Author Topic: FaithFreedom.org  (Read 5790 times)

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2008, 10:49:12 pm »
Then the people of every major religion has much to answer for.

Then people have much to answer for.

No sense singling out a particular social institution when it is the participants, not the institutions, fault. You can (and usually do) get excessive hate and violence in any social structure, religious or not. Indeed, one could well define what it means to be human by our ability to corrupt otherwise good ideas.

When you put it like this, you're taking away (and I assert, unfairly so) from the ability of social institutions to affect people's behavior. If, over a large enough sample, a social institution tends to incite it's members to excessive hatred and violence, I think it's fair to start considering the institution as being one that propogates excessive hatred and violence.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2008, 12:59:20 pm »
When you put it like this, you're taking away (and I assert, unfairly so) from the ability of social institutions to affect people's behavior. If, over a large enough sample, a social institution tends to incite it's members to excessive hatred and violence, I think it's fair to start considering the institution as being one that propogates excessive hatred and violence.

I agree with your intent but differ on the starting point. When one takes numerous samples of different social institutions and finds that in each its members tend to be excited to excessive hatred and violence, then one would do well to try to find a particular commonality amongst them. The involvement of people is one such commonality (indeed, it is universal). It is only reasonable then, if one desires to obtain a better comparison of such institutions, to make such a comparison with humans in absentia. If institutions, sans humans, are still excessively violent and hateful, then those institutions should be labeled as the propagator. It is a matter of establishing a baseline.

I would argue that humans bring a baseline level of hatred and violence to any institution; those institutions should then be judged on how they effect that hatred and violence. If the institution lessens it, then that would seem to speak well for the institution even if hatred and violence are still present. The institution, then, would be the lens through which hatred and violence may be reduced or magnified, but not the source.

ZeaLitY, as for your links, allow me to address each link in turn:

First we have "Injustice in the Bible" (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html). It fails to define what means of justice it is using to evaluate the quotations. Indeed, many of the quotes that are presented as examples of injustice are without an explanation as to why one should find them to be unjust. Perhaps the injustice is supposed to be self-evident? If so, the list fails in that regard and what one finds in that list to be just or unjust is largely dependent on one’s prior position, not an objective stance.

The list seems to be relying on a Moral Law that is inherently obvious to anyone. However, such a Moral Law has been the topic of debate in philosophical circles for most of human history and no, non-religious, stance has been established.

If, then, the list relies on a Moral Law that is undefined, before I can address the quotes I must establish a direction from which I will be approaching the question of “Is the quoted text actually unjust?” As a non-religious Moral Law is useless, one must reject all definitions of justice that rely on morality (and if the list is using a religious Moral Law from a religion other than Christianity, it is only to be expected that Christianity would not conform to that Law). Therefore, I will define justice as that which conforms to established laws (established prior to the reward or punishment, and established at the least in the eyes of the participant) and the reward and punishment that goes with obeying or disobeying those laws.

The first example is that God punished Eve for her actions in the garden. She was told not to disobey God or there would be heavy consequences. She disobeyed God (as did Adam) and was punished (as was Adam). A crime was committed and a punishment was distributed; that is a textbook definition of justice.

The second example is that of Cain and Abel. Your link finds fault with God because no reason was given as to why he liked Abel's gift more than Cain's. Preferring one thing over another is hardly a matter of justice; I like Mt. Dew more than I like Crab Juice, is that then a case of injustice? That aside, Cain’s reaction to God’s preference is usually taken as an indication of why God approved of one offering above the other; Cain’s primary goal with the offering was rather obviously not to please God.

The third example doesn't even relate to God but to Lamech. Are we to then infer that the Bible cannot record human injustices and that in doing so in promotes injustice in those who believe in it?

The fourth example is that of the flood. Again, crime is committed and a punishment is given. According to the story, those who were innocent were saved from the punishment. Textbook definition of justice.

Almost the entire list (sorry, I didn't read all 1128 points on that list in order to label it definitively) is comprised of nothing but examples of crime and punishment, unrelated instances of injustice that are not promoted or propagated, or statements presented out of context.

Then there is a list of Cruelty and Violence in the bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html). The presentation of this list as something against Christianity is itself a logical fallacy; it makes the false assumption that cruelty and violence are inherently bad things. A parent may knowingly cause emotional pain and distress to their child when that parent punishes the child for misbehavior (say, by grounding the child). That is cruel, but with a worthy purpose. A strict adherence to established laws, without a hint of mercy, is cruel yet also just. This particular list seems to be dependent on only a particular definition of cruelty (that of taking enjoyment from causing pain and suffering), yet it does not bother justifying such a definition in any given circumstance (that is, it doesn’t answer the question of “does God enjoy cruelty and violence for the sake of cruelty and violence”). As for violence, I will trust that you and others are aware of how violence is not always undesirable. If that trust is misplaced, I am quite willing to explain. So, then, the very intent of this list is suspect. However, to be fair, if one does not believe in God, then the violence presented in the list would appear needless. Yet if one does believe, then the violence presented was not needless. As the value of the points shifts with one's perspective, they are far too variable to make an argument from. If an institution holds its members back from needless cruelty and violence but urges them on when such is needed, then that is commendable (depending, of course, on what one defines as needed and needless).

Next we have a list of Intolerance in the bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html). As you also quoted Richard Dawkins, I am not sure if you were trying to be facetious; the juxtaposition of the two certainly implies a joke. However, as you seem to be serious in other matters I will assume you are being serious here, but please forgive me if that is not the case.

