Evidence in a religious forum

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 338
#271
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
To your last post. The diverse issues we are discussing have grown to the point where the conversation has become unwieldy. Decide which of the many discussions we are having here you actually want to continue first and we can start there. 
Let's start here since it all has to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster as reasonable:


For instance, what other religious view has so much prophecy involved,
We have discussed this before and even if I grant that the bible makes prophecies that are too accurate for any naturalistic explanation like coincidence and the use of Barnum statements you would still have to establish the source of these prophecies and it is as likely to be flying spaghetti monster inspired as god inspired unless there is some way other than the claims of humans to determine the difference between the two possible sources.
Whew. That was one long sentence. 

Coincidence is unlikely. 

The source of prophecy has been revealed as the God described in the Bible. It warns against other gods. That God does not describe Himself as a spaghetti monster. That god is monstrous. It is preposterous. Everything revealed about the flying spaghetti monster has been put forth in the last half-century. It comes from the thinking of one man who was satirizing religion, specifically Christianity. It is not something to be taken seriously. What prophecies have been revealed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Where does it claim to be the biblical God? 


And that is only if we accept the false dichotomy of the Yahweh or the pasta monster only.
Why is Yahweh false? That is your projection of Him. Justify your claim if you can, or are you just spouting off?

what is reasonable about such a belief - Pastafarianism? 
Christianity is only more widely accepted not more reasonable.
Prove your assertion is true. 

Reason in a claim is a matter of observably true premises that support the conclusion. If you lack either the same your argument is logically flawed even if you do arrive by chance at the truth.
There are many premises that support the conclusion.

What does the underlined mean? 

Are you arguing that chance is reasonable for truth? How is chance capable of anything, let alone truth? Show me how it arrives at truth. 

 I say if it is Pastafariainism it is blind and irrational. 
I agree. Now demonstrate how your religios claims differ in this regard.
The biblical writings are laid out over a period of time before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. That is reasonable to believe. I believe I can show it is more reasonable than the alternative, after AD 70. The prophetic writings look to that point in history as the fulfillment of yet all unfulfilled prophecy, as of the time of writing. The writings provide unified themes throughout Scripture, the greatest of which are two themes, that of the Messiah, His coming, ministry, and the second of last day's judgment. Jesus said every part of the OT testifies to Him and a solid case from Scripture can be made of His claim. The biblical God is described in much detail. The biblical God is described as what is necessary for existence to have a sufficient reason. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a copy-cat god in the little that has been revealed from the subjective yet creative mind of Henderson as its source and verification.

#272
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin

I don't think anyone should embrace it. Thay does not change what the book says.
There's a term used in the US for the 1890s decade called the Gay 90's.  The strange thing is there's very little if any reference to homosexuality attached to this nostalgic time period. But....the term flat out says "Gay".

That is his prerogative. 
I'm not sure what you mean.


Yes. The biblical text in question says owning people as property, buying and selling humans from other nations and in deuteronomy says that you can beat them so long as they don't
die too quickly. That is what we are discussing. Not whatever community outreach program you are proposing in an attempt to excuse the bible for condoning owning people as property. 

Wow. It's amazing how messy things get when texts are interpreted through 21st century sun glasses.

I'll do a separate thread on this one.


Torquemada the grand inquisitor of the Spanish inquisition claimed to believe in and be acting on behalf of god. I am inclined to take him at his word unless there is some way of reading the minds of long dead spaniards.

But you also confessed that he may not really believe in God at all. Or is Torquemada an exception for some reason?

After softening my claim yes.



My. It looks like we're both quoteless.

Many southern baptists claim that anyone who is not specifically southern baptist will be going to hell. Why should I believe you rather than them? What differentiates their faith based claim that we are both going to hell from your faith based claim that of the two of us only I am going to hell?
Do you have any references for this? I'm not claiming you're wrong, but it seems odd to me. Do they think a Baptist has to move to the South to be saved?

As far as who you would hypothetically choose to believe, that would be up to you.

