The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

12.05.2019 03:42PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

The holy scriptures command god's people to treat foreigners as they would treat each other (native born). And yet, Christians seem to be the first in line to express their outrage about "illegal immigrants"!!
That isn't a contradiction to the true premise of whatever God says. If you say God says this in the Bible then they can default to well you read it wrong and appeal to a priest who said you were wrong.

(EITHER) the holy scriptures are subjective ("open to interpretation") (OR) "objective" ("NOT open to interpretation").

(IFF) the holy scriptures are the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god (THEN) there can be no variation in its interpretation.

Conversely,

(IFF) there is variation in the interpretation of the holy scriptures (multiple Christian denominations) (THEN) the holy scriptures cannot be the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god.

Topic's author

#32

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

12.05.2019 03:48PM

-->

@3RU7AL

(EITHER) the holy scriptures are subjective ("open to interpretation") (OR) "objective" ("NOT open to interpretation").

Nope. You are wrong because my priest says so. No way of the other-side considering your position because they believe the "specialists" when reading the Bible.

(IFF) the holy scriptures are the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god (THEN) there can be no variation in its interpretation.

Common defense would be all the other sects are wrong.

(IFF) there is variation in the interpretation of the holy scriptures (multiple Christian denominations) (THEN) the holy scriptures cannot be the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god.

You don't know that. You are making a claim about something we cannot know. We are using this world's rules to apply to a place we don't even know exists.

#33

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

12.05.2019 03:56PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

(IFF) the holy scriptures are the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god (THEN) there can be no variation in its interpretation.
Common defense would be all the other sects are wrong.

I agree, but strangely, most Christians don't believe all the other flavors of Christian "are going straight to hell" (but of course the Jews will)...

Which sort of begs the question of why they're so divided on doctrine that they can't even meet in the same building (if they agree on the "important stuff" can't they just ignore the rest?).

#34

ebuc

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,243

ebuc

12.05.2019 04:36PM

-->

@3RU7AL

1 + 1 = 2 (THEREFORE) I love you

1 triangle + 1 triangle can equal 4 triangles of same size as the only geometric example of synergy in Universe.

1 woman + 1 man can equal multiple progeny via " I love you " type attractions

Other examples?

#35

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

12.05.2019 05:27PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

(IFF) there is variation in the interpretation of the holy scriptures (multiple Christian denominations) (THEN) the holy scriptures cannot be the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god.
You don't know that.

I'm pretty sure I do know that, and you can too, by applying simple logic.

Nobody disputes the existence of a particular copy of the holy scriptures.

I can present the book and any two people, regardless of their preconceptions, can agree the book exists.

The words are also not in dispute. The words exist. We can agree on the words printed on the page.

I can even generously grant that this book and these words are "the one and only true and infallible word of god".

Great. That's great. We agree on that much. We agree up to that point.

The trick is, that even if we agree on everything up to this point, 100%, we still DON'T agree on the APPLICATION of those words.

How does this perfect book and these perfect words INFORM my daily life?

What PRACTICAL VALUE does this perfect book actually have?

That's the bright line.

That's the line between FACT and OPINION.

That's the line that clearly demarcates Catholic from Episcopal, that specific line is what distinguishes between Baptist and Methodist.

In one part it says, LOVE THINE ENEMY, and in another part it says, KILL ALL ENEMY CIVILIANS INCLUDING CHILDREN AND LIVESTOCK (except for the virgin females of course, give them to the Priests as servants for the rest of their lives).

What MEANING am I supposed to glean from this?

You are making a claim about something we cannot know. We are using this world's rules to apply to a place we don't even know exists.

This is not an intractable problem. These are real-world questions that demand "objective" (not-opinion-based) real-world answers.

I want what the Christians promise. OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Real-world, unambiguous, yes or no answers that are not context-sensitive.

When god says, "kill the child who curses their parent", THEN KILL THEM.

When god says, "one who marries a divorcee commiteth adultery" and "kill adulterers", THEN KILL THEM.

These are unambiguous statements. We know how the ancient Israelites interpreted these laws. This is not up-for-debate.

Topic's author

#36

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

12.05.2019 06:50PM

-->

@3RU7AL

most Christians don't believe all the other flavors of Christian "are going straight to hell"

Okay then. Even though they are practicing the wrong sect they are still going to heaven. Everyone else will go to hell then.

Which sort of begs the question of why they're so divided on doctrine that they can't even meet in the same building (if they agree on the "important stuff" can't they just ignore the rest?).

