Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Anthony Flew became a deist. While he didn't (officially) adopt a mainstream religion he was very sympathetic to Christianity.
I really doubt anybody will read it, but I will link to Flew's 'There is a God' so people can read what Flew actualy wrote.
I think that we need to debate what the words 'god and 'God' mean.
Created:
Posted in:
A placeholder - I'll do proper OP later - in the meantime I hope people will comment on the difference beween 'god' and 'God' as they see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I admit I can't see it doing any actual harm, But why limit it to mental health issues? Some people who join DA will smoke, drink or eat too much than is good for them. Some will be gambling addicts, Wouldn't they benefit from some links to relevant resources?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
What is annoying about Mopac (or one of the many annoying things!) is NOT his claim the UR is capital_G God but his insistence that anyone who doesn't accept uncritically that the UR is capital-G God is denying the existence of reality and a fool.
I don't believe in God (or gods, or the supernatural in general) at all, but that's not the point. He purports to make a rational argument but he doesn't - he rehashes the kalam which 'proves' a UR underpins reality (dubious,but I am prepared to go along with it) but he leaves the crucial connection of the UR to capital-G God as an unsupported assertion. And then has the unmitigated gall to call anyone who notices the flaw in his argument a fool!
If Mopac has faith that the UR is God (ie not just a god-like entity or some unknown physics)then I can't stop him! If the God of the Bible exists then He probably is the UR. But if Mopac thinks his argument proves the God he worships exists then he is wrong and no-one is a fool for noticing that fatal flaw in his logic nor for drawing attention to it. Rather Mopac is a fool for thinking that critics of his argument deny reality itself.no matter how many times he is told otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If there is no ultimate reality, there can be no reality. It is very simple, and obviously true.
We're willing to grant that - now show us that the UR is the Christian god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I would say Mopac has hit on what he thinks of as a slam-dunk argument and won't let go of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Use a small g and you might have a defensible point. As it is, you are just plain wrong.The Ultimate Reality is what God means.
Created:
Posted in:
If you are not accepting what is meant by "God", you are doing as I say. These are not baseless accusations.
What do I think is meant by 'God'?
I wrote
Atheists believe that If there is an 'ultimate reality' that underpins 'ordinary reality' it does not hear or respond to prayers and does not care if people are good or bad. It did not prepare a heaven and hell for dead people.
I would be interested to know what you think is meant by God (with a capital G).
If it means 'that which underpins reality' then I don't deny it. If it means the entity describedin the Christian Bible - which is much more than an underpinning of reality - then I do deny it exists and your 'ultimate reality' argument does nothing to help you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your aversion to reality does not negate it.
Rather than trade accusations, would you care to wager which of us DA members think has the better grasp of reality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Sexual immorality is the real issue here.
Is it? I think the real issue is how we value the life of the unborn.
If you make abortions harder to get, people may turn to contraception more, but they won't stop shagging!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@disgusted
It's not my intention to disprove God's existence but to show that your argument is broken so you will stop repeating it ad nauseam! I realise that is a follorn hope, but I've nothing better to do right now.
If you ever change your avatar, I suggest you consider this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@disgusted
if abortion was a good thing, all pregnancies should be aborted!
That is why I say abortion is the lesser evil. IMO, how evil an abortion is depends very much on how early or late the abortion is performed. A very early abortion is not really prolematic, but a very late abortion is not much different from infanticide. Note the 'IMO'! There is no 'fact' -there is only opinion.
I am not an embryologist so I am not qualified to put numbers to a cut-off able point, but I support legislation that makes very early abortion easy to obtain and very late abortion almost impossible (not counting abortions for medical reasons, obviously).
British law does not permit abortion after 24 weeks. As I said above, whether that is the right number is not something I can say.
I leave it open whether that makes me pro-life or pro-MURDER, or if that is a false dichotomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have no dispute that my country becoming an islamic state is not acceptable. But I think that can be avoided without instituting oppressive and intolerant policies. I do not approve of religion - I firmly believe secuarism is vastly superior and will win the battle of ideas against Islam, but being nasty to Muslims is not the way to do it.
It's the easiest thing in the world to foment strife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes "gods" PLURAL which is more than one. At last this god can admit to there being other gods whereas theists believe in there being only one . You have to wonder why that is.