Like with the above list, intolerance is not inherently a bad thing (for example, modern society is rather intolerant of sex offenders). The list fails to actually provide arguments as to why in the quoted examples it is bad. Regardless, allow me to address some of the points.

First, there is the example that God gave the Israelites land… giving land is intolerant, how? The very first example on this list is a red herring! Even if we extrapolate this to modern day conflicts, it is still nonsensical as the majority of intolerance is being directed at individuals who believe in this section of the bible, not by them (though to be fair some is stemming from such believers in turn). Or is the list trying to make the argument that God is intolerant of landlessness? Or is it claiming that gifts are intolerant?

The second example is that anyone who is willingly uncircumcised should be cut off from the community. In other words, if anyone rejects basic tenants of the community, the community should also reject them. Such horrible "intolerance."

Then there is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Are we to take it that God is intolerant because he punishes the wicked? If so, then this would seem to be a case of good intolerance, just as modern law is intolerant of criminals. If we are to take some other meaning from the list presenting this story, then I am afraid I have missed it.

The fourth point is that Lot's wife, in disobeying God and looking back, was turned into a pillar of salt. Same as the previous point, God is intolerant of those who disobey laws.

The fifth point is that Abraham doesn't want his son marrying a Canaanite. Presumably this is presented as an instance of ethnic intolerance... by a human, not God, and with good reason (inheritance, social traditions, and an increased likelihood of Isaac being led to breaking the law as well, etc). Indeed, no father should want his children to marry an individual who is breaking the law.

Same with the sixth point (though it is Isaac and Jacob, rather than Abraham and Isaac).

The seventh is just taken out of context. Jacob’s daughter was raped and his sons used circumcision and an excuse to get revenge on the rapist. Again, even modern society is intolerant of sex offenders.

The eighth is that Er was killed because he was wicked. Intolerance of evil is apparently unacceptable.

The ninth is... I am not even sure what the point of this one was supposed to be. It misattributed Catholic Doctrine as Christian Doctrine. It doesn't even seem to be faulting the bible for being intolerant in this instance, just some people's interpretations of it are intolerant.

So the basic thrust of that lists seems to be that God is intolerant of people who break the law (which would qualify as a good sort of intolerance), that quotes taken out of context can appear to be of a different sort of intolerance than they were (again, it is good to be intolerant of some things), and that the bible should be faulted for intolerant interpretations that are entirely extra-textual in nature.

As for the problems with interpretations, of course there are problems with interpretations. This is to be expected but speaks nothing of the institution itself. There are problems with interpretations of The Annals of Imperial Rome, with The Iliad, with The Declaration of Independence, with The Metamorphosis, with Harry Potter, with the 5 o'clock news. If misinterpretations of a medium lead to excessive hatred and violence, and if we then blame that medium for the excessive hatred and violence rather than the misinterpretations and misinterpreters, we should also fault the institutions of history, politics, literatures, and journalism (among others not listed).

If multiple interpretations are possible from a single text, and if only some of those interpretations result in excessive hate and violence while others restrict it, then it is excessively intolerant, unjust, and cruel of you to fault the text itself (or those that hold to it).

So no, one does not need "to make very rosy, optimistic interpretations to avoid carrying out or adhering to the spirit of" the text quoted by the lists you presented. One just needs to approach the matter honestly.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2008, 04:52:28 pm »
As if it need be taken out that far. The simple, obvious thrust is that in a religion in which God has time and time again mercilessly killed and slaughtered unbelievers, and commanded his followers to do the same, what interpretation can there be but one of savage intolerance towards nonbelievers? Don't make me go and dig up myriad instances of the persecution of atheists or different faiths, or religious war; that should be obvious to all but the worst revisionists. For every commandment to love thy neighbor, there is an instance of murdering him. It is contradictory and rotten.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2008, 07:52:08 pm »
What we see God as is irrelevant; if he exists, Justice is a solid concept created by God.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2008, 08:20:06 pm »
Forgive me for making a post here. I meant to stay apart, but could not, seeing the valiant struggle against ignorance that Thought is, almost single-handedly, undertaking... I can't let him do that without at least one more voice at his side, if only an occasional one. I know I'd say I'd left, but I couldn't help replying to you, ZeaLitY, because I think you are trying to view the world and history as far too rosy.

I must put this into context for you. You are enamoured of the ancient Greeks, but I must point out that your view of them is, in fact, an entirely revisionist one. They were nothing so glorious, or so golden, as the Hellenists of the 19th century held them to be. Keats, for example, knew only Pope's Homer which, when it was translated, caused someone to rightly comment 'it's a pretty poem, Mr. Pope, but it's not Homer.' This is very true. It is not Homer. Indeed, had someone like Keats known the true Homer, he might well have been entirely thrown off, because it is not romantic in the same way as we take it to be. Unless you read, well, Lattimore, you're probably not going to get a true impression of Homer (he has his problems, too, but less than anyone else... if you read Lombardo, or Fagles, or most of these others, except maybe Fitzgerald, you're getting too much revision thrown in.) When Athene has Pandauros shoot an arrow off at Menelaos during a truce, are the gods acting rightly? Or how about this, and this is something else entirely: what about Apollon, whose name means 'The Destroyer', commanding Orestes to kills his mother in vengeance for his father? Make no mistake, hamartia means nothing, not like we're taught it. These heroes don't have a tragic flaw, and it's for no problem of their own they suffer: they suffer only because God wills it. The Greeks saw life like that, and to look at it as a matter of just crime and punishment, as tragic flaws, is in fact a mistaken Christian element being overlapped. So democracy was born under a culture that believed that the gods would willy nilly destroy people. 'Pathei mathos'... Zeus has ordained that people must learn through suffering. Only answered by 'Tleton gar Moirai thumon thesan anthropoisin' that the Fates have given to Man an enduring spirit. Nor think that they didn't have their religious wars either! For the number of times that cities would go to war with each other for the sake of a cult statue or something or else. Yet you venerate the Greeks, and understand how much was accomplished under a religious system. More than this, a society that had the rights of women as being non-citizens, and children before the law (changed only by the advent of Christianity... and that Christianity changed his is a historical fact.) A people that showed us how terrible Democracy can get. How?