So a candidate that was openly in support of gay marriage? I regard that as moral and you do not. Should you be able to prevent homosexuals from finding love and starting families indeed stop them from living their lives by their standards being true to their identities just because you read a book that poo poos on the idea?
I'm not sure why you're asking. This would be something you'd have to take up with those who place propositions on ballots. If such a prop is not on the ballot, then it's not an issue. If it were on a ballot, we'd have to figure out why.


What I believe is that beliefs cannot be litigated and should not be criminalized.Would you mind expounding on this a bit?
Would you mind expounding on this a bit?

Well stated. It is not that the bible makes men racist or sexist however it is that it was clearly written by racist and sexist men. 

Do you think the authors who wrote about Deborah the prophetess were sexist?

Can you give me some examples of racism?

You seem like a reasonable and reasonably educated person. You are far from my greatest concern.
Thank you. I appreciate that.


I do worry about the ignorant, the stupid and the uneducated. An otherwise moral person who is gullible and convinced that the bible is the inerrant word of god might get up to all sorts of mischief and I am really not trying to single Christians out either. Do you believe that muslim belief might lead otherwise moral people to immoral behavior? And while we are on the subject I also am not trying to single out theists. I have the same problem with any secular belief system which endorses racism, sexism, homophobia and the like.
It's certainly possible.

There are people who commit crimes after watching certain movies, read certain novels, listen to certain songs, etc.

Are you concerned about Batman or Joker movies?

It's a shame that someone would want to emulate a psychopathic clown in a movie, but it happens. I think Hollywood feels it's worth the risk.
We should all be able to watch a movie about a psychopathic clown, without trying to recreate his character in real life. We should all be able to understand that it's just a movie. But....every once in awhile....

#273
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
There's a term used in the US for the 1890s decade called the Gay 90's.  The strange thing is there's very little if any reference to homosexuality attached to this nostalgic time period. But....the term flat out says "Gay".
Yes language changes and evolves. I'm not talking about the term gay I'm talking about homosexuality and the attitude expressed in the bible. Did you have a larger point?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Homeless =/= unhappy. It is not necessarily a preferable situation in every case but if it is preferred to being owned as property then it is immoral to try to force someone to be your property in an attempt to prevent their homelessness. 
 If it were on a ballot, we'd have to figure out why.
Any idea why we would have to vote on such a thing rather than just letting people do as they like? Because if you value freedom it is in keeping with the stated goal of promoting freedom to make all things permissible and then begin limiting freedoms only if the consequences are worse than the loss of liberty. For example killing people and abusing children are worse than losing the freedom to murder people and abuse children. What about homosexuality is worse than the loss of liberty to the homosexual community?
What I believe is that beliefs cannot be litigated and should not be criminalized.Would you mind expounding on this a bit?
Would you mind expounding on this a bit?
Sure. I cant control what I believe. You cannot control what I believe. It is therefore impossible to make laws concerning beliefs rather than actions and by extension criminalizing beliefs is nonsensical and immoral.it would be like making laws concerning being right versus left handed or criminalizing not having rhythm.
Do you think the authors who wrote about Deborah the prophetess were sexist?
I'm not familiar with the work.
Can you give me some examples of racism?
According to the old testament the Hebrews were the Yahweh's chosen people and set above all others. This is racism against every other possible demographic. 
We should all be able to watch a movie about a psychopathic clown, without trying to recreate his character in real life. We should all be able to understand that it's just a movie. But....every once in awhile....
We should all be able to read a book about a genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic capricious and vengeful deity, without trying to recreate his character in real life. We should all be able to understand that it's just a  book. But....every once in awhile....

