Goliath

seebs,

The paraphrasings that I provided were not taken out of context (*sigh* always the standard Christian cop-out). The quotes are direct quotes from the bible.

I'm sorry, but this interpretation has nothing to do with hating onesself or hating one's family. Your "explanation" doesn't address the passage in question at all.

Similar comments to 1., except replace "hatred for onesself and ones family" with "mutilation."

Please prove that it wasn't a description of a supposed literal event.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Edited to add: If you'd like, I could go <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" target="_blank">here</a> and find the exact passages that I was talking about.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

seebs

That doesn't make them "in context". The question is, if you look at the whole of the teachings, it turns out that some things make a lot more sense if you interpret them in different ways... Given that Christians are consistently told that they must love everyone, it would be hard to reconcile this with interpreting the passage as meaning they should hate certain people... so, instead, we look at other contexts, and how people act, and we form alternative theories.

So, what if it was? If it was, it was an event that happened in front of onlookers; as such, I suspect it was intended to *communicate* something... and what it communicated makes sense.

BTW, I am not a big fan of the SAB. While some of their points are interesting, for the most part, I've gotten the impression that they are going out of their way to miss any interpretation which would be reasonable or comprehensible. I don't believe they are arguing in good faith. There are doubtless exceptions - but when I've seen both their take on a verse, and other serious analysis of the verse, it's always been the case that their analysis is a much less convincing one to me.

This isn't to say that all of what they point at is unworthy of study or consideration - just that they are likely to miss the meta-rules. e.g., most Christians consider the entirety of the Mosaic law to be essentially irrelevant, except for the specific parts that support their prejudices. In practice, pointing at parts of the Mosaic law and asking why Christians don't follow them is silly; it disregards vast quantities of clear writing elsewhere in the Bible, and as such, is essentially taking something out of the context it must be understood in. (Which, for a lot of stuff, is "and then this all changes in about 20 books".)

Furthermore, note that the burden of proof doesn't work like that. I have no burden of proof; I'm not telling you you have to accept my interpretation. However, if you want me to drop mine, then you have to prove it wrong, which you may find fairly difficult.

Burden of proof comes with wanting someone to change his mind.

Mad Kally

Your god seemed to know the difference here:

2 Corinthians
6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

6:15
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

6:17
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

6:18
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Goliath

seebs,

Yes, what it seems to communicate is the fact that even a messiah can act like a 3 year old sometimes.

Please explain the difference between the process that you've quoted above and cognitive dissonance. Quite frankly, I can't see a difference.

*shrug* I can't honestly say that I care.

Have you been to the SAB? They don't interpret much of anything at all, they merely go through the bible and point out inaccuracies, contradicitons, and atrocities (amongst other things).

Yes, I am quite aware that most Christians are quite content to pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to believe. Quite pathetic.

I'm afraid it does, and I'm afraid you do. You have made a claim. You therefore have the burden to at least *support*, if not prove, your claim.

Wrong. Burden of proof comes with making a claim.

Sincerely,

Goliath

seebs

This is often asserted, but I've never seen any justification for it. It's a reasonable procedure for most branches of science. It's not a particularly useful one for questions of personal belief or morals.

If you want me to change my mind, you have to provide proof that my current belief is a bad one. You're making a claim, after all, that my current belief is "insufficiently" justified. I am making a claim, and I have met the burden of proof I imposed on it; I probably haven't met yours.

There's simply no well-defined answer to the "burden of proof" question in the general case. If I want to convince you of something, I have to meet whatever standards of proof you're expecting. If I don't, I have no grounds for expecting your belief to change, whether you're making a claim or not.

If you want to claim that you're God, I am not obliged to believe you, but on the other hand, I have no grounds for telling you you must not believe this, unless I can prove my preferred explanation to your satisfaction.

To make a long story short: Outside of a courtroom, we mostly just have to agree to disagree.

(argh! why does the quote thing sometimes only quote the last thing you wrote, and sometimes everything you wrote?)

Goliath

seebs,

It's quite simple. Those who make claims need to back up or prove said claims. Those who make no claims need back up nor prove nothing.

Frankly, I'm having a very difficult time understanding why you don't comprehend this. It seems that you have ample intelligence to comprehend such a basic fact.

Actually, it's the only reasonable procedure. Unsupported assertions are absolutely worthless, since it is difficult--if not impossible--to ascertain if said assertions are true or not.

Or get you to realize that your claims are unsupported. Then again, too many Christians nowadays are all too eager to hang onto unsupported assertions.

Not only am I making such a claim, but the very fact that you have not backed up any of the assertions that you put forth in the post quoted in my last reply to you proves that your claims are unjustified.

Yes there is. See above.

Now here you bring up an interesting point: levels of justification and proof. What level of evidence is "good enough?" It depends on to whom you're justifying a claim (I think that is correct grammar, if it isn't, and if you didn't understand this sentence, lemme know).

And it seems that, IMO, the "limit" of evidence, as the bar of evidence rises infinitely high, is proof (and yes, I mean "limit" as in limit in a Calculus sense).

So, if you make a claim, and if you expect me to take said claim seriously, then you need to atleast try to justify said claim.

Of course, if you don't wish to back up any of your above claims, then you don't have to. However, don't expect me to take said claims seriously.


Note that, in your example above, it was I who was making a claim, and thusly I had to justify said claim. This is absolutely correct.

*shrug* Very well.

Sincerely,

Goliath

I think the reason is that when you hit the reply button, the reply window only takes in the last block of text that is after a quote.

seebs

Hmm. That's probably it. It's annoying.

Anyway, I am easily capable of comprehending the proposed rule you have about claims; I just think it's incorrect for many fields of inquiry. You are welcome to think that all of my beliefs that I cannot prove are unjustified; I recommend you start with my belief that there is an external world which my senses perceive, because I am unaware of any kind of proof of this strange and irrational belief, which I cling to for comfort in what it pleases me to call the dark of night.

All of my beliefs have *SOME* kind of justification. Maybe not enough for you, but that's fine, you certainly believe things that I don't, and some of them are such that you would probably never convince me of them.

Indeed, you're making the claim that I must accept your model for burden of proof. Can you support this claim? If not, by its own standard, it's busted. Where's the proof of your claim?

If you want to say "it's obvious" go right ahead - but then I'm allowed to do that for *my* axioms, too.

In the end, claiming that something is unjustified is itself a claim, and must be supported by proof, not that the justification hasn't been shown, but that the justification *DOES NOT EXIST*. To do otherwise is to make a totally unsupported claim.

Goliath

seebs,

Agreed. However, if you hit the back button to copy and paste blocks of text, and then hit the forward button, the reply window will have saved what you've already typed.

Name one.

Except for axioms or claims that you have justified, this would certainly seem to be correct.

This is an axiom that most, if not all, people have.

But there's a difference: I always strive to only make claims that I can back up. You have made many claims in this thread that you have adamantly refused to support.

Certainly. If person X makes a claim, then person X has made