Let me enlighten you to some of the precepts of the Greek society. In particular, those of the heroic Mycenaean age were, it seems, taken to offering human sacrifice. They, or at least those people they directly descend from, appear to have ritually killed retainers or wives to bury with them. The heroic warriors of the Iliad are, to our modern perception, mass killers. Yes, there is some aspect of loss, and an enjoyment of the beauty of the world, but it is entirely different than what our English eyes and hearts perceive, and it requires a lot of work to remove those preconceptions and actually understand that society, and indeed any ancient society, for what it truly was. Odysseus, the long suffering... how many cities did he attack and rape and kill, hm? Oh, he was a good man, eh? Oh, he was! To the Greeks, he was. Be good to your friends, and wicked to your enemies... that was the measure of a man. 'Twas Christianity that changed that, mark, and that is not opinion, that is history, pure and simple.

To be honest, ZeaLitY, you don't have that ability yet to gauge these things. You do not understand the history of society, and be able to suspend your modern heart and mind (for example, were there 'gays' in ancient Greece? No. To label things like that is entirely modern in premise. Oh, yes, there were such relations, but it was an intrinsic part of their culture which is entirely maligned in trying to overlap with our modern conceptions of the matter.) Now, my words aren't so scholarly in mien as Thought's, but I echo his sentiments. You're throwing out things that are entirely based on your opinion and, indeed, very cursory knowledge of a subject. If you knew more about, say, ancient history, you simply could not hold the opinion you do. After all, the Iliad has the gods condoning, indeed driving forward, the slaughter of the people. Look at this line 'put pains thousandfold upon the Akhaians, hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls of Heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting of dogs, and all birds, and the WILL OF ZEUS WAS ACCOMPLISHED.' See this? And yet you venerate ancient Greek society which is, in many ways, far far harsher and more violent than anything portrayed in the Bible. Actually, the 'David and Goliath' battle has all the elements of a Homeric single combat... and it's not unlikely that Goliath himself was of Mycenaean descent.

ZeaLitY, Thought has put forward a lot of clear and reasonable points. You are holding to what you say only because you want to, and in part because of your ignorance on the subject. Now, your opinion is your opinion, but I can tell a doctor 'no, it's not like this', but the fact is, since I don't know the first thing about medicine, I'm in no position to make such a claim. That's about what you're doing here.

I find it a little ironic that you're throwing around the concept of historical revisionism when your own beloved Romantic poets are of that era that are most greatly culpable for revisionism regarding antiquity. There is a lot of worth in what they did, and we can see it in the context of their culture and the beauty they brought to be (inaccurate as it may be, Pope's Iliad can still be a beautiful example of English poetry), but they were revisionsist through and through, at worst using antiquity to further nationalistic goals, and at best romantics who were ignorant about the ancient world.

Simply, ZeaLitY, you're an excellent artist, and very passionate in your argument, but neither theology or history are your fields, and you really don't have the ability to argue them: you have too much passion, and too little knowledge, and far too much opinion, to address it properly. To the point that when scholarly accepted evidence is put before you you are unwilling to accept it because it contravenes what you believe. That is rather problematic, see? Thought says 'historically, this and this is so.' If it goes against what you believe, you say 'let me dig this and this up', which is entirely non-sequitor. Yes, there are instances of this, but either Thought or I can pull up examples of where Democracy has caused problems (from the start, the destruction of Melos; or the radical Democrats of Athens and their terrors); or Philhellenism, which you ascribe to, being used in very twisted nationalistic ways, most especially by the Nazi party (they, after all, considered themselves the successors to the ancient Aryan, ancient Greek, identity, and were wanting to rebuild their cities after Greek designs, for that it was the pinnacle of human achievement to their eyes...); the point is, these things can be dug up. And that you keep saying you'll dig up so-called examples is harping on the wrong point. No, it should not be obvious... indeed, if it IS obvious, it is so only because the person is reading into the evidence what they want to... reading the evidence so that it supports their hypothesis (ie. that religion is bad) rather than letting the evidence speak truth. Indeed, that very few scholars of history (such as Thought) would share your view on the matter shows an inherent tendancy in this topic to only see what you want to.