Honestly the book is a touch worse though since it is widely held as nonfiction and the movie is not.
#274
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
gods are nature based but not the abrahamic ones
#275
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
gods are nature based but not the abrahamic ones
You mean humans make claims to that effect? That is what you mean right? That some humans have said that their god(s) are nature based and that some humans have claimed that the abrahamic god is not a nature based god. And of course the opposite may hold true in some cases. Some humans might claim that their god(s) are also not nature based and some humans might claim that the abrahamic god is the god of nature and therefore nature based but even if that is the case what does that have to do with literally anything?
#276
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
basically-all of the Mediterranean religions are based on nature-the sun,lunar,etc god
#277
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So what? What is your point? 
#278
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
the abrahamic Gods are not nature based
#279
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why are you repeating yourself? What am I supposed to infer from this information provided I accept it?
#280
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
what is repeated
#281
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You keep talking about nature god(s) versus non nature god(s). Why does that matter? Please get to your larger point?
#282
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
sure

there are gods that are nature based because it is our imagination-NATURE to gods

if gods like the Abrahamic one does not exhibit any of these imaginative qualities, it is the most trusted one
#283
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise I have no choice but to believe that all the qualities the Yahweh displays are imagined. Also disproving other god(s) which I already didn't believe (assuming that is what you have done) in does not in any way strengthen your claim. All in all it seems like special pleading. 
#284
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
ok here is my demonstration


all nature
#285
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't care what qualities some god(s) that we agree don't exist might possess. It doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument. 
#286
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
the abrahami god is the belieable god
#287
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the abrahami god is the belieable god
I don't care if it is. It is more than possible to write plausible believable fiction. Even if I were prepared to grant you this point (I'm not) there is no bridge from believable to true.
#288
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin

Yes language changes and evolves. I'm not talking about the term gay I'm talking about homosexuality and the attitude expressed in the bible. Did you have a larger point?
Yes. Not understanding the contextual meaning of the term "gay" in the title is the same as not understanding what is being sstated in the bible.

Homeless =/= unhappy. It is not necessarily a preferable situation in every case but if it is preferred to being owned as property then it is immoral to try to force someone to be your property in an attempt to prevent their homelessness. 

Sure.

I have a suspicion that you're not really taking into consideration the severity of life's condition at that time.
Yeah, here in the west we have homeless shelters, cars we can sleep in etc. I hope you're not equating modern western conditions with ancient middle eastern.

The conditions were severe enough that  if a servant flees their master, someone else has to take care of them. I think they realized that simply not turning the servant over to their abusive master was not enough. A possible death sentence.

Any idea why we would have to vote on such a thing rather than just letting people do as they like? Because if you value freedom it is in keeping with the stated goal of promoting freedom to make all things permissible and then begin limiting freedoms only if the consequences are worse than the loss of liberty. For example killing people and abusing children are worse than losing the freedom to murder people and abuse children. What about homosexuality is worse than the loss of liberty to the homosexual community?

No, I don't know why they would place it on a ballot. I just know that if it's on a ballot, it's not for religious reasons. I haven't seen a ballot lately, is it even on one anywhere?

Sure. I cant control what I believe. You cannot control what I believe. It is therefore impossible to make laws concerning beliefs rather than actions and by extension criminalizing beliefs is nonsensical and immoral.it would be like making laws concerning being right versus left handed or criminalizing not having rhythm.



Off hand I don't see how this conflicts with anything I've said. Was this meant to challenge anything I've said?


Do you think the authors who wrote about Deborah the prophetess were sexist?

I'm not familiar with the work.
Deborah was one of the judges, and a prophetess in the Old Testament.


According to the old testament the Hebrews were the Yahweh's chosen people and set above all others. This is racism against every other possible demographic. 

Israel was meant to be a messenger to bring God's salvation to all nations. Just like one person (a messenger) is sent to bring God's salvation to other individuals. The bible is so painfully clear about this, and that God is no respecter of nations or individuals, this has has to fall into one of those extreme over-the-top accusations.

We should all be able to read a book about a genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic capricious and vengeful deity, without trying to recreate his character in real life. We should all be able to understand that it's just a  book. But....every once in awhile....

Honestly the book is a touch worse though since it is widely held as nonfiction and the movie is not.

Are you saying the Batman franchise movies are a bad thing? Should we consider banning them?

