Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hedshaker · 10-21-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don't know that I would classify those who reponded as "regular" Christians (with the exception of themuzicman whom I know through the discussions I have had with him).

Well, we've become to expect the "No True Scotsman" fallacy from you, and we are painfully aware that cognative dissonance on your part will not allow you to even acknowledge your constant use of this fallacy. I, and others, have explaind it to you too many times now so I see no point in going over it again.

Quote:

I also don't think people necessarily see (or understand) what they read.

Would that include yourself?

Quote:

My first statement was "I can go with a religious society." There is nothing here about gov'ts and theocracies.

How then, would this "religious society" occur? It's pretty obvious that western societies are becoming less religious not more. Or are you hoping to convert everyone?

Quote:

The alternative to a "religious society" is a "non-religious society."

Or secular society, which is exactly what we have and will continue to have as long as the fundy-bot fruitcakes never get their way, heaven forbid

Quote:

If people had read this accurately, their comments would have targeted the kind of religious society - Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu - one would have. My response is that a society that was even a mixture of all religions (which would exclude atheists) would be better than a society of atheists.

How could you have a society that excludes atheists? The secular society we enjoy now does not purport to exclude anyone. Why would you wish to exclude a minority group that harms no one? And how would you go about imposing this exclusion?

Would I be correct to suspect your exclusion would also include other minority groups that may not share your beliefs, such as homosexuals, gypsies, etc?

Quote:

My second comment was, "I choose the Bible as the basis for our laws." Again, in a pluralistic "religious" society, only those laws taken from the Bible that the majority of "religions" agreed to submit to would be enacted.

What about the first commandment? Surly the death penalty would be justified for that one?

Quote:

I suspect that you might get agreement on the obvious laws (re: murder, theft, adultery).

We've already got those laws. We don't need a sky daddy or a holy text to teach us that which is obvious

Quote:

If society was constrained to accept only those laws identified in the Bible and were only ruled by that subset of laws on which the majority agreed, you would have a better society than that not constrained to be ruled by the laws of the Bible.

Unsupported assertion. My guess is you'd have mayham with no one being able to agree on what Biblical laws to impose and which not.

As someone else as already commented regarding religious societies, their track record isn't very good :huh:

Quote:

If people could read, and only regular "Christians" (implying that one is actually a Christian) then responded, maybe you would get responses that actually address the issue you seem to have wanted to raise (although I am not sure that you even understand the issues you raise, or if you do, perhaps my statements have nothing to do with them).

Well one thing's for sure, I understand the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You apparently do not. A refusal to accept an obvious truth through fear of cognative dissonance is no excuse really.

Orbit

Stumpjumper · 10-21-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don't know that I would classify those who reponded as "regular" Christians (with the exception of themuzicman whom I know through the discussions I have had with him).

So we start off with the "No true Christians" would disagree with me fallacy, huh? No "regular" Christians put sugar in their coffee. I drink my coffee black.

Quote:

My first statement was "I can go with a religious society." There is nothing here about gov'ts and theocracies. The alternative to a "religious society" is a "non-religious society." If people had read this accurately, their comments would have targeted the kind of religious society - Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu - one would have. My response is that a society that was even a mixture of all religions (which would exclude atheists) would be better than a society of atheists.

First off that is a false dichotomy. If your criteria for a religious society is one in which religion is present than we all live in religious societies. I personally would rather live in a country run by Richard Dawkins than the Taliban however.

Quote:

My second comment was, "I choose the Bible as the basis for our laws." Again, in a pluralistic "religious" society, only those laws taken from the Bible that the majority of "religions" agreed to submit to would be enacted. I suspect that you might get agreement on the obvious laws (re: murder, theft, adultery). If society was constrained to accept only those laws identified in the Bible and were only ruled by that subset of laws on which the majority agreed, you would have a better society than that not constrained to be ruled by the laws of the Bible.