Now if you want me to get technical, yes, there is a bit of a discrepancy between Old Testament and New... why do you think they are held distinct? You are conflating the two very unfairly. Not to mention that Thought is entirely right in his premises, and it's something you have failed time and again to answer: if religion is held culpable, so must our myriad other institutions. If you fail to address this, or claim it to be taking it too far, you're just purposefully evading what is at the core of the issue in favour of your own opinion. You needn't do this. Indeed, the stances you are taking are most often philisophically invalid, and really have very little to stand on. Philisophically speaking there are very strong arguments in favour of God (say, Cosmological, or Ontological, or Teleological, and Kant's Moral), and historically speaking - and not via revision, because any scholar will know that the stance I have, or Thought, is not the revisionist one, but the tried and true one that the majority via peer review hold to be true, and most of what you have considered is the 'revisionist' stance - it is not evil, or at any rate no more evil than our other institutions.

As I've said, Thought has things entirely right when he's asking how you can single out religion, when other institutions cause the same problems. If you want to think as a scientist ZeaLitY, you cannot but consider this. And for a second put aside your biases and prejudices, really think about this. A scientist cannot go into an experiment and assuming an outcome claim something to be valid after only one iteration. That's what you're doing. See, if you throw human and religion together, and at times get something bad, you might say 'well, there's a bad mix here; religion is at fault.' But that's bad science, no better than mixing arsenic and sugar, and on ingesting these come to the conclusion that 'sugar is poisonous.' But when you mix arsenic with salt; and with pepper; you get get the same poisonous mix. But you're so fond of humanity, so fond of the arsenic, that you're entirely ignoring the results of those experiments, though the evidence is clear and self evident. Mix humanity and democracy, you also get some bad; humanity with any institution, and you get wars and death. Now, look at this as a scientist, look at this rationally, and don't let yourself be blinded by prejudice for a moment. If you see a+b=c, and d+b=c, and e+b=c, which is more likely to be the cause of the outcome 'c'? 'a'? Or 'b'? You are essentially saying 'a'. That is entirely unreasonable. Yes, 'a' might have a hand in causing 'c', but then so does 'd', and 'e'. But what is most responsible is the common, unchanging element 'b'. And in our social context, that is 'humanity'. You are loath to consider humanity for at fault because you love it so, but how scientific is it to not believe the evidence because it doesn't suit your beliefs? At least I can vindicate myself when I think like that because not everything I believe I do by reason, because I have some things that are faith-based. If you're going to make the claim that everything you believe is pure and clear reason, then you cannot do anything but this, you absolutely must hold humanity, and not religion, at fault for what happens. It is the only scientific conclusion.

You can complain all you want about that conclusion, but that is how it has to be. Thought has shown a lot of clear and self-evident examples about how history goes through this.

Now, if you want, you can bring up your so-called 'evidence' internal to various holy books. It is flawed that you're looking only at one, but since it's the one I'm most familiar with, I'll only say that Thought has made the most reasonable arguments against those comments that one could think of. Nonetheless, if you're wanting to comment on them, seriously comment, you have to do a heck of a lot more research than merely throwing out some links or posts, letting other people speak for you than rather thinking for yourself. It's bad scholarship, ZeaLitY. The thing is, most of those people quoting and all don't have the first clue about theology and sound about as silly as a layman trying to tell a doctor how to perform surgery. There is logical systematics in theology, too, though you might not realise it, and if you see a disjunct between the Old and New Testaments, you might be somewhat justified. Philosophers and Theologians understand this and work with this (I tend to be more Philosopher than Theologian, by the way), and there is reconciliation. Yes, mass acts of destruction can seem to us out of accord with an omni-God such as we believe in. But there are a thousand other facets to this, and heck, I can't even begin to get into the philosophical variances. To make this sharp dichotomy between 'this says this, and this says this, therefore there is hypocrisy' is as simpleminded as saying 'wait, electrons are supposed to orbit in levels around the nucleus, but now we're being told they can be probabalistically anywhere?!.' To the layman, it seems like contradiction. There are a lot of things like that. Just consider for a moment that you're not so smart and clever in this field as you think you are. Use an example of something you know professionally really, really well, and imagine trying to explain the finer points to someone absolutely ignorant of it. You'll probably be told you're being contrary more than once, because to someone that doesn't really know it, things can seem like that. Now put yourself in the opposite position. Regarding religion you are really a layman, and in terms of history likewise next to, say, Thought, and to me as well (at least in terms of ancient history and literature.) Can you not suppose that what seems contrary and hypocritical to you is only a deficiency in your knowledge?

So throw out all the supposed 'this is fact' and all the quotes you like. You're just padding your ignorance with fancy epithets. No scholar in the fields would agree with you, or at least not the general secular scholarship, and in part that's evidenced by Thought and his claims. My agnostic/atheistic philosophy prof would also argue against your assertions, on philosophical grounds (and when I've mentioned these things, he's agreed with me, by the way.) Most of those people schooled in these matters would tend to disagree with you. Why is that? Because what you're saying is not born out of knowledge, which tends more to be on the side of Thought and me, but of opinion sans true study. Now of course we've got these radicals. We've got the idiots boycotting Heath Ledger's funeral because he was in Brokeback Mountain. But is it good science to make a claim based on outlier data? if you have a graph with all the different positions charted, is it good science to make a claim based on the outliers? No, in fact, usually you draw trend curves ignorings those. Yet your statements are often made using those very outliers as the standard. That is very unscientific. And by scientific I mean it especially in the Latin sense, that is, having knowledge.  

Once again, sorry for my return after I'd strongly maintained flight in disgust, but I could not leave Thought to argue the scholarly stances all alone.

