Witcraft and Demonology by Russel H Robbins. It's literally burried in the corner of my den somewhere. One of the most interesting things was how unversal the scare was over all of Europe, both in Protestant and Catholic nations.

[joecoolfrog]

Hee Hee nice try but nobody ( who wished to stay alive ) was truly secular at that time, at the very least you paid lip service to the church and the witch hunts were certainly carried out in its name. No doubt many who took part did so for money rather than in a spirit of religious zeal, but in all honesty can you deny that many of the actions of Rome were not for similar reasons.

When I get the time I will try to dig out my Encyclopedia of Witcraft and Demonology by Russel H Robbins. It's literally burried in the corner of my den somewhere. One of the most interesting things was how unversal the scare was over all of Europe, both in Protestant and Catholic nations.

Its an interesting subject so please do but my 2 points remain valid, firstly that no individual was truly secular and secondly that the powers to be often used religion as a mask for power and profit. Henry may have had protestant leanings but that was far from the driving force in him cutting ties with Rome, if it was good enough for him then you cant blame the odd witch hunter from jumping aboard the waggon.The inquisition was perhaps inspired by divine purpose but the church certainly did nicely out of the confiscated wealth and property, especially that of Jews.

[jonesthecurl]

Hee Hee nice try but nobody ( who wished to stay alive ) was truly secular at that time, at the very least you paid lip service to the church and the witch hunts were certainly carried out in its name. No doubt many who took part did so for money rather than in a spirit of religious zeal, but in all honesty can you deny that many of the actions of Rome were not for similar reasons.

When I get the time I will try to dig out my Encyclopedia of Witcraft and Demonology by Russel H Robbins. It's literally burried in the corner of my den somewhere. One of the most interesting things was how unversal the scare was over all of Europe, both in Protestant and Catholic nations.

Apparently it never caught on much in Wales, at least amongst the welsh-speakers - the verse "though shalt not suffer a witch to live" puzzled them, as "witch" was translated by the same word as they used to describe both Merlin and the Three Wise Men.

[tzor]

The inquisition was perhaps inspired by divine purpose but the church certainly did nicely out of the confiscated wealth and property, especially that of Jews.

Sorry but that was an incorrect answer. Technically speaking the Inquisition delt with heresy. They did not prosecute non Christians. The Spanish Inquisition may seem an apparent exception but that was only because before he asked Rome for an Inquisition, the King of Spain commanded all Jews and Moslems to either convert or leave the country. Many "converted." He then called for the Inquisition becasuse they were still observing their old faith but at that point they were technically "Christians" and so the Inquisition applied.

In a like manner Jews were for the most part not targeted by witch hunters since only a Christian could be a witch. There were, however, a plethora of other things that Christians did to Jews in this time, so I don't want to say that they had a good time.

[Backglass]

Using your line of reasoning, no one has disproven Leprechauns. Do you worship them as well?

But no one that I know has seen them. No one that I know has heard them. No one that I know has been annoyed by them. I have not seen, heard or have been annoyed by them. It is therefore probably unlikely that I will see, hear or be annoyed by them. Therefore I can safely ignore them.

[kletka]

(1) Does the world exists? Yes it does and someone or something created it (according to modern physics)... Making an assumption that whoever created it, has a free will, gives you God-Father.

modern physics does not say "someone or something" created the universe.

I am refering to the Big Bang. The universe has been created during the Big Bang. Are you unhappy with this cosmological theory?

kletka wrote:
(2) Do you suddenly feel good at certain places, after doing certain things; do you feel this sudden divine supernatural presence? Well, I do... Here you go: Holy Ghost is around without any assumptions...
You are truly delusional. I feel good most of the time, but this is not because of some magical presence or "super ghost".

No, you must be truly mad to feel good at all times I happen to feel miserable most of the time

Anyways, while it does not prove an existense of Holy Ghost in scientific sense, it may prove it to individual. It works for me. I accept that it may not work for you...

