Freethought & Rationalism Archive

kcdad · 04-29-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TehMuffin

You keep on posting irrelevant stuff. You first say our cognitive abilities have changed during the past 10.000 years. I told you they didn't.

Cognition is the ability to reason... that ability changes every second you are alive... new information, new associations, new possibilities...

Our ability to conceive new ideas today is different than it was 10,000 years ago BECAUSE we know more, not because our brains are full of different basic information. The world is not flat. We are not the center of the universe. Miracles to one man are technology to another.

You think it is irrelevant because you can not understand... proving my point. You are thinking in linear concrete ideas... An Aztec Indian living 10,000 years ago can not conceive of the world I live in. There is no way that we could communicate about automobile engines or space flight... or religion. It would take years of getting their minds up to speed. By understanding how they though and viewed the world we can understand their "superstitions". They could never understand ours. But there is no way we can ACCEPT their superstitions the way they did.

We can only understand that it made sense to them and therefor no different than our beliefs do to us.

Toto · 04-29-2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

...
What is true for me obviously isn't true for everyone... There apparently is no single truth that all people can accept. If there were, the world would be a different place.
All that matters is what is true for you... not what is true for your preacher, your parents or your government.

I am reminded of this recent blog article: Can many religions all be true?

Quote:

Someone was once asked: "How come there is only one science, but there are so many religions?" The answer that was given: Because there can be only one right answer to a question, but there can many wrong ones. This flippant reply may satisfy atheists and those who attach little importance to religions, but it cannot be taken seriously, given that religions have played such a major role in culture and civilization. It is difficult to accept, but over the centuries, hundreds of thousands of intelligent people have been persuaded by the truths of religion.

And yet, given that there are so many religions, it is legitimate to ask: "(How) can many religions all be true?" The answer to this question depends on the meaning of the word "true" in the context of religion.

So it turns out that all religions can be true if you redefine what "TRUE" means. Suppose something is useful, or fun, or something that it would be politically inconvenient to label as a lie - OK - that's "true."

Quote:

Is it true you can not work on the Sabbath? Why isn't it? Did THAT truth change?

It is not now, and never has been "true" by the normal definition of the word, that you cannot work on the Sabbath, however the Sabbath is defined.

Quote:

Is it true we must sacrifice innocent animals to appease an angry God because of our evilness? Why did that change?

It has never been true that anyone needed to sacrifice innocent animals or children or people to appease an angry god, for whatever reason.

Quote:

Is it true that shellfish, rabbits and pigs are unclean? If so, why can we eat them? Did that truth change?

They have never been unclean. That truth never changed.

Quote:

Tithing... property... the list is humongous... why all these changes? Because of Jesus? (In Christianity that is the same as saying because of God) The answer can not be because of Jesus... because God is unchanging, eternally unchanging. Right?

God doesn't exist. That solves that problem.

Quote:

To analyze the text, you have to accept it for what it is...The Old Testament is a 3000 year old late history of the Hebrew people, written by the people of Judah for the people of Judah. The New Testament specifically is a political document contrived and compiled by the Roman Catholic Church... redacted, edited and given the Papal seal of approval. Many texts were intentionally destroyed and eliminated from history and can not be examined... others were relegated to "other" status and still others labeled as heretical... BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Both Testaments are human products. They are NOT divine products.

I'm glad we agree on that.

But most Christians in the USA don't agree. They get up in church and recite that they believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, executed under Pontius Pilate, and resurrected on the third day, after which he ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of God. Do you recite this? Is it meaningful? True?

show_no_mercy · 04-29-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am reminded of this recent blog article: Can many religions all be true?

Quote:

Someone was once asked: "How come there is only one science, but there are so many religions?" The answer that was given: Because there can be only one right answer to a question, but there can many wrong ones. This flippant reply may satisfy atheists and those who attach little importance to religions, but it cannot be taken seriously, given that religions have played such a major role in culture and civilization. It is difficult to accept, but over the centuries, hundreds of thousands of intelligent people have been persuaded by the truths of religion.

And yet, given that there are so many religions, it is legitimate to ask: "(How) can many religions all be true?" The answer to this question depends on the meaning of the word "true" in the context of religion.

So it turns out that all religions can be true if you redefine what "TRUE" means. Suppose something is useful, or fun, or something that it would be politically inconvenient to label as a lie - OK - that's "true."

Heh - in other words, sophistry.

The flippant "atheist" answer is funny! While it's mostly true, if you try to follow where the author of that quote was going without resorting to the eventual sophistry and redefinition of "true", religion can only be "not wrong" if it's relegated to the sociological function of language and not objective reality.

The answer for why there are so many religions is the answer for why there are so many languages. People making crap up to try to describe the world around them without any sort of consistency that is constantly evolving and changing.

striderlives · 04-29-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by striderlives

I think it's clear that kcdad uses the same methodology that so many modern 'christians' use to overcome the logical problems of the bible that their Reason cannot deny - eisegesis.

They end up with a pick-and-choose version of what's really important to them (usually just "I know I'm Saved') that conveniently no longer depends on 98% of the bible being true or even rational.

Personally, I find this mental process more troubling than abject fundalmentalism as it leads otherwise reasonable people to justify their 'faith' - in total abnegation of the same 'GOD-given Reason' they wax poetic over.

Actually... I do add lots to the scriptures whether they be Babylonian, Hebrew, Roman or Greek... I take into consideration the culture they were written in... I take into consideration the original language they might have been written in, I take into consideration the history of the period, the climate, the technology...
Of course, that isn't eisegesis, and you should know that. It is critical thinking... or maybe you wouldn't know it.