PS
By the way, so atheists being persecuted in the past gives atheists the right to persecute the religious now? Still going at the old eye for an eye, eh? Oh, no, I forget... you're more enlightened, eh? Where have I heard THAT one before. Heh. No, WE have the truth, that gives us the right to beat you down. Hmmm... pot calling the kettle black, methinks. That's actually what a lot of this sounds like, you know.

PPS
Now, I suppose you're of this opinion because you see the effects of religion within your society (and I say 'your' because I guess it's not so prevalent in Canada as in the US.) Okay, true enough, there are some drawbacks. For example, I am definitely not in favour of a theocracy. The mingling of relgion and politics is not good. These sorts of things I can understand. I can also see how you might be aggrieved at various groups which take things far too far (and which, I will say very dogmatically, are not theologically right anyway.) However, you are not justified in making the blanket claim that you make. Indeed, you cannot even say 'religion has been responsible for wars', no philosophically. The fact that I have not yet caused any wars because of my religion, or killed anyone, or even had it hold me back in academic fashion, shows that there is nothing that says it MUST be so. And if religion+person doesn't always equal 'bad', then we run into a logical deficiency. There has to be something else at work, otherwise it would always be true. Either 'religion' has varying degrees that causes things to end well or bad, or else person does. But if religion has that variance, then you must make a proper distinction between 'good' religion and 'bad', and as such cannot make a general claim as you do. If 'person' is at fault, then again you have various native strengths and weaknesses within the person that influence the outcome. And since when we apply 'person' in combination with, say 'democracy', we also sometimes get bad results, we see that, without doubt, 'person' is a variable element that has good and bad elements. This could be fleshed out a bit more, but I'm trying to make a sort of logical set here.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 08:44:35 pm by Daniel Krispin »

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2008, 08:44:57 pm »
I wouldn't say ZeaLitY is actually going so far as persecuting the religious, or calling for said persecution. Certainly it seems he would prefer religion to disappear, but I guess I'm not bothered as long as he doesn't shout:

Forward, Compendiumites! Slay the Christians! RAWR!!

I think the greatest thing ZeaLitY has said during these religious debates is "God help us in a world of religion." That sentence succinctly describes the huge contorted, self-conflicting mess humanity has twisted itself into over the millennia. That's something I, as a religious, can certainly agree with him on.

But Daniel, I've still gotta read everything you and Thought have posted. Darnit, all this intriguing religion back-and-forth and so little time! I just love this stuff. I'm getting as good an education here as at college.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 08:47:04 pm by FaustWolf »

Kebrel

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Magical Dreamer (+1250)
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
  • नार्य काम संस्कृत
    • View Profile
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2008, 08:47:19 pm »
I still stand back on the acceptance of a god, yet I do not deny its possible existence. Although under no circumstances will I accept God as my ruler. If proof positive evidence is shown to me supporting Gods existence, then ya I will accept him as God, I will not follow him.


I control myself, I am a dieing breed, I am an American.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2008, 09:06:35 pm »
I still stand back on the acceptance of a god, yet I do not deny its possible existence. Although under no circumstances will I accept God as my ruler. If proof positive evidence is shown to me supporting Gods existence, then ya I will accept him as God, I will not follow him.


I control myself, I am a dieing breed, I am an American.

Do note, unfortunately, that if you ask for empirical evidence you will be disappointed as that is a philosophical impossibility. However, by pure reason alone, there are things that can argue compelling proof for the existence of an omni-God. There is a Cosmological proof, an Ontological one, a Teleological one, a Moral one... some better than others, but many philosophers would argue that there is proof positive evidence, if not what you can perceive with the senses than at any rate that which you perceive with the mind.

For example, one of the concepts of what God must be is that God is that thing which is neccessary in itself. All things rely on something else for their existence, but if everything is requires something else, must there not be something that is neccessary in itself? That's just one thought (I think, though my studies have not yet taken me so far, one aspect of the cosomological argument.) Note that these are actually very old arguments (the cosmological ones being put forward by Aquinas; Ontological, the good one, that is, by Anselm) which, in fact, are very tough, and some in some ways impossible, to refute.

So I'll point you in that direction, if you want to see the only proof, philosophically speaking, of God's existence. This doesn't argue for one relgion or another, but does strongly argue for an Omnigod.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2008, 09:09:01 pm »
Quote
ZeaLitY, Thought has put forward a lot of clear and reasonable points.

Lord J, Radical_Dreamer, and I disemboweled them on the operating table. That I somehow neglected to learn in high school that Greek romanticism is not equal to Greek history, and that the Trojan War really didn't happen like that is an amusing accusation. But what's worse is the idea that one needs to study theology intently in order to have an argument. One can reasonably dismiss faith without studying its exploded concepts, simply because faith is unreasonable. I do not need to take a year's worth of classes on the bible to correctly interpret "God commanded to kill all the men and enslave the women", nor to expel it as savagery. Neither must I devote several years of my life to studying religion to logically conclude that a belief system based on baseless fiction, rife with contradictions, and supportive of intolerance is an evil to humanity and facilitates vice, a point illustrated with blood several times in history.

Kebrel

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Magical Dreamer (+1250)
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
  • नार्य काम संस्कृत
    • View Profile
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2008, 09:31:00 pm »

Do note, unfortunately, that if you ask for empirical evidence you will be disappointed as that is a philosophical impossibility.
Not true there is ONE scientific fact in favor of a God. That is why I do not take a stance on it one why or another, I don't know which is true.