If you are going to vote on the laws that are acceptable for this society, why use the Bible at all? Why not The Tao of Pooh? We could live in a society based upon the teachings of Winnie The Pooh. I don't think Winnie ever advocated stoning homosexuals.

Quote:

If people could read, and only regular "Christians" (implying that one is actually a Christian) then responded, maybe you would get responses that actually address the issue you seem to have wanted to raise (although I am not sure that you even understand the issues you raise, or if you do, perhaps my statements have nothing to do with them).

If you get to determine what a "Christian" is then I want no part of that definition. Call me an non-Christian all you want. God will be my judge; not you. If however we say that those who identify themselves as Christians and follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of their ability are Christians then everyone who replied that claimed to be Christian is a Christian. The teachings of Jesus are found in the Bible and I most certainly try to follow them as best I can. Nowhere does it call for Christians to develop a theocratic society. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's"

The Kingdom of God comes from and is found within the person. By finding that spark of the divine within each of us and living out the commandment to love we can experience the Kingdom of God in the here and now. Laws would be completely superfluous if we would understand what is implied by loving our neighbors as ourselves. Atheists, Buddhists, and all others in between.

Wads4 · 10-21-2005, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rational BAC

The idea of a theocracy is abhorrent to me.

Christianity is a personal religion. Directly between man and his God.

The State cannot have anything to do with it.

In any way.

Religion is by its nature,-undemocratic. It is authoritarian,-obviously,-so democracy would be the first casualty of a theocratic State.

rhutchin · 10-21-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I don't know that I would classify those who reponded as "regular" Christians (with the exception of themuzicman whom I know through the discussions I have had with him).

OrbitV2
Well, we've become to expect the "No True Scotsman" fallacy from you, and we are painfully aware that cognative dissonance on your part will not allow you to even acknowledge your constant use of this fallacy. I, and others, have explaind it to you too many times now so I see no point in going over it again.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy requires a false premise. Do you think you can manufacture one that works in this case and put it on display?

Quote:

rhutchin
My first statement was "I can go with a religious society." There is nothing here about gov'ts and theocracies.

OrbitV2
How then, would this "religious society" occur? It's pretty obvious that western societies are becoming less religious not more. Or are you hoping to convert everyone?

How a religious society occurs is immaterial to an argument stating that a religious society would be better than a non-religious society.

Quote:

rhutchin
The alternative to a "religious society" is a "non-religious society."

OrbitV2
Or secular society, which is exactly what we have and will continue to have as long as the fundy-bot fruitcakes never get their way, heaven forbid

rhutchin
If people had read this accurately, their comments would have targeted the kind of religious society - Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu - one would have. My response is that a society that was even a mixture of all religions (which would exclude atheists) would be better than a society of atheists.

OrbitV2
How could you have a society that excludes atheists? The secular society we enjoy now does not purport to exclude anyone. Why would you wish to exclude a minority group that harms no one? And how would you go about imposing this exclusion?

Would I be correct to suspect your exclusion would also include other minority groups that may not share your beliefs, such as homosexuals, gypsies, etc?

Again the argument is that a religious society would be better than a non-religious society. Thus, the argument conceives of a society of those who are religious thereby excluding those that are not regardless of age, race, or sexual deviation.

Quote:

rhutchin
My second comment was, "I choose the Bible as the basis for our laws." Again, in a pluralistic "religious" society, only those laws taken from the Bible that the majority of "religions" agreed to submit to would be enacted.

OrbitV2
What about the first commandment? Surly the death penalty would be justified for that one?

Anything, theoretically, is possible.

Quote:

rhutchin
I suspect that you might get agreement on the obvious laws (re: murder, theft, adultery).

OrbitV2
We've already got those laws. We don't need a sky daddy or a holy text to teach us that which is obvious.

