OT: What do you believe and why?
- Thread starter pharphis
- Start date
First off, you seem to be a bit confused about what’s going on in this thread, as well as what it is I am arguing. I'm not going to take the time to respond to your childish debates over terminology, for example--your claim that I should refer to the Old Testament as such, when this is standard terminology in academia, and has been for centuries. Covenant is fine too! Similarly, you have a huge ignorance when it comes to scripture: you've clearly read it a bit,
I just want to give you some tips on how to debate a little better, and interact with others in a way that you can actually gain some knowledge, and we can further scholarly discussion!
1. Take a little more time with your writing. Now, it’s fine to have a typo or two in a long post—that’s not what I’m talking about. But there scattered thoughts, lack of structure, and just generally bad writing make it where your views come out as a jumble. More importantly, however, you need to make sure you have your thoughts organized in your head before you put them on “paper,” so to speak. Just spewing out your views is fine when you’re by yourself, but remember—you’re trying to communicate here!
2. You seem to have misunderstood the goal of the thread. We are posting what we believe and why. You have constantly claimed that what I posted “can no longer be tolerated” or that I should be “disqualified” from the thread. It’s clear that your idea of a discussion is that everyone else has to shut up and listen to you if you don’t like their arguments. That’s simply not how academic discussion is conducted.
You’ve gone further and projected this model on to me a bit. The thing is, I’m not trying to shut everyone up in this thread. I’ve never said that my beliefs are airtight and there is not a single thing I can’t account for. I’ve repeatedly emphasized that my beliefs are based on assumptions (reasonable ones, like yours, but assumptions nonetheless). Similarly, I’ve repeatedly emphasized that I seek the way of thinking that best accounts for human experience, but that I don't expect everyone else to agree with me. I find it advantageous to make certain assumptions in regard to ethics in order to make decisions. No, they can't be proven by scientific standards, but that's not what ethics does. To require any ethical proposition to be tested scientifically is, as we've already discussed, impossible.
You’ve made a lot of broad claims about what science/scientist do and don’t do, which are simply false, broad generalizations. I won’t address these one by one, but if you think science is practiced in the way you outline across all fields, then you’re naïve.
Secondly, a huge body of secular, agnostic, and atheist thinkers entirely disagree with the model you’ve posed. You’ve acted as if there is universal agreement here, making some sort of argument from authority—“this is how science does it, and since is logical, therefore your argument is invalid”—but that’s just a bit silly when this sort of militant anti-theism is rarely found among serious scholars. And when it is, it’s generally by those trying to make some quick money writing for a pretentious segment of the bourgeois public who think they are serious members of the intelligentsia.
3. You constantly engage in “argument from fallacy”. It doesn’t really work here, and I don’t have time to address all of them one-by-one, but suffice it to say, you need some work on analyzing arguments. Simply saying “You lie!” or “this is a straw man!” doesn’t make it so.
2. Do some actual scholarly reading! Don’t just stick with the pop-academic work by Dawkins and his ilk. You’ve basically just rehashed points of his God Delusion and other material, and that shows through pretty clearly. We’ve already been through most of this material in the thread. Now, I don’t blame Dawkins for making a quick buck with his bestseller stuff that’s written for the general population. But the fact remains that it simply isn’t seriously regarded in any real scholarly circles. I suggest you read some material by Jurgen Habermas. He is a secular thinker who does a great job of demonstrating how atheist, agnostic, religious, and others can work together.
3. And yes—of course I’m using “atheist” and “agnostic” in their most common usage—not the more obscure terminology you so archly outlined above. You’re right to point out that pharphis made a similar distinction earlier, but the fact remains that these terms are generally used to describe two groups of people—one that rejects God, and another that says we cannot know, or simply that he/she does not know. Just look the definitions up in any dictionary—both your usage and my usage are reflected, and I’m quite aware of both of them. There's no reason to be nit-picky about vocabulary unless you're just trying to be obtuse.
EDIT: I just remembered your other post about you being half a day in another time zone, so I realize English may be your second language, in which case I apologize for my statements regarding your bad writing. I probably would have difficulty writing clearly if I was forced to do so in one of my other languages!
I just want to give you some tips on how to debate a little better, and interact with others in a way that you can actually gain some knowledge, and we can further scholarly discussion!