The fact in question is an off shoot of the famous Schrödinger's cat, upon repeated test both out comes do happen and one must observe to set the outcome. Now in Gods favor, what observed the earth before life could do the observing? creepy

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2008, 09:55:54 pm »
Quote
ZeaLitY, Thought has put forward a lot of clear and reasonable points.

Lord J, Radical_Dreamer, and I disemboweled them on the operating table. That I somehow neglected to learn in high school that Greek romanticism is not equal to Greek history, and that the Trojan War really didn't happen like that is an amusing accusation. But what's worse is the idea that one needs to study theology intently in order to have an argument. One can reasonably dismiss faith without studying its exploded concepts, simply because faith is unreasonable. I do not need to take a year's worth of classes on the bible to correctly interpret "God commanded to kill all the men and enslave the women", nor to expel it as savagery. Neither must I devote several years of my life to studying religion to logically conclude that a belief system based on baseless fiction, rife with contradictions, and supportive of intolerance is an evil to humanity and facilitates vice, a point illustrated with blood several times in history.

Firstly, no, none of you disembowled him. His arguments stood fast. I saw the replies that were made, and I'll tell you I've seen scholarly disputations of things. He spoke like a scholar; you guys, though less so RD, spoke like people with an axe to grind. Nothing more. Look, and here you ARE out of your league. If I recall right, neither you, nor Lord J, nor RD, are historians of any sort, nor arts students. If I recall Lord J is an engineer, RD might be too, and you... was it economics? Can't recall your field. But Thought and I are arguing things that are within our learning and fields, or very near to. Not only that, but he, at least, is arguing them WELL. I have not seen much of a coherent argument from most of your side yet, and very little that would hold at an undergrad level. Your arguments are a half-step only up from what you see on that faithfreedom site, I'll have you know. RD alone brought forward things a little more reasonably. So I am amazed that you can even begin to think you even touched his arguments. Not to mention I meant his most recent arguments.

What I argued is that someone needs to have knowledge in the field in order to make proper claims. I am saying this as a scholar. That you say faith can be dismissed simply for that shows... a remarkable lack of thought on the matter. You're standing by your stance like someone in faith, and not either a scholar or a scientist.

And regarding the Greeks, no, that's not what I meant. There is a certain... complexity to the matter there, and not any high school, nor even any general interest course in Greek matters, can instill that. That is what I meant. You perceive these things with a very modern mind, which you simply cannot do in the study of history. You cannot view it with your biases in tact. That is the problem you have, and continue, to run into. Until you can put aside such biases, you are entirely unqualified to make any assertions regarding history or religion. That is what I meant. It goes a long way past 'it didn't happen like this in real.' What you neglected to learn is not a 'fact', but a way of learning, which is entirely different.

And yes, plainly, you do need to take classes, because you don't know what you're talking about. That's just my point. The very fact that what you're saying is so incoherent with current scholarship shows that you need such training in order to put forward an informed opinion. Simply put, Thought and I have informed opinions; you do not. You are displaying your ignorance of the matter every time you make statements like that, as clearly as if someone were to say 'I do not need to take biology to call evolution bunk.' Oh, really? Well, say what you like about evolution, but you know, there's a reason I don't make too strong claims on the matter. Know why? Because I don't know bloody well enough of the biology behind it to make an informed opinion, that's why. A lot of people who know what they're talking about, who have studied biology for years, seem for it, and that makes me think there might be something to it. But you're talking about as radically as someone who's calling evolution bunk and saying 'well I, no siree, I don't need to study any of that fancy biology to tell you that all that evolution stuff is bunk; anyone can see we don't look like any damned ape.' Really. That's about the level you've stooped to, ZeaLitY. That is how ridiculous you sound... to a scholar. Okay, sure, you don't need to be schooled in things. Have your opinions, go with the mass, with the hoi polloi, because school and learning doesn't mean anything next to your own personal opinions. Nothing you have said is so anti-enlightenment as the statements you have just made... ZeaLitY, be careful, but you've got a foot in the bloody dark ages. If you cannot tell the difference between 'God commanding this' and a societal construct, you have a lot of things to learn before you can even begin to study history or religion, and even further before you can make an informed comment.

Damn, it looks like those who want to be educated in anything beyond their own myopia is a dying breed.

If you're willing to ignore the facts to continue believing your charmed thoughts about humanity, so be it. But it is not proper, and it's not scholarly. Dammit all, since when did the Compendium become so anti-intellectual so as to have ZeaLitY of all people say 'I don't need to study this to know it'?! None of us, ZeaLitY, could pick up the Iliad and hope to understand it; you think you can just pick up the Bible and say 'this is what it means'? Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?


Oh, and Kebrel. That's easy. Actually, it's kind of funny, but all of these questions have been around for a thousand years, and in most cases there are a lot of good answers that people are just unaware of. What you're actually speaking of there is Berkeley's view that things are real because they are observed, and must be held in place by an absolute observation, ie. God. Of course, along comes Kant and gets around all that. Heh. But that was a thought, oh, back in the 1600s. I also find it funny in that other thread, people asking 'maybe there is no time.' You know... Kant said that two hundred years ago. That's metaphysics. Time only has meaning as a frame of reference for our human minds. Beyond that it's meaningless. Anyway, so that's not quite so much a scientific fact, but a Philosophical question that's actually pretty old. Now, keep in mind, though, that this segement of the argument is not one for religion, per say, but for the Omnigod. The Omnigod has a lot of things going for it, but it doesn't actually say anything for religion in particular.