Not everyone believes that murder, theft, and adultery are wrong as evidenced by the number of murderers, thieves, and adulterers that abound. Would we have such laws without a sky daddy or a holy text to teach us that which is obvious? Maybe; Maybe not. In Nazi Germany, murder was not always against the law. Stalin and Pol Pot also saw nothing wrong with murder. Then there is Saddam and his boys who saw nothing wrong with raping and pillaging and murdering the local population.

Quote:

rhutchin
If society was constrained to accept only those laws identified in the Bible and were only ruled by that subset of laws on which the majority agreed, you would have a better society than that not constrained to be ruled by the laws of the Bible.

OrbitV2
Unsupported assertion. My guess is you'd have mayham with no one being able to agree on what Biblical laws to impose and which not.

As someone else as already commented regarding religious societies, their track record isn't very good.

One unsupported assertion deserves one in return, I guess.

Quote:

rhutchin
If people could read, and only regular "Christians" (implying that one is actually a Christian) then responded, maybe you would get responses that actually address the issue you seem to have wanted to raise (although I am not sure that you even understand the issues you raise, or if you do, perhaps my statements have nothing to do with them).

OrbitV2
Well one thing's for sure, I understand the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You apparently do not. A refusal to accept an obvious truth through fear of cognitive dissonance is no excuse really.

Seeing as how you understand "No True Scotsman" fallacy, perhaps you can lay it out for all to see (you know: premise, premise, conclusion).

gee · 10-21-2005, 10:18 AM

rhutchin;

Church and state oughta' be separate.

gee

Alethias · 10-21-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Seeing as how you understand "No True Scotsman" fallacy, perhaps you can lay it out for all to see (you know: premise, premise, conclusion).

No True Scotsman Fallacy If you limit the validity of someone belonging to a group by using a premise that is outside the accepted definition of the grouping, you are using the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Also, if your definition for a grouping is a continually adjusting definition to avoid losing an argument that is No True Scotsman.

Can you please make clear what you consider a "regular christian" in the context of this discussion? This will make it clear whether or not you are using an accepted definition, or are redefining the terms. If you already did, and I missed it, I apologize. Some people throw around the term "No True Scotsman" when it doesn't apply. I'm just asking for a little accuracy here,

SoT

Pouye · 10-21-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

Absolutely positively not. No way, no how.

With one exception: If God physically shows up and wants to run the place, I won't argue.

But I absolutely and unconditionally oppose human theocracies, on multiple grounds. Each of those grounds is sufficient for me to assert that a theocracy is not merely not mandated by Christian teaching, but contradictory to it.

The Bible may serve as a basis for moral decisions, but laws are not moral decisions, and shouldn't be. If you conflate laws with morality, you preach that what you can get away with is morally acceptable. This is absolutely wrong.

The moral standard Christians are called to -- universal and unconditional love -- is simply infeasable as a system of laws.

Furthermore, the Biblical standard of morality is a question of the state of the soul, not of specific actions! You cannot have a law which says "you must honor the Sabbath if it is special to you, but if you see all days as being alike, you must treat them equally". I mean, you could, but it would be a stupid law.

No, I do not want a theocracy. Not even one which agrees with my beliefs in every respect; indeed, especially not such a system, because such a system would serve as a grave temptation to me to stop learning more about my place in the world and my relationship with others.

Thank you, though, for asking.

If I may venture further into what I would like: I would like a society which gives us the freedom and safety to try to answer the foundational moral questions for ourselves without too much external pressure.

This is really good. I agree with this completely.

Rock

Hedshaker · 10-21-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy requires a false premise. Do you think you can manufacture one that works in this case and put it on display?

We're talking about the real "No True Scotsman" fallacy here not the rhutchin modified one. Ask yourself this, how many people have pointed out to you your use of the fallacy? Including some Christians.... yes, REAL CHRISTIANS! Are they all wrong and only you right. Wake the fuck up.

1) No Christian would ever leave the faith.
2) Julian was a Christian and he left the faith.
3) Ah, but julian was a not a "true" Christian.