That somebody says (ie the writers of the gospels) that someone said (ie the disciples) that someone rose from the dead, does not make it historical fact[/b]

If you read my post, I say "let us apply historic methodology". Count how many copies of the bible survived since ancient times. Cross-check various copies. Now collect all the other historic sources where it is mentioned...

Very little of human history is "a fact". Fomenko comes up with his new chronology and historians cannot disprove it. For instance, Fomenko "proves" that Mongol empire never existed So is existence of Chinghis-Khan a historic fact?

[MeDeFe]

Where it's mentioned, yeah, good idea, like the dead sea scrolls. No wait, they do not mention Jesus despite being written by a messianic sect at the time... damn, that's a bummer.

[Backglass]

No, you must be truly mad to feel good at all times I happen to feel miserable most of the time

Anyways, while it does not prove an existense of Holy Ghost in scientific sense, it may prove it to individual. It works for me. I accept that it may not work for you...

If you truly feel miserable most of the time and must rely on invisible ghosts to help you feel better, you have some serious psychological issues. I do hope you seek treatment.

If you read my post, I say "let us apply historic methodology". Count how many copies of the bible survived since ancient times. Cross-check various copies. Now collect all the other historic sources where it is mentioned...

Let us count how many times people "knock on wood" to wake up the spirits and prevent bad luck. Just think how many times it happens per day and the billions of times it has happened throughout history! Surely this must ONLY mean that those spirits really do exist inside all things wooden!

[kletka]

No, you must be truly mad to feel good at all times I happen to feel miserable most of the time

Anyways, while it does not prove an existense of Holy Ghost in scientific sense, it may prove it to individual. It works for me. I accept that it may not work for you...

If you truly feel miserable most of the time and must rely on invisible ghosts to help you feel better, you have some serious psychological issues. I do hope you seek treatment.

Thanks for your concerns!! You seem to know much about psychology... You must be regular then

It is normal for a human to feel ups and downs. Currently I am down, just coasting into my summer holidays. I will feel better after two weeks in Alps...

[tzor]

Where it's mentioned, yeah, good idea, like the dead sea scrolls. No wait, they do not mention Jesus despite being written by a messianic sect at the time... damn, that's a bummer.

Consider this, even when much is known about a person it is easy for historians to doubt. No matter how much you write, no matter how much is written about you. Consider poor old Shakespeare.

"The known facts about Shakespeare's life ... can be written down on one side of a sheet of notepaper."

[jonesthecurl]

So tell me: how many "copies of the bible" have "survived since ancient times"?

Careful: this is a leading question.

[Snorri1234]

"The known facts about Shakespeare's life ... can be written down on one side of a sheet of notepaper."

Leaving most of the page blank.

[heavycola]

And you seem to be missing my point. Why must I equivocate?
In the homosexuality thread you said something like 'sexual impulses are occasions of sin'. This statement presupposes that sin exists. My statement presupposed that god doesn't exist. Do you preface every prayer with 'although your existence cannot be proven or unproven...'?

No, my statement does nothing of the sort. My statement instead has a definition problem. "A is B of C" ... define C ... define B of C. It is not a question here of C existing but a question of C being defined.

Your statement, on the other hand was a "Since X does not exist any more than Y or Z then the superset of all of type XYZ are fundamentally equivalent" which is basically an insult to the rules of logic.

what utter tosh! I said that since gods do not exist, all religions share a fundamental similarity. Turn it into rules and then insult them if you want - nothing to do with me.

anyway...

And presuposing is really functionally equivalent to assuming. The problem with assuming is that while you can prove things based on those assumptions the base assumptions themselves are just that, nothing more than base assumptions. If you simply assume god doesn't exist ... well there is not much farther you can go from there.

Talk around it all you want - your life operates on a base assumption, i.e. that god does exist. Everyone operates according to base assumptions - that objects fall earthwards, that the sun will rise. One of mine happens to be that gods don't exist. So why on earth would I not assume that to be the case? It seems patently obvious to me that there are no gods, as there no anima, demons, spiderpigs etc.
Once again: do you preface your prayers with 'although your existence is unverifiable...' or some such? Or do you make them on the assumption that an invisible intelligence is listening to them?