NOW !!!
ZeaLitY, if you feel so strongly, what about what I've said? Can you answer those things more directly rather than just continuing to say 'religion is bad' without ever having shown in any way why it's worse than any other institution (all you've said to this point is 'that's going to far' which is an unreasonable sidestep. Why is it going too far?) And don't bring Lord J into this. Argue them yourself. And don't just say 'there are many instances in which religion is bad.' That's not a proper way of arguing. Challenge my points directly, not with 'well look what it says here', but by analogies of your own and examples, and progressions. That's why I've been so annoyed. All I've heard so far is you continuing to say 'religion is bad, we see that everwhere.' I hear about as much from the guy sitting in the back of the bus. I expect more from you. RD has gone a little further... he usually pokes directly at what's said. But I've not had you address what I say directly. And I'd prefer Lord J not involve himself in this (and if he reads this, don't bother replying to me... yes, you've already beaten me, you don't need to prove it further. This is between me and ZeaLitY.) You have a very pro-human outlook. Why? Tell me bloody why and for what reason for once! Take issue with my logic, and Thought's moreover, if you can. Look, I want to be proven wrong. Though, heck, I can take this to my philosophy prof, and if anyone can tell me where I'm slipping up, he can (it's quite entertaining, actually, to have one's ideas entirely turned upside down by a veritable Socrates.) But you've not yet shown any compelling reason why either Thought or I am mistaken. Historical examples don't hold much water when there are similar ones for every other societal institution. Nor can you quote directly from a book you have not studied and therefore cannot understand.

You have to take direct issue with my logic, which you have not yet done. Because if my logic is right, not all the examples of 'religious' atrocities will serve to further your point, nor a thousand Biblical quotes seeming to point at inconsistancies. If you cannot tell me why my method of thinking is wrong, all those examples are worthless. And that's the problem. You keep saying 'well, religion is just bad because of all these things it has done.' But because of the proposition that I, and Thought before me, have put forward, religion alone is not culpable for these things because it exists also in other institutions. Your only reply to this has been that that's going too far, which is as much as an admission of defeat. Why is it going too far? Indeed, it is directly important to the matter! If the same effects exist in other institutions, a blanket statement about religion is impossible, and all the examples are moot. This is especially so considering that religion has not been like that at every point, and only at some. So much for the historical examples, if you cannot get around that, they act for our stance, rather than against. As for the Biblical quotes, those are always sketchy, and you're not in any way qualified to say 'since this says this, this means that.' That is where you DO need learning, because you are not in any way aware of the contextual problems, the coherence (and yes, incoherence), sources, and manifold other things. If you picked up the Iliad and read it, you'd be able to make comments, to be sure, but you couldn't say them confidently, and you might well be wrong on a lot of points. For example, what is it about? Is it only menis? Only anger? But what then of the pastoral scenes? There is a lot of complexity to literature (which is what the Bible is), and to claim you can make sure statements via cursory knowledge, worse yet via lifted quotes (as I figure you've not personally read it through) is at best bad scholarship, and at worst extremely ignorant. As such, the statements you make on those grounds are inadmissible (not that they must be claimed as such... Thought can easily refute them as he's done already.) Therefore your two strongest guns, the history of religion and the matter of the holy book, have very little strength if my propositions hold true. The only way your argument can be salvaged is to attack my propositions: levelling more fire at me with what is currently impotent ammunition will serve nothing to further your point.

Something interesting you should note, though. I'm not admonishing you follow my religion. I'm trying to forestall you propogating hatred for a group. Do you not find it ironic that the very group you hold to be the cause of hatred is trying to argue merely for respect, whilst you on the side of atheism is arguing that it cannot be tolerated at all? After all, I have never said 'believe as I do', have I? I have never tried to convert, have I? My sole purpose here has been to defend not my beliefs being needful for all or anything but, in fact, that our beliefs should be respected, but even that respect is abhorrent to you. Where is the enlightenment in this? Think about that for a second. Who is it on the attack? And who on the defence? If religion is so belligerant, and atheism benign... well, that's not working out very well here. As I said before, pot calling the kettle black, ZeaLitY. If this is a social experiment, it would seem to support my claim and Thought's, not yours. Because, strangely, it's the religious ones, Thought and I and BZ, who have been tolerant of other beliefs (always, mark.) You and Lord J have been intolerant, and attacking us, because you think you're right and justified. You treat it like a war for right and justice, at least intellectually. If the world acts any way like the Compendium has, God help us in a world of atheism, because respect will be dead.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 10:35:49 pm by Daniel Krispin »

Kebrel

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Magical Dreamer (+1250)
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
  • नार्य काम संस्कृत
    • View Profile
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2008, 10:47:12 pm »
Both Krispin and Thought have said two things that stuck out in my eyes.

First Thought: If you are living in a small country where theft is punishable by death. Now you and your Children are literally starving to death, all else fails so you steal food. Soon you are then caught and put to death because the ruler said that was the law. But hey according to you what you did was wrong and therefor your death is understand able.

Krispin:"None of us, ZeaLitY, could pick up the Iliad and hope to understand it." This book is just that a book. Albeit a deep thought provoking one thats quite entertaining. But man can not comprehend everything in this universe, some things can't be understood, tesseracts, God, post-death, and of course a book write by old man trying to get by.