Every time you accuse someone, who dissagrees with you, of not being a real or true Christian you commit the fallacy. In other words, you don't get to decide who is and who isn't a "true" Christian. Now that's got to be about half a dozen times we've been over this and it's getting extremely tedious.

Quote:

How a religious society occurs is immaterial to an argument stating that a religious society would be better than a non-religious society.

So we're discussing a figment of your imagination then, right? So long as we know. In what way do you think it would be better? Do you envisage any problems with it? I do

Quote:

Again the argument is that a religious society would be better than a non-religious society. Thus, the argument conceives of a society of those who are religious thereby excluding those that are not regardless of age, race, or sexual deviation.

Sounds like a fairytale land made up by rhutchin. Once upon a time in a far off land where everyone was religious and, of course, they were all "true" religionists.........blah blah blah and they all lived happily ever after. Aaaahh :rolling:

Quote:

Anything, theoretically, is possible.

I agree, theoretically, in your fairytale land, a miracle might happen making pigs sprout wings and fly :Cheeky:

Quote:

Not everyone believes that murder, theft, and adultery are wrong as evidenced by the number of murderers, thieves, and adulterers that abound.

That's true, and as we all know there are no Christians in prison for such crimes, right? But don't tell me, let me guess...... drum roll.... brrrrrrrrr, none of them are "true" Christians. Ba boom!

Quote:

Would we have such laws without a sky daddy or a holy text to teach us that which is obvious? Maybe; Maybe not.

Em, don't look now but we actually do. No sky daddy or a holy text required.

Quote:

In Nazi Germany, murder was not always against the law.

Maybe they got their inspiration from the Bible where might always makes right.

Quote:

Stalin and Pol Pot also saw nothing wrong with murder. Then there is Saddam and his boys who saw nothing wrong with raping and pillaging and murdering the local population.

But of course, they were not "true atheists" were they....? Ba boom!

Quote:

OrbitV2
Unsupported assertion. My guess is you'd have mayham with no one being able to agree on what Biblical laws to impose and which not.

rhutchin
One unsupported assertion deserves one in return, I guess.

Check the bit that says, "My guess is". That's a summation not an assertion.

Quote:

Seeing as how you understand "No True Scotsman" fallacy, perhaps you can lay it out for all to see (you know: premise, premise, conclusion).

I have done, numerous times. There are none blinder that those who refuse to see.....

Orbit

funinspace · 10-21-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Not everyone believes that murder, theft, and adultery are wrong as evidenced by the number of murderers, thieves, and adulterers that abound.

I would assume that maiming someone would fit somewhere between murder…theft? So does this mean that a person who cuts off someone else's ear, does not believe that maiming someone is wrong? Your point here eludes me.

Quote:

Would we have such laws without a sky daddy or a holy text to teach us that which is obvious? Maybe; Maybe not.

Seeing that we have the Code of Hammurabi from roughly 2,000 BC with laws against murder and theft, and that this precedes the unsubstantiated (outside of the Bible) Exodus tales by a minimum of 400 years, it appears that we still can figure out ways to make laws for society without the "regular" Christian God.

Hedshaker · 10-21-2005, 02:09 PM

Also rhutchin, maybe you could take the time to answer singletrack1's comments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by singletrack1

If you get to determine what a "Christian" is then I want no part of that definition. Call me an non-Christian all you want. God will be my judge; not you. If however we say that those who identify themselves as Christians and follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of their ability are Christians then everyone who replied that claimed to be Christian is a Christian. The teachings of Jesus are found in the Bible and I most certainly try to follow them as best I can. Nowhere does it call for Christians to develop a theocratic society. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's"

We await your wisdom.

Orbit

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

10-21-2005, 10:18 AM	#15
gee Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bahrain Posts: 421	rhutchin; Church and state oughta' be separate. gee

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.