1. Take a little more time with your writing. Now, it’s fine to have a typo or two in a long post—that’s not what I’m talking about. But there scattered thoughts, lack of structure, and just generally bad writing make it where your views come out as a jumble. More importantly, however, you need to make sure you have your thoughts organized in your head before you put them on “paper,” so to speak. Just spewing out your views is fine when you’re by yourself, but remember—you’re trying to communicate here!
2. You seem to have misunderstood the goal of the thread. We are posting what we believe and why. You have constantly claimed that what I posted “can no longer be tolerated” or that I should be “disqualified” from the thread. It’s clear that your idea of a discussion is that everyone else has to shut up and listen to you if you don’t like their arguments. That’s simply not how academic discussion is conducted.
You’ve gone further and projected this model on to me a bit. The thing is, I’m not trying to shut everyone up in this thread. I’ve never said that my beliefs are airtight and there is not a single thing I can’t account for. I’ve repeatedly emphasized that my beliefs are based on assumptions (reasonable ones, like yours, but assumptions nonetheless). Similarly, I’ve repeatedly emphasized that I seek the way of thinking that best accounts for human experience, but that I don't expect everyone else to agree with me. I find it advantageous to make certain assumptions in regard to ethics in order to make decisions. No, they can't be proven by scientific standards, but that's not what ethics does. To require any ethical proposition to be tested scientifically is, as we've already discussed, impossible.
You’ve made a lot of broad claims about what science/scientist do and don’t do, which are simply false, broad generalizations. I won’t address these one by one, but if you think science is practiced in the way you outline across all fields, then you’re naïve.
Secondly, a huge body of secular, agnostic, and atheist thinkers entirely disagree with the model you’ve posed. You’ve acted as if there is universal agreement here, making some sort of argument from authority—“this is how science does it, and since is logical, therefore your argument is invalid”—but that’s just a bit silly when this sort of militant anti-theism is rarely found among serious scholars. And when it is, it’s generally by those trying to make some quick money writing for a pretentious segment of the bourgeois public who think they are serious members of the intelligentsia.
3. You constantly engage in “argument from fallacy”. It doesn’t really work here, and I don’t have time to address all of them one-by-one, but suffice it to say, you need some work on analyzing arguments. Simply saying “You lie!” or “this is a straw man!” doesn’t make it so.
2. Do some actual scholarly reading! Don’t just stick with the pop-academic work by Dawkins and his ilk. You’ve basically just rehashed points of his God Delusion and other material, and that shows through pretty clearly. We’ve already been through most of this material in the thread. Now, I don’t blame Dawkins for making a quick buck with his bestseller stuff that’s written for the general population. But the fact remains that it simply isn’t seriously regarded in any real scholarly circles. I suggest you read some material by Jurgen Habermas. He is a secular thinker who does a great job of demonstrating how atheist, agnostic, religious, and others can work together.
3. And yes—of course I’m using “atheist” and “agnostic” in their most common usage—not the more obscure terminology you so archly outlined above. You’re right to point out that pharphis made a similar distinction earlier, but the fact remains that these terms are generally used to describe two groups of people—one that rejects God, and another that says we cannot know, or simply that he/she does not know. Just look the definitions up in any dictionary—both your usage and my usage are reflected, and I’m quite aware of both of them. There's no reason to be nit-picky about vocabulary unless you're just trying to be obtuse.
EDIT: I just remembered your other post about you being half a day in another time zone, so I realize English may be your second language, in which case I apologize for my statements regarding your bad writing. I probably would have difficulty writing clearly if I was forced to do so in one of my other languages!
Last edited:
It does, and I think this is a decent model, and shows how ultimately, while we disagree in theory, we agree in practice. There are many, however, who don't so much. For example, I was disturbed by Dawkins declaration a few years ago that "mild pedophilia" really isn't so bad after all, linking this to the same essential ethical model you propose above.
Sources? Your "fresko" in a "Brittish" museum automatically trumps any textual account? Bad historiography, my son!
Username is not in use already addressed this as a possibility of mistranslation. Furthermore, such accounts have widely been read figuratively be believers throughout history.
Again, this isn't true. You aren't even aware of Origen's interpretation of the Old Covenant? Or Cassian's? Or Aquinas's? These passages have been read figuratively for centuries!
No, it isn't. You pretend that just because some religious believe something means that all do. This is a simply fallacy of generalization. Many, many Christians do not believe those days to be interpreted literally as individual days.