Both of your arguements have no flaws, what the do have is a base. Thought, the leader is not wrong. Krispin, humans don't understand everything. Shouldn't THOSE be discussed first before we build off of them.





How did I do? :D

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2008, 11:10:48 pm »
I was religious for fourteen years of my life; I read the bible, and studied it enough. I took two courses in biology. Why does one need a PhD to use simple logic?

Why do I have to play your game? Tens of valid points and examples were brought up in the Atheism thread, which you dismissed as revisionist history. What use is there for all the evidence of religiously-motivated violence and hatred in the world if it is to be dismissed as fiction? If you are so intent on deep studying, then read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion, which presents everything we've said and more; the sins of faith are laid bare. Anything else would be retreading the atheism thread.

Quote
You have a very pro-human outlook. Why?

It is futile for me to laud the pulling up of humanity by its own bootstraps when the audience believes that God did it.

Quote
respect will be dead.

I do not respect ignorance. Any human with any power of critical thinking can dismiss Zeus as rubbish, but most are conditioned since childhood to believe in a God which is much harder to expel as a result. I do not need to study the twelve symbols of astrology to dismiss prophecy based on floating rocks in space as trash, no matter how many books are written on the subject. I do not need to become an atomic theorist to believe in the atom, which has been independently verified by thousands of researchers and cases, and whose science is observationally sound. And I do not need to delve into thousands of tomes to make a connection between misguiding "extra-logical" faiths and numerous atrocities committed in their names in the service of their principles.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2008, 11:12:38 pm by ZeaLitY »

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2008, 03:08:52 am »
First Thought: If you are living in a small country where theft is punishable by death. Now you and your Children are literally starving to death, all else fails so you steal food. Soon you are then caught and put to death because the ruler said that was the law. But hey according to you what you did was wrong and therefor your death is understand able.
The law may be evil relative to your own morals, but the law is the law. Of course, the law should also be lenient in such a situation, but there is a major distinction between human law and human morals. As I said before, (and this goes to Z as well), whether or not God is cruel or evil is irrelevant, if he exists, when it comes to punishment and rewards, the law is there. Torture in hell may be unnecessarily cruel, but God is God, and God has the power (the torture in Hell relates to the punishment from the Islamic god, and the more literal description of Hell from the Jewish and Christian god).

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
Re: FaithFreedom.org
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2008, 04:44:26 am »
Daniel brought up a few points I'd like to address.

He mentions that religion is not the only force that has caused unnecessary evil in the world. He is absolutely correct to make this statement, but he misses the mark. The evil done by one does not justify evil by another. That would lead to a race to the bottom, a collapse of human joy. Further, the evil done by other groups is not the present topic. The notions of race and country have caused unforgivable misery throughout human history, but they should be dealt with individually, as should religion, as they have circumstances, and there are different means of dealing with them.

Now this is reminder is used as the springboard for an argument about the effect of the human element. Daniel rejects pro-human outlook, noting that humanity is the common thread in all human institutions that have caused unnecessary suffering. Of course, humanity is the common thread in all human institutions, so factoring it out seems to me counter productive. I have asserted that we can judge an institution as possessing the qualities it tends to cultivate in people; Thought asserts that the institutions are lenses, focusing what is in its members anyway. I believe that our disagreement is merely semantic, so I will use Thought's analogy to demonstrate my point.

Different social institutions can be viewed as lenses, reducing or increasing the violent tendencies of the people that they focus on. When a lens principally magnifies the violent tendencies of it's people, I think we can all agree that it is doing a disservice to humanity. Most people are willing to use the base level of just violence (that is, defense from aggressors) on instinct alone. A lens is not necessary to focus people's violent tendencies beyond the just in most cases. Most lenses that magnify violence then are problematic, and generally not trusted by people at large. Even those that support the ends of violent extremists (of any sort) do not necessarily support their means.

So when we have lenses that magnify violence, particularly to a large degree, I don't think it is unreasonable for us to consider them a detrimental (on the whole) lens, nor is it inappropriate to argue that it's focus should be reduced until such time that it shines no further, and that this goal should be achieved through peaceful (or, should the sad need arise, defensively violent) force.

The disagreement on this topic then seems to be whether the lens of religion is a net magnifier or reducer of violence. ZeaLity and I assert that the religion has caused more unjust and unnecessary suffering than it has averted, and so it would be a good thing for man kind on the whole if the lens of religion was peacefully cast aside. This is of course distinct from the question of any gods. This does not mean that other lenses are not net suffering magnifiers as well, nor does it mean that such lenses should be left to cheerily amplify human misery. It is simply to argue that religion is in the set of lens that should be cast aside.

Daniel asserts that religion merely argues for respect. That may be the case where he is, but it is not the case in the United States. Religion demands deference here. It is not respectful of religion to put "In God We Trust" on the money, or "One Nation Under God" in the pledge. It is an abandonment of the principle of secularism. It is brazen disrespect to all non-monotheists. This is the environment in which we live. You see, we do not want to persecute the religious. We simply want them to stop recieving special deference and consideration in the society in which we live. It may seem that what we want is persecution, because we are aiming to take something away from the religious here. But it is something that is not theirs in the first place; and that thing is a pedastal which makes them first class citizens and all others second class citizens. This is not persecution, this is striving for equality.

Also, I'm not an engineer. By trade, I'm a game designer, principally a level designer and writer at the moment.