I'm never quite sure what contet you are working in! Judaism appears to have evolved over time - it was to prevent it evolving any more that it was given a wriiten form. The yhwhist priests were worried it would absorb Babylonian ideas and lose its identity, and with it would go Israelite identity.
The earliest form of Judaism certainly accepted the existence of many gods. Each tribe or city was supposed to have its own 'patron god'. As the well being of the Hebrews depended on the goodwill of their particular god, there was no practical diference between apostsy and treachery.
There were only small steps from YHWH being the Hebrew's patron god to being the best god to being the only god. The technical terms are 'monolatry' (the worship of one god amogst many) and 'monotheism' (belief in one god). My guess is that the Jrews only embraced full-on monotheism during the exile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
My aplogies to virt for this side-tracking of his thread. Stephen is usually very against thread hijacking, but I guess he could't resist it!
In the old days the only significant forms of xenophobia were race-based so the debate was cast in terms of racism. But its not the 70s or 80s any more and recently xenophobia has re-appeared in a different form.
Xenophobes like to hide behind the excuse that Moslems are not a race so they are not racists. But islamophobes - for want of a better word - are the same sort of people who were racists a generation ago. Indeed, it is often the same people, if they are old enough!
As one of the people Stephen considers a 'Islamic apologist', I deny that label. I have never defended Islam. What I have done is try to correct some eggregious misrepresentations of Islam. Whether xenophobia is crude racism or in its more insidious anti-Muslim form I find it unacceptable.
I was often in the front line against NF skinheads when I was a student 40 years ago... these days I just spar on the internet, but it's the same battle.
I hope Stephen will respect Virt's thread and begin a fresh thread to continue promoting his odious ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@disgusted
@TheRealNihilist
@RoderickSpode
Mopac wrote:The only possible conclusion is that The Ultimate Reality exists, and that is what is meant by God.
I get the first part - I don't think the second part is right, certainly not if 'God' with a capital G refers specifically to the god of the Abrahamic religions.
The nature of reality is a metaphysical puzzle. Mopac's position is that reality (ie all that exists) must have a cause (because 'nothing comes of nothing'). It's not unlike saying the Big Bang must have a cause.
If you accept that reality/the universe must have been caused by something prior then 'the ultimate reality' is a not unreasonable label for that something. As that something is responsible for the existence of 'our reality', it has an attribute associaied with gods - it is the creator and sustainer of the world. In that sense a god 'must' exist.
But Mopac doesn't stop there. Mopac insists it is not a metaphorical god that must exist - what must exist is God, the subject of worship in his preferred version of Christianty. But capital-G God has many attributes not belonging to the UR.
Atheists do not deny the reality of reality, nor that there is (quite possibly) something even more fundamental than the reality we perceive. What we deny is the existence of an entity with the attributes of the Abrahamic god, aka God.
Atheists believe that If there is an 'ultimate reality' that underpins 'ordinary reality' it does not hear or respond to prayers and does not care if people are good or bad. It did not prepare a heaven and hell for dead people. Atheists think the UR is some physical principle that brings reality into being, just as the Higgs field brings mass into being.
Praying to the UR makes no more sense than praying to the Higgs field. If you like, why not call the Higgs field God? Mopac thinks that if he calls reality 'God' then atheists are duty bound to deny it exists!
So is the UR God? No. The UR has some of the features people have traditionally associated with gods, but it is not the God Mopac worships. That God does not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Abortion is child sacrifice.You don't want the child, so you sacrifice it.It is evil.
Disposing of something unwanted is not 'sacrifice'. The few societies that have practiced child sacrifice didso because children were precious to them - that is what gave such sacrifices special power.
I also think abortion is evil - but I judge it to be the lesser evil. I'm pointing out Mopac's argument is emotional rhetorical nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What you believe is not what everyone believes and what you believe is not necessrily true. Unless you start differentiating between dogma and fact you are not going to have much luck changing anybody's mind....considering it is God that gives everything its existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No need to butt out, but I think the idea is that we supply the questions and virt supplies the answers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I look forward to there being an AMA on Orthodoxy, but that thread is not this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It's not easy for a secularist like me to put much trust in spirits! But if you can believe the writing of the books was inspired then of course the editing andselection can be inspired.We do have to put a certain amount of trust in the choosing of the canons being spirit-lead. To prove it by documentation alone, I would agree would be very difficult.