I find the kindergarten criticism of 3,000 year old documents on a literal level to be boring ... like arguing the existence of Santa Claus or Democracy.

Well, I think I know the difference between critical thinking and eisegesis. And critical thinking doesn't lead one to conveniently deny some or many of the necessary premises that lead to Jesus being the son of the living god and then claim they are saved - and following the commands of Jesus (Are you following the Law of Moses - all 613 mitzvot, as he commands? Or are you following the contradictory edicts of Paul?).

That's similar to saying "I don't believe in addition or subtraction - those are just simple-minded ancient concepts - but I do believe in E=Mc2....except actually, I have studied and reject the E part....and the c part....but I like the M2 part."

Yeah, I think eisegesis is the right call here.

kcdad · 04-30-2009, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But most Christians in the USA don't agree. They get up in church and recite that they believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, executed under Pontius Pilate, and resurrected on the third day, after which he ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of God. Do you recite this? Is it meaningful? True?

Actually,I am quite quiet during those creed readings...
I believe God in the creator of heaven and Earth... then I skip down to the Holy Spirit ... then the fellowship of believers... skip the resurrection of the dead etc...

kcdad · 04-30-2009, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The answer for why there are so many religions is the answer for why there are so many languages. People making crap up to try to describe the world around them without any sort of consistency that is constantly evolving and changing.

You were so close and then your hatred kicked in and shut your brain down...

it is true that there are many languages... and because of that many ways to conceptualize reality... we think in our language. If your language says Good morning, mine says how do you do and another says kiss my ass, we have different ways to think about greeting someone... they become different events because of the concepts surrounding the linguistic descriptions of the event.

It is NOT a case of just "making crap up"... unless you are willing to admit you make up all the crap that is in your head, as well.

kcdad · 04-30-2009, 04:58 AM

Quote:

striderlives;

Well, I think I know the difference between critical thinking and eisegesis. And critical thinking doesn't lead one to conveniently deny some or many of the necessary premises that lead to Jesus being the son of the living god and then claim they are saved - and following the commands of Jesus (Are you following the Law of Moses - all 613 mitzvot, as he commands? Or are you following the contradictory edicts of Paul?).

Of course not. I am not Jewish. Those are Hebrew Laws. Written by Hebrews for Hebrews... I follow God's law. Do you want me to remind you of what God requires?

Quote:

That's similar to saying "I don't believe in addition or subtraction - those are just simple-minded ancient concepts - but I do believe in E=Mc2....except actually, I have studied and reject the E part....and the c part....but I like the M2 part."

Yeah...not so much. Comparing Einstein to the Hebrew writers is like comparing Rembrandt to a cave painting.

Quote:

Yeah, I think eisegesis is the right call here.

Of course you do.

show_no_mercy · 04-30-2009, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The answer for why there are so many religions is the answer for why there are so many languages. People making crap up to try to describe the world around them without any sort of consistency that is constantly evolving and changing.

You were so close and then your hatred kicked in and shut your brain down...

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

It is NOT a case of just "making crap up"... unless you are willing to admit you make up all the crap that is in your head, as well.

People can make up crap, but the difference between science and religion (as well as language) is that there's a built in mechanism for self correction. People make up crap all the time, but unless they can allow for the possibility that it's wrong, it will always remain made up crap. That's why there's one science, and thousands of religions. If religion had a methodology that accepted the possibility of being show false (

falsifiability), then it would morph into science.

Language has no need for falsifiabiliy, that doesn't make sense.

kcdad · 04-30-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

You were so close and then your hatred kicked in and shut your brain down...

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

It is NOT a case of just "making crap up"... unless you are willing to admit you make up all the crap that is in your head, as well.

People can make up crap, but the difference between science and religion (as well as language) is that there's a built in mechanism for self correction. People make up crap all the time, but unless they can allow for the possibility that it's wrong, it will always remain made up crap. That's why there's one science, and thousands of religions. If religion had a methodology that accepted the possibility of being show false (

falsifiability), then it would morph into science.

Language has no need for falsifiabiliy, that doesn't make sense.

You are right.. Religion NEVER changes, never self corrects, never morphs in to something else...
Good God man... do you ever read the gibberish you write?
There are thousands of sciences too, for that matter... or do you believe in the one TRUE SCIENCE?

striderlives · 04-30-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

striderlives;

Well, I think I know the difference between critical thinking and eisegesis. And critical thinking doesn't lead one to conveniently deny some or many of the necessary premises that lead to Jesus being the son of the living god and then claim they are saved - and following the commands of Jesus (Are you following the Law of Moses - all 613 mitzvot, as he commands? Or are you following the contradictory edicts of Paul?).

Of course not. I am not Jewish. Those are Hebrew Laws. Written by Hebrews for Hebrews... I follow God's law. Do you want me to remind you of what God requires?

Yeah...not so much. Comparing Einstein to the Hebrew writers is like comparing Rembrandt to a cave painting.

Quote:

Yeah, I think eisegesis is the right call here.

Of course you do.

Yeah, those are Hebrew laws - reiterated by the Hebrew named Jesus - who is also God. Jesus says over and over that what God requires is to follow the Hebrew law. It's only others like Paul and John that repudiate what Jesus said.

So....you reject what the Savior says in favor of some later writer with far less authority, and you call this critical thinking??

Of course you do.
:wave:

I've decided....upon textual criticism and my GOD given abilities.....to credit only every 69th verse of the bible as Truly inspired - and happily can now claim tax exempt status for my new sect of chrisitianity.

I love this eisegesis stuff!......
:Cheeky:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.