I don't disagree with science. I've repeatedly said I believe the biblical account and science can be reconciled. I don't claim to know exactly how, but I don't know anyone, even scientists, who claim to know every variable of how the world came into existence. As phar mentioned about, there is still wide disagreement on the exact nature of the Big Bang, so there isn't even a scientific consensus in this area. You seem bent on forcing me to read scripture in some sort of hyper-literalist way. Why? You don't even believe it's true. Your definition of science is also incorrect here, for obvious reasons.
So, is agnostic NASA Scientist Jastrow also insane because he has said the same thing?
The NT clearly states in Hebrews and Paul's writings that the OT law is no longer in effect. For someone who's read the Bible 5x, you certainly don't know it well. There are almost zero Christian sects that abide by the OT law, so again--you're ignorant not only of scripture, but Christian practice as well.
Cool, we agree! You misunderstood the argument, because like all of these quotes, you are just cherry picking quotations from me in order to attack me without actually understanding the context. I was addressing phar, who didn't seem to agree, although he does seem to now to some extent.
Um, this is a perfect straw man? Show me where I said relativistic morals would make some one go on a killing spree? I know many people with relativistic morals who are extremely kind and moral! Actually, my entire point earlier in the thread was observing how remarkable it is that there do seem to be some shared, universal morality in most humans--i.e., whatever their moral system, most humans do not go on killing sprees all the time.
Again, read your Kant, Hume, Putnam, Descartes... you're behind the times my friend. Science begins with quite a few assumptions. I agree with those assumptions, but they are assumptions nonetheless. You seem to claim, "Well, science makes as few assumptions as
You seem to be bent on making me reject science. You also want to make me read scripture in some sort of hyper-literal way. I don't want to do either of those things, and neither do most Christians. It's kind of like people who cherry pick verses from the Qur'an and shove them in Muslims' faces and say, "You have to be a terrorist if you are a true Muslim!" That's simply untrue and childish--it ignores how the bulk of that religion is practiced.
My attitude is that religion and science can work together. As I've repeatedly demonstrated, many other scientists feel the same way. Another example is the 1999 Nobel laureate Ahmed Zewail, a Muslim. He's the Chair in both Chemistry and Physics at the Cali Institute of Technology. He clearly practices his faith in a way doesn't get in the way of science, as do many, many other scientists. Now, it's fine that you don't like that, but just filibustering ad nauseam doesn't mean you get to decide how everyone else thinks. Your basic underlying assertion--that religion and science are incompatible--simply isn't true. Scientific discoveries will continued to be made by people with many different shades of belief regarding God.
Last edited:
To bounce of phar's point--how to we decide what is more "progressive" or "enlightened"? Despite our differing views, most of us here do have a vested interest in promoting proper ethics. We agree that some sort of actions should be taken, and others shouldn't. I agree with phar that we should decry things like the Darfur genocide, and also agree that there are grey areas. (Although I believe absolute moral truth is out there, I don't pretend to know it all!)
In you guys' estimation, what are some basic ethical principles that are fundamental to the way you make choices? Anything that both religions and nonreligious can generally agree upon? (I can think of a few, but I'm interested in hearing your views.)
In you guys' estimation, what are some basic ethical principles that are fundamental to the way you make choices? Anything that both religions and nonreligious can generally agree upon? (I can think of a few, but I'm interested in hearing your views.)
Last edited:
I responded to an argument made about this back around December in the OT forum, so I'll just point out that Dawkins was referring to his OWN experience and did not try to broadly generalize "mild pedophilia" as acceptable for others or in general.
BTW, when I was first referred to this article (in ~December) my handy web app rbutr notified me of two linked rebuttal articles. Here, and here. I highly recommend the app and for people to contribute to it
Yes, I'm aware of that (just linked the first article that popped up on Google) but he does have a history of downplaying sex abuse, e.g., he says it is worse to bring a child up in a religious household than it is to sexually abuse them. There is a generally pattern of this in his thought and writing. It makes one wonder!
I listed a few of the big ones imo but I don't think about this often so I'm probably missing something rather obvious:
1) life is generally preferable to non-life
2) suffering is generally unwanted
FWIW I don't think you were making an argument from authority when referring to your own education. PERHAPS name-dropping as was mentioned but even that's subjective imo so *shrug*. I think it's fine to refer to your education to give others an idea of your background and what can be expected of you. After all, you didn't make a statement such as "I am X therefore Y is true"
Right. I think he's wrong in general but I understand his reasoning and I do think his view is colored by his own experience.