But cynical secularists would tend to look for, say, political motivation. Biut it's suprising how little material exists about the early decades of Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
...as non-Jews can get that heavenly reward for abiding by just those 7 laws, no one is encouraged to convert.
That said, you would agree that Judaism is very firmly centred on Israel and it's people. There are several passages in the bible that secribe the undesirability of foreign wives, such as Ezra commanding the expulsion of foreign wives from Jersusalem.
ez 10:10Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have been unfaithful by marrying foreign women, adding to the guilt of Israel. 11Now, therefore, make a confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers, and do His will. Separate yourselves from the people of the land and from your foreign wives.”
The proscription against foreign gods and foreign wives is probably the main reason Judaism and Jewishness was able to survive almost 2000 years of homelessness. The upside is that Jewish culture didnot disappear and it flourishes today, but the downside is anti-semitism exists almost everywhere.
I wont ask a question, but you may want to comment on the above!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you see this contrast as meaning works are needed for salvation?
No. I hope one of our Jewish members will back me up when I say that salvation in the Christian sense is a minor matter within Judaism. Judaism is far more concerned with 'this life' than the 'next life'. James is not saying we should be kind to widows and orphans so we go to heaven - he is saying we should be kind because that what god wants. Unlike Christianity doing good is an end-in-itself, not a means to personal salvation.
The book of James explicit contradicts Paul's 'justification by faith' on other occasions,such as
2:24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
and
2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
My contention is that the book of James suggests that there was a 'strain' of early Christianity that was much closer to traditional Judaism than 'Paulism'. (Certain passages in acts also sugest the same thing). And if James was the brother of Jesus, was that version closer to what Jesus taught than Paul's version?
I don't think we can know. Certainly I don't know anything that settles it - if any body else does have anything (other than quotes from the bible!) I'dcertinly be very interested in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I can see from the linked material that Jewish law is not easy to be expert in! Hoever I suggest Deb avoids deep holes and high buildings in the company of his Jewish friends, just in case.
Would you agree that 'Jewish' is not a religious identity nor an ethnic identity but something of both (or neither?). It is not like 'English' or 'American', nor like 'Hindu'. It may be the hardest religion to convert to, in practice if not theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Which is not to say we don't like arguing!I went to school in the UK - so we’re not as big in debate.
What we Brits like are people who can think on their feet, preferably with an acid sense of humour.
I can't imagine PMQ working - or even being attempted - anywhere else. It's the formal sort of debate we don't go for, where it's more about technique and professional advocacy than passion and strongly held principles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
pushing someone off of a building.
Reading this
I think it might be referring to pushing into a deep pit.
I also note from the same source that men are to be naked when stoned, but women should be covered, although 'Rabbi Judah' advocated the exposure of a woman's breasts only if her bosom was unattractive. Amazing what Priests discuss.
Deb8 also asked about how his 'misbehaviour' might affect his bid to convert to Judaism. What can you tellus about that?
Created:
Posted in:
In Judaism there is a concept of an unknowing sin which is not punished. There are actually different types of unkown sin:
That's good news for Deb's boss, but what about Deb himself? Tricking a Jew into eating pork - even unknowingly eating pork - has got to be wrong, doesn't it? Also does it matter that he is not a Jew? Cutting to the chase, am I allowed to stone him or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@Deb-8-a-bull
@TheRealNihilist
@poly... she's 'blocked me', but all she's blocked is being informed when I post a reply!
Hey stupid fucking atheists. Proof is not required to have a right to faith. Get a clue bigots.
But theists keep on presenting stuff they say is proof! It's like if the word 'jesus' appears in a document from 200 years after he supposedly died the whole of the bible must be true!
Admitedly, that is an exaggeration but not by much!
And the stuff some of them write about evolution... if they were honest and said they DON'T believe in evolution because they DO believe in God that would be ok (ie more or less ok with me,any way) but they don't. By accident or design they often misrpresent the science and facts. Such stuff might be good enough to keep wavering believers on track, but it won't sway anyone with the most basic grasp of the actual science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
@Tejretics
Could the “About DART” thread, as well as the “Introduce Yourself” thread, have links to helplines for suicide, depression/anxiety, PTSD, and a general mental health thing? Could be useful.