It is multifaceted like pretty much anything. I would say the most important thing is that in order for anything to be gained in some sort of coalition both sides need to concede ground, I don't think they are capable given what they think is at stake.

by applying simple logic.

The problem is that you are using your own standards against theirs. If they actually thought they were wrong why would they still be following something they don't believe in?

These are real-world questions that demand "objective" (not-opinion-based) real-world answers.

That is you talking not the world. The world doesn't owe us anything. That is you applying value to something.

This is not up-for-debate.

Anything that a person is willing to be on the opposing side is up for debate. Whether or not it is deemed socially acceptable which is why people still push race and IQ stuff.

#37

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

12.05.2019 07:34PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

We know how the ancient Israelites interpreted these laws. This is not up-for-debate.

I was referring to these specific laws. The "interpretation" of these particular statements is not in dispute.

#38

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

12.05.2019 07:36PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

These are real-world questions that demand "objective" (not-opinion-based) real-world answers.
That is you talking not the world. The world doesn't owe us anything. That is you applying value to something.

If someone tells me they believe in "objective morality" you can be sure I'm going to ask them for unambiguous "objective" examples.

#39

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

12.05.2019 07:42PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

by applying simple logic.
The problem is that you are using your own standards against theirs. If they actually thought they were wrong why would they still be following something they don't believe in?

I'm glad you pointed this out.

My goal is to get them to present a logical, skeptical argument against some religion they DON'T believe in, and use that to establish common-ground.

Most of these people are very intelligent and more that merely capable of rational skepticism.

They're just not applying their rational skepticism Uniformly in all cases (special pleading).

I'm not trying to force anyone to adopt my "one-and-only-true-method". We already agree on the method. It's a common method with thousands of years of historical precedent.

Topic's author

#40

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

12.05.2019 07:42PM

-->

@3RU7AL

We know how the ancient Israelites interpreted these laws. This is not up-for-debate.

Have you heard of Historical Revisionism?

I guess Christians do it by not acknowledging the changes in texts.

The "interpretation" of these particular statements is not in dispute.

It can be. People might not value what is historically accurate instead whatever conforms to what they value.

If someone tells me they believe in "objective morality" you can be sure I'm going to ask them for unambiguous "objective" examples.

I don't even know how this follows by my previous statement. I merely pointed out the world isn't sentient as in capable of answering your questions but here you are pretty much talking after that conceding what I said and saying but I still want answers. You also confused people and matter. These two are different things. I wasn't talking about people, I was talking about matter.

Topic's author

#41

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

12.05.2019 07:50PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I guess you like another person on this site are insecure about their ranking on the leaderboard so you have to add 3 comments that you were able to fit everything in one.

I don't care about your excuses for this, I just want you to post everything in one comment. Anything but that I will not reply too.

My goal is to get them to present a logical, skeptical argument against some religion they DON'T believe in, and use that to establish common-ground.

Easy counter, my Religion is not contradictory. They can apply different standards to other Religions compared to theirs and you will get nowhere. They would have to admit they are not using the same standards but at that point I think you are talking about a minority. I think theists pride themselves at looking at the other positions and coming back to the Religion they started with. Meaning they were not able to find out they were using different standards in the past, think that they did and use that as justification as they are wrong. Even if you can clearly point out contradictions that conform to what they think you will still hit a brick wall. The answer to you might not be worthwhile because you would find out they are switching topics instead of admitting to their mistakes or using circular logic. Both negate anything traction you can make.

#42

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

12.05.2019 07:53PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Which sort of begs the question of why they're so divided on doctrine that they can't even meet in the same building (if they agree on the "important stuff" can't they just ignore the rest?).
It is multifaceted like pretty much anything. I would say the most important thing is that in order for anything to be gained in some sort of coalition both sides need to concede ground, I don't think they are capable given what they think is at stake.

Yeah, they don't really seem that fired-up about it anymore. The Catholics and protestants used to murder each other. There have even been cases of violent disputes between protestant Churches. But nowadays, most people don't even seem to know what the differences (in doctrine) are.

#43

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

12.05.2019 08:04PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

My goal is to get them to present a logical, skeptical argument against some religion they DON'T believe in, and use that to establish common-ground.
Easy counter, my Religion is not contradictory. They can apply different standards to other Religions compared to theirs and you will get nowhere. They would have to admit they are not using the same standards but at that point I think you are talking about a minority.