I actually he is quite skilled in regard to media attention. I don't know that he actually believes all that stuff, but I think it's advantageous because it continually keeps media attention on him. Obviously, he is not a dummy, so I believe he is quite aware of what he's doing as far as keeping the media eye on himself constantly. I will post more on the morality issue later when I have time (work beckons me), but we're certainly on the same page as far as basic ethics (suffering, life, etc.)
Well I'm sure a large portion of it is to be evocative because he does advocate for people questioning their beliefs and he is willing to challenge them. I never see him go as far to call believers stupid or anything like that (despite what I often see him accused of doing). I don't think he's any less genuine than anyone else in his position of public voice.
I've seen a lot of accusations against him such as misogynist and this again appears to be nothing more than backlash from modern feminists (aka SJWs) over issues like "elevatorgate" (if you've never heard of this, I encourage you not to even read about it.. it's such a manufactroversy)
I've seen a lot of accusations against him such as misogynist and this again appears to be nothing more than backlash from modern feminists (aka SJWs) over issues like "elevatorgate" (if you've never heard of this, I encourage you not to even read about it.. it's such a manufactroversy)
I don't think I responded to this but it's related to something @twillight said as well and I wanted to add my thoughts:
While it is a false dichotomy when god is defined more nebulously (sticking to just "Creator" or "moral guide" or whatever) it is not a false dichotomy when it comes to specific god claims. For those that believe a global flood happened as a feature of their god claim, they HAVE to reject the god claim or the science. Alternatively, their cognitive dissonance probably makes them avoid thinking about both things simultaneously.
As I think I've said before, you can accept evolution and still believe in a god, but not the same god as @kestegs for example.
That said, iirc scientists are less religious on average than the rest of the population and especially the physical sciences such as physicists.
This is speculation but I suspect that a large potion of those who identify as "Christians" do so simply because they were raised that way and that it has little to do with their actual beliefs. I suspect most of them have more deistic beliefs than theistic ones, for example, and ofc almost none of them have actually read the bible anyway so it's hard to take beliefs like that seriously (imo).
No, I agree that he is an easy target, but I think he wants to be. I think he states stuff in a fairly controversial way, and does so publicly. It's pretty unusual for most academics to be spending time responding to YT bloggers, telling them to "stop whining" or tweeting stuff like he does. I am familiar with the elevatorgate thing, and it was pretty LOLworthy, but I think he enjoys that sort of thing. I think he likes for people to react, and probably would be a tad disappointed if they didn't. That doesn't make his attackers right, but I do find the whole process a bit amusing.
Fair enough. I've seen a few of his lectures (yes, only a few... most people seem to think he's the "god of Atheism" or some such) and in one of them he mentioned how much he loved an article with a title similar to "most dangerous man..." that was referring to him and presumably religious belief. It gave me a chuckle and it's just an anecdote but he probably does crave attention. That said, I do intend to eventually read some of his books, but probably the ones more geared towards evolution than antitheism. I listened to most of his "blind watchmaker" audiobook and it was good.
Yes it was LOLworthy (I only heard about it ~1-2 years after the fact, but...)
Yes it was LOLworthy (I only heard about it ~1-2 years after the fact, but...)
This immediately sounds insulting after I've read through the whole thread, and responded over every issue arisen.
There's nothing childish about it but oh well.
And again argument from authority.
The point is, calling the stuff "testament" is a lie. Yes, that lie was invented a long time ago, but better point it out late than never.
Simple namecalling...
Look, Mr. Grammar-nazi, the automatic spellchecker says I'm fine. Piss off!
You don't. Next?
Misquotation. I said you should not be allowed in real debate. Heck, I'd strip you from your decree because you are ignorant, topic avoiding, worst of the worst apologist. You never answer questions, dodge topic, insult others, and streight out lie. I simply called attention to your behaviour, what can't be called anything else but trolling.
Again dodging the subject. While you said your argument (which doesn't exist, as you only have statements, which include a lot of obvious falsehood), you at the same time attack, missrepresnet and try to ridicule science, scientificly proven knowledge, and claiming your position was proven by science. Totally unacceptable.
You don't address ANYTHING, and flat out lie. YOU ARE A TROLL.
Argument from authority while not letting out a single argument.
Argument from authority, while lacking touching the subject.
Agreed, that's why I explained the situation every single time. Next please!