What do you think should be done about the bible since you're under distress that people are reading it?





#289
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yes. Not understanding the contextual meaning of the term "gay" in the title is the same as not understanding what is being sstated in the bible.
Well when we talk about owning people and slaughtering whole cities we aren't talking about misinterpretation of a single word we are talking about the things commanded or condoned by the bible and it really does not matter what you want to call them the are still wrong. 
The conditions were severe enough that  if a servant flees their master, someone else has to take care of them. I think they realized that simply not turning the servant over to their abusive master was not enough. A possible death sentence.
Is it impossible to resolve this issue without owning people as property in perpetuity? Do you have to own people to help them? Thay sounds like the opposite of help. Is having free servants who are paid a living wage impossible? Please stop trying to excuse owning people as property. If you think the practice would be morally abhorrent today then it is morally abhorrent even if people of the day didn't realize it.
Sure. I cant control what I believe. You cannot control what I believe. It is therefore impossible to make laws concerning beliefs rather than actions and by extension criminalizing beliefs is nonsensical and immoral.it would be like making laws concerning being right versus left handed or criminalizing not having rhythm.



Off hand I don't see how this conflicts with anything I've said. Was this meant to challenge anything I've said?
The bible criminalizes holding the wrong beliefs. The sentence suggested is death. You can spin it and try to apply apologetics but that is what the book says when taken at face value. If it was inspired by a god that couldn't have made it clearer in translation I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could I don't think much of his decision not to.
Do you think the authors who wrote about Deborah the prophetess were sexist?

I'm not familiar with the work.
Deborah was one of the judges, and a prophetess in the Old Testament.
I missed the word about. I thought you were referring to a stand alone book called Deborah the Prophetess which would explain why I haven't heard of it. Misunderstanding. 
According to the old testament the Hebrews were the Yahweh's chosen people and set above all others. This is racism against every other possible demographic. 

Israel was meant to be a messenger to bring God's salvation to all nations. Just like one person (a messenger) is sent to bring God's salvation to other individuals. The bible is so painfully clear about this, and that God is no respecter of nations or individuals, this has has to fall into one of those extreme over-the-top accusations.
Then why are the laws governing owning people different for hebrews than every other demographic of people. That is a double standard based on some imagined difference between "races" of people (an artificial construct) and that is racism. 
Are you saying the Batman franchise movies are a bad thing? Should we consider banning them?

What do you think should be done about the bible since you're under distress that people are reading it?

You brought up batman. I'm not really saying anything about it... although if it is harmful it would not reduce the harm if it were considered by otherwise rational adults to be real rather than fiction and taught to children as a moral standard that they are meant to accept uncritically. 

#290
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
I have proved it many times
#291
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I have proved it many times
Claims=/=proof
#292
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
yeah i know
#293
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then surely you understand my continuing skepticism. 
#294
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
I have proved it
#295
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Sadly no.
#296
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@RoderickSpode
The truth is my dear doctor that Roderick is doing a much better job of supporting his claims and he hasn't really proven anything either.
#297
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
It seems to be quite ok  to use the bible by non-believers as evidence of how bad and evil God is when they want to make a point about the evils of religion. So at that point it is considered ok to be evidence. 
Try this.

THE BIBLE IS 100% REAL TRUE FACT.

Now what?

How does any of this inform my daily life?

And who arbitrates the apparent logical contradictions?
#298
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
...although if it is harmful it would not reduce the harm if it were considered by otherwise rational adults to be real rather than fiction and taught to children as a moral standard that they are meant to accept uncritically. 
Well stated.
#299
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
In other words, in contrast to "for the bible tells me so", it's "for Richard Dawkins, The Atheist Experience, Aron Ra, The Freedom From Religion Foundation, PBS/Nova, etc., tells me so".
A naked appeal to authority is not a reliable validation of any claim.
#300
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You cannot use the Bible to show that God is evil but reject the other cialims in it
It is however, a perfectly reasonable demonstration of LOGICAL INCOHERENCE.