Isn't that like assuming the reason people join DA is that they are depressed or suicidal?
'Welcome! You don't have to be mad to post here... but you probably are, so here's a link to the samaritans.'
It would probably save more lives if DA promoted non-smoking and moderate drinking - but is that what internet forums/debate sites are for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It's mildly interesting that the bible calls disbelievers fools. There is also the more usually quoted line found in Psalm 14 (and the almost identical Ps53) "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.".
There were disbelievers back then! As disbelievers tended to be quite bright the Priests had to say to the people 'They aren't so clever - in fact they are fools! You are the clever ones for believing in God!'
Clearly nothing much has changed about that for 4 or 5 thousand years. Most Christians don't like their assumptions challenged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It's Proverbs 26:12.
I suppose a lot of dumb believers cheer themselves up by imagining they know something clever people don't get.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
When I think of socialism, I think...
Perhaps if you thought 'old age pensions, free education, free health care, sick pay, a right to adequate housing' you'd have a better picture of what most socialists value.
When the workers and peasants rose up in Russia they didn't do it because they dreampt of a future with a repressive police state, forced relocations and gulags. But that is what the russian workers and peasants got, and the new vile elite that repaced the old vile elite called it 'socialism'.
It wasn't socialism or communism that caused the death of millions of Christians and others in Russia - it was the willingness of ruling elites to do anything to hang on to power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Keith doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't really understand our faith, so him claiming that Paul and John differed is a matter of his faulty interpretation not reality.They were both Orthodox Christians with common faith.
James, not John. Of course they had many shared beliefs, but they clearly differed on the matter of works v. faith. We read in the bible there were other disutes between Paul and others over dietary laws and circumscision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
An inconsequential lettter by Paul such 2 John as was in but anything eviating from Paul's theological position
An inconsequential letter by Paul such 2 John as was in but anything deviating from Paul's theological position
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
deb's style is difficult, but it's not word salad.
He wants to know more about Jewish dietary laws, particularly how they apply in the case of eating pork unknowingly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Par for the course when you've got a text composed of a bunch of different books cobbled together from a bunch of different authors over a period of thousands of years.
I was thinking of the nt.
The books of the NT were written over a relatively short period of time and half of them were written by Paul himself. An inconsequential lettter by Paul such 2 John as was in but anything eviating from Paul's theological position - such as several 'lost' gospels - were left out of the canon.
The nt was not "cobbled together from a bunch of different authors over a period of thousands of years" - it was the product of conscious selection to present a particular viewpoint.
As usual, things are never that simple...!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@3RU7AL
I am not sure you two agree what 'noumenon' refers to.
Most of the world uses that word in the Kantian sense, which makes 'noumenon' non-mental by definition. But I think I recall Mopac objecting to Kant using yhe word incorrectly....
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Sir Laurence Gardener
I'm more than a little suspicious of characters who award themselves knighthoods! I think I will pass on aclose study of his work, because
"be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." (Eccles. 12:12)
God tells Moses to go free his people but then has to get permission from his father-in law to do so. Why?
Ex 4:18 Then Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law and said to him, “Let me return to my own people in Egypt to see if any of them are still alive.” Jethro said, “Go, and I wish you well.”
I read that simply as Moses being polite to the aged father of his wife. They had known each other a long time and appear to have had a good relationship. It's not clear what Jethro's status in the community was,but he wasn't a nobody. However, I doubt Jethro's permission was actually required. The writers wanted to present Moses as showing respect, not that Moses was subordinate to Jethro.
God knows that Pharaoh will not let them go because God admit to purposely hardening the heart of Pharaoh. Why?
Ex 7:2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”
The writers about were not content to have the Hebrew simply leaving Egypt peacefully - they wanted the story to illustrate the power of yhwh to inflict suffering on enemies of the Hebrew.
God wants Moses dead all over a foreskin. Why ?
24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
The verses in question is a stand-alone episode that defies definitive interpretation! It might have made sense to the Hebrew due to cultural norms,but Ihaven't got a clue! Here is a pdf that discusses several theories that have been proposed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is the problem with arguing about idealism... it's effectively irrefutable because it can just keep on retreating!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, can you violate the laws of physics?