Rational Skepticism is like a muscle, the more you exercise it, the stronger it grows.

My goal isn't to get anyone to say "you're right and I'm wrong". Of course, that almost never happens.

What I've discovered in my own experience, is that, I will engage in an argument, and then, often, two or three years later, it'll click for me.

Some debate I had almost forgotten about, that I had disputed fiercely, eventually won me over.

I've also seen this happen to people I know. It doesn't always work of course, but I've seen it happen enough times and I've experienced it myself enough to know it's not "a complete waste of time".

People already know what logic is. The topic is less important than the logic. That's why I like to bring up BigFoot (I'll even entertain the flat-earther-hypothesis).

Topic's author

#44

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

12.05.2019 10:47PM

-->

@3RU7AL

People already know what logic is

Logic varies from person to person because they value different things.

Rational Skepticism is like a muscle, the more you exercise it, the stronger it grows.

Do you have data that people do have this?

#45

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

12.06.2019 08:17PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

People already know what logic is
Logic varies from person to person because they value different things.

At it's core, logic is primitive cause and effect.

One thing causes another thing which causes another thing.

It's the foundation of all decision making.

It's the foundation of all movement.

(IFF) condition X (AND) (OR) condition Y (THEN) Z

Computers function this way (perfectly logically) regardless of what they believe.

Humans function exactly the same way (perfectly logically) regardless of what they believe.

Weather functions exactly the same way (perfectly logically) regardless of what it believes.

Everything functions exactly the same way (perfectly logically) regardless of whether or not anyone knows it.

Topic's author

#46

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

12.06.2019 10:22PM

-->

@3RU7AL

At it's core, logic is primitive cause and effect.

This doesn't matter when theists appeal to things that they cannot verify to understand the world. God created cause and effect. This logically follows from whatever God says. It can be appealing to scripture or making it up.

53 days later

#47

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,865

01.28.2020 10:43PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

"The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers" Sure it can. For example: It's better to cum in the gravy than piss in the salad.

#48

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,565

01.29.2020 02:43AM

no shit, that's why it's philosophy

#49

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,223

01.29.2020 08:01AM

-->

@sadolite

@Dr.Franklin

If you want concrete answers, study civil engineering.

No one can tell when you've cum in the gravy.

Whereas piss and shit are a dead give away.

The more subtle the perversion, the tastier the gravy and the more exquisite the memory.

Topic's author

#50

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

01.29.2020 10:35AM

-->

@sadolite

"The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers" Sure it can. For example: It's better to cum in the gravy than piss in the salad.

Literally shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Better has to be defined. You are literally appealing to societal norms not making a claim outside of it.

#51

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,865

01.29.2020 11:48AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Um it's a joke. Settle down Bevis

Topic's author

#52

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

01.29.2020 12:08PM

-->

@sadolite

Guess whenever I can't defend myself I'll say it is a joke. I thought you would be fishing for lies to spew but guess that is only when it comes to politics not philosophy. Noted.

#53

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,865

01.29.2020 09:56PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Do you really think it is not a joke? That I am making a serious intellectual statement? I think it's funny how you are analyzing it. That's funnier than the joke itself.

#54

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,565

01.29.2020 10:16PM

-->

@zedvictor4

#55

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,223

01.30.2020 08:41AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Are you suggesting that cumming into the gravy is a societal norm?

Nonetheless I did define quite eloquently how cum was quite obviously better than piss, given the probably purpose of the act.

Topic's author

#56

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

01.30.2020 10:01AM

-->

@sadolite

Do you really think it is not a joke? That I am making a serious intellectual statement? I think it's funny how you are analyzing it. That's funnier than the joke itself.

Have you ever made an intellectual statement? I haven't heard it so why are you making the distinction here?

Topic's author

#57

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

01.30.2020 10:04AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Are you suggesting that cumming into the gravy is a societal norm?

Nonetheless I did define quite eloquently how cum was quite obviously better than piss, given the probably purpose of the act.

The first sentence you are talking about cum in gravy. The second you are talking about cum being better than piss. Do you not see the difference in what you are talking about thus making it two different things I have to argue against? What I am trying to say is these two sentences don't follow from each they are separate points. They are similar but don't follow.

I am not suggesting cumming into gravy is a societal norm.

Could you quote your eloquence?

What do you mean with "given the probably purpose of the act"?

#58

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,865

01.30.2020 11:35PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Oh stop analyzing a stupid sarcastic joke.

#59

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,223