This is so big bullshit I won't even touch it.
Bullshit, bullshit, and even more bullshit.
At insane idiots called young earth creationist, who use such non.existant terms like "evolutionist", "darwinist", and "cosmic evolution" the "agnostic" might be who is undecided about God, but the actual definition, AND THE FUCKING GIVEN TERMINOLOGY FOR THIS THREAD RIGHT IN THE FIRST POST YOU MORONIC IMBECIL, is what they actually mean etimologicaly: a-gnosis: not knowing about [dieties], and a-theism: not believing in dieties.
Here is your fokin' lexikon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"
Sources? You FOKIN IDIOT. Well, you just called actual historians useless morons. FOK YOU.
Here is your source YOU TROLL:
"Gen.5.:
- Ádám: 130 év (= year)
- Séth: 105
- Énós: 90
- Kénán: 70
- Mahaláél: 65
- Járed: 162
- Énókh: 65
- Methuséláh (aka Matuzsálem): 187
- Lámekh: 182
- Noé: 500
-----------
összesen eddig: 1556 év (= summed amount)
Gen. 11. fejezete, az els? gyerek születéséig az id?távok:
- Sém: 100
- Arapksád: 35
- Séláh: 30
- Héber: 34
- Péleg: 30
- Réu: 32
- Sérug: 30
- Nákhor: 29
- Tháré: 70
----------
összesen eddig: 1946 év
Gen.21.5, az els? gyerek születéig id?táv:
- Abrahám: 100
Gen.25.26, az els? gyerek születéig id?táv:
- Izsák: 60
Gen.47.28, az Egyiptomi Fogság kezdete (itt megjegyzend?, hogy az Egyiptomi Fogság a valóságban sosem történt meg):
- 147 is the age of Jacob when dies, lived 17 years in Egypt = 130
Exo.12.40-41, the end of Exodus:
- 430 év
1Kir.6.1, Salamon builds the Temple:
- 480 years after the Exodus
----------
Final summ: 3146 years
- David és Solomon are the first characters of the bible who had historical origins. Their age of living vcan be determined: ca. 1,000 BCE.
- Currently is ca. 2000 CE.
----------
So the age of the Universe according to the Bible is ca. 6,000 years.
Now go and **** yourself.
I REFUSE TO HAVE ANY FURTHER CONTACT WITH THIS OBVIOUS TROLL WHO HAS AS MUCH CREDIBILITY IN ANY SUBJECT AS A PIECE OF SHIT.
@twillight
Although it makes sense to use atheist and agnostic as I have defined them, it's wrong to pretend that words only have one strict definition. Words have USAGES, not strict meanings. Take for example the word "literally"...
I don't like the common usage of those words but as long as I know what idea someone is conveying I'm fine with their usage. I might still tell them I prefer otherwise, but *shrug*
I guess you're done with the discussion but it's disappointing to see someone go to great lengths to insult someone and claim to know what their views are (ie a troll, liar, etc.). It's much better to counter someone's claims than it is to do so and then additionally tack on "you liar, troll etc."
Although it makes sense to use atheist and agnostic as I have defined them, it's wrong to pretend that words only have one strict definition. Words have USAGES, not strict meanings. Take for example the word "literally"...
I don't like the common usage of those words but as long as I know what idea someone is conveying I'm fine with their usage. I might still tell them I prefer otherwise, but *shrug*
I guess you're done with the discussion but it's disappointing to see someone go to great lengths to insult someone and claim to know what their views are (ie a troll, liar, etc.). It's much better to counter someone's claims than it is to do so and then additionally tack on "you liar, troll etc."
Sorry BBS but morallity in the bible is awful:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19
Im an Atheist, so I dont. Evolution explains so much.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19
Im an Atheist, so I dont. Evolution explains so much.
I won't be responding further to the flaming part of this thread, especially since a moderator has felt bound to chime in! The last thing I want to do is stir up trouble here, and I really do enjoy the civil, thoughtful discussions. I may chime in again about morality, etc., later this week when things cool down--both here, and at work!
EDIT: I just read his entire post and I see that he's gone in the last line, so perhaps I will respond to a few things if it doesn't run the risk of starting a future flame war, but at this point it is likely water under the bridge.
EDIT: I just read his entire post and I see that he's gone in the last line, so perhaps I will respond to a few things if it doesn't run the risk of starting a future flame war, but at this point it is likely water under the bridge.
Last edited:
Google