Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Elijah · 09-21-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No, I answered your questions and you failed to respond. This suggests you are incapable of responding and establishes that your repeated complaints that no one has explained how they conclude from a text that an author held supernatural beliefs is disingenuous at the least.

I’m not asking you questions I’m asking you for evidence of this world view you speak of.

I don’t see you asking any serious questions sorry. Maybe you could rephrase exactly what I need to explain.

Quote:

You not only lack evidence or scholarship to support your position, you've offered no defense against the logical fallacies you appear to be utilizing in reaching your conclusion.

Logical fallacies?

Quote:

I offered you a logical basis to determine the beliefs of an author. You chose to ignore it rather than address it. Again, this suggests your claim to being interested in challenges to your position is not genuine.

Sorry, I missed it can you repost it?

Quote:

Do you understand that "it can be" says nothing about whether it should be?

Yea let’s have that conversation now please.

Quote:

Do you understand that what I offered was a logical basis for determining how a text should be understood?

Missed it sorry.

Quote:

The advantage of my approach to the text is that it is based on logic and refrains from imposing one's personal preferences upon it. Yours is logically flawed in several ways (e.g. question begging, over-generalization) and, therefore, inherently unreliable.

How is it logical to assume the writer was speaking supernaturally instead of metaphysically if he could have been?

Quote:

Your position is logically flawed and without any basis in scholarship. Mine is logically sound (to the point of being painfully obvious) and a fundamental tenet of sound scholarship.

I have seen no evidence only assurances that your interpretation is the correct one.

Quote:

There is no question, from a rational viewpoint, as to which is more likely to obtain the correct conclusion. I've wasted too much time giving you the benefit of doubt. You've got nothing but a stubborn and ironically irrational faith. I see no evidence that you are genuinely interested in learning. :wave:

IMO There is no question from a rational view point as to who is using the straw men in their interoperations of scripture and who is using reason. I’m eager to learn but I need evidence not just you saying so. I don’t blindly trust the “scholars” as much as you seem to, I believe it’s wise to question the authority and the status quo and see if its opinion is founded on facts or just a bunch of parrots repeating each other. Being a blind follower just listening to the voices and opinions of those around me isn’t something I want.

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I’m not asking you questions I’m asking you for evidence of this world view you speak of.

This thread has been like looking at a terrible multi-car accident: horrible to see, but really hard to look away. And I also get a strong sense of deja vu from it as well...

Elijah, just to confirm: in effect, you are asking people for evidence that when an ancient author wrote "demon" (etc), that they meant "demon" (etc). Is that correct?

You see, if you want to claim that an author meant something other than "demon" when he wrote "demon", then that's fine. But the burden is on you. Would you agree with that, in principle?

Elijah · 09-21-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Early Christians believed that God created the heavens the earth and everything else. ie that God transcends the sky just as much as he transcends the earth.
They varied as to how far they expressed this in a Platonic way.

What do you consider the correct way? The platonic philosophical way or the supernatural superstitious way of understanding god?

Quote:

For example the miracles of Christ.

Aren’t most of those just examples of the power of faith not god personally intervening?

Quote:

Origen went as far as any Early Christian in avoiding crude supernaturalism. However he insists in Contra Celsus that Jesus raised the dead as a matter of real literal historical fact.

Not understanding the limits of the physical world sure but understanding the spiritual side of the universe as anthropomorphic entities controlling stuff is the supernatural thought I’m talking about.

They didn’t understand death as permanent or that people don’t have extra life energy they can give over but it doesn’t necessarily mean the superstitious/supernatural world view that gets assumed.

Elijah · 09-21-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Elijah, just to confirm: in effect, you are asking people for evidence that when an ancient author wrote "demon" (etc), that they meant "demon" (etc). Is that correct?

You see, if you want to claim that an author meant something other than "demon" when he wrote "demon", then that's fine. But the burden is on you. Would you agree with that, in principle?

No I'm asking for evidence he means demon as a supernatural entity (something impossible) and not demon as it was understood to the philosophical idealists of the time.

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Elijah, just to confirm: in effect, you are asking people for evidence that when an ancient author wrote "demon" (etc), that they meant "demon" (etc). Is that correct?

You see, if you want to claim that an author meant something other than "demon" when he wrote "demon", then that's fine. But the burden is on you. Would you agree with that, in principle?

No I'm asking for evidence he means demon as a supernatural entity (something impossible) and not demon as it was understood to the philosophical idealists of the time.

OK. So then: How did the philosophical idealists of the time view demons? Can you point to the literature, please? I think that really has to be the next step here.

To be honest, I think you have an erroneous view of what the people back then thought, and this is causing the difficulties. We can use the literature to provide positive evidence for how people thought; it's very difficult to find positive evidence to support how people didn't think. Often the best we can say is that "there is no evidence to support the idea that people thought that way, while there is evidence to support that they thought a different way".

Elijah · 09-21-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

OK. So then: How did the philosophical idealists of the time view demons? Can you point to the literature, please? I think that really has to be the next step here.

As Ideals would be the obvious answer. Apuleius’ paper you provided lays out a pretty good demonology of their different natures and why they get related to gods sometimes even.

Quote:

To be honest, I think you have an erroneous view of what the people back then thought, and this is causing the difficulties. We can use the literature to provide positive evidence for how people thought; it's very difficult to find positive evidence to support how people didn't think. Often the best we can say is that "there is no evidence to support the idea that people thought that way, while there is evidence to support that they thought a different way".

Maybe I do but the idealist schools of thought go back a long time and I think the erroneous thinking may belong to you in regards to that philosophy and what exactly they were teaching. I think you are white washing the whole ancient world with a giant superstitious brush. You need to understand the idealist’s philosophies before you can determine if that’s what they are talking about… just assuming they are talking non sense just isn’t going to get it done. You can’t just look at ancient man’s art and assume that’s how they saw the spiritual world without trying to understand the philosophy of the time.

Demon is always going to look supernatural to you if that's all you are familiar with.

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

OK. So then: How did the philosophical idealists of the time view demons? Can you point to the literature, please? I think that really has to be the next step here.

As Ideals would be the obvious answer. Apuleius’ paper you provided lays out a pretty good demonology of their different natures and why they get related to gods sometimes even.

Can you point to where he treats them as Ideals?

Elijah · 09-21-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Can you point to where he treats them as Ideals?

The whole paper they can be understood as Ideals if you understand Ideals.

GakuseiDon · 09-21-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Can you point to where he treats them as Ideals?

The whole paper they can be understood as Ideals if you understand Ideals.

Can you give examples from the paper where demons are treated as Ideals, as you understand Ideals?

Elijah · 09-21-2008, 07:07 PM

Looking for a quote to prove it's an ideal seems rather silly... you need to read the whole paper and get the context of what the writer is talking about. You should have done this before you used it to support your position. But before that you really need to take a few weeks and read up on the philosophical discussion of the last two and half millennia so you can properly evaluate if it's an idealist speaking or someone just spouting superstitious nonsense. I know it sounds rude... I don't mean it to be but come on.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-21-2008, 07:07 PM	#350
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	Looking for a quote to prove it's an ideal seems rather silly... you need to read the whole paper and get the context of what the writer is talking about. You should have done this before you used it to support your position. But before that you really need to take a few weeks and read up on the philosophical discussion of the last two and half millennia so you can properly evaluate if it's an idealist speaking or someone just spouting superstitious nonsense. I know it sounds rude... I don't mean it to be but come on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.