Clearly not, but I see that as evidence I am not in a solipsistic illusion.
If I asleep and dreaming I would not really be able to break the laws of physics but I could easily perceive myself breaking them by flying or breathing under water.
Of course I could be dreaming now... but life is a bit short to bother with every fanciful idea there is - I don't have much interest in idealism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Even in a hypothetical solipsistic dream game, scientific reliability and efficacy are still real-true-facts.
I am not sure what you mean. But if,say, water is an illusion how reliable is it's boiling point being 100C?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It would have ended, were it not for someone postingYes, I know because you said the first 6 books are not true historically, your input to this thread should have started and ended there.
God tells Moses to go free his people but then has to get permission from his father-in law to do so. Why?God knows that Pharaoh will not let them go because God admit to purposely hardening the heart of Pharaoh. Why?God wants Moses dead all over a foreskin. Why ?
If you like I can speculate why the priestly scribes who wrote Exodus wrote those details, but it wouldn't be from a believer's perspective.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You see those six books are there, in the Old Testament; someone wrote them, and I am baffled as to why you seem to be failing to understand that the bible actually exists, so needs explaining.
In #62 I hoped to show that I do 'understand that the bible exists and needs to be explained' and offer my suggestion why the bible exists.
I get that you want a believer to tell you what they think the text means. I can't help you with that, unfortunately!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You see those six books are there, in the Old Testament; someone wrote them, and I am baffled as to why you seem to be failing to understand that the bible actually exists, so needs explaining.
You have to acknowledge that we can't interrogate the authors so a degree of speculation is unavoidable. I can only suggest what I think is plausible.
It is generally accepted that the OT began to take on its familiar wriiten form during the Baylonian Exile. Doubtless the individual legends and fire-stide tales existed orally long beore then.
I think the priests of the exiled jews were concerned that their culture would be lost by becoming diluted with that of their captors. Writing it down ensured that Hebrew/Jewish culture was frozen and fixed and immune from Babylonian influence The only people who could read or write were yhwhist priests, and he bible began as an exercise in propaganda, designed to bolster morale, patriotic pride and yhwhist fervour amongst the exiles.
I suspect that the egyptian episode in Exodus is in part an allegory of the Babylonian captivity the Jews were suffering at the time. It was a vivid picture of captors brought low - it happened once (the priests were saying) so it can happen again. There is scant evidence for the eyptian captivity, but I can imagine a jewish scribe writing of the plagues and calamities befalling the Egyptians, wishfully projecting them onto his Babylonian masters!
The idea of a 'promised land' probably assisted maintaing hope in an eventual return.
The remarkable thing is that after 70 years of exile, Babylon did indeed fall - to the Persian king Cyrus. If the written scriptures were intended to preserve Jewish identity it had worked and the exiles returned to Jerusalem.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I'm trying to fit in!I can understand that anyone with the brain of a sea sponge or an amoeba not getting the points I have made above, but I feel somewhat let down by someone who talks and comes across as half intelligent such as yourself. It is quite absurd realy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Now you can be offended at this and get prideful about it, or you can stop pretending to have knowledge and receive correction. I know what I believe. I know what the church teaches. You don't. Yiu are out of the loop. There is only shame in this if you insist that you know when you really don't.
I do not claim to know anything about what your church teaches. Writing about that is your job!
I posted about James and Paul @Castin, not @you. I gather what I wrote is not in keeping what your church teaches - I never said it was or even implied it was. You are being a little arrogant to think had you in mind at all at the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This faith/works dichotomy is a western theological perversion.We Orthodox understand thst faith and works are united in faithfulness.The works come from faith!
Had you said first that instead of saying I was ignorant and in need of education I would have more respect for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your contrsst between Paul and James.A very protestant, even Lutheran understanding!
You wrote:
You have no idea what you are talking about. You'd be better off confessing your ignorance and getting a real education.
However, the stark contrast between James and Paul is not the product of my ignorance, profound though that is. The most glaring differnce is in their attitude to justification by works or by faith.
Jas 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Jas 2:17: "...faith apart from works is dead."
Paul writes:
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Gal 2:16 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What exactly do you think I got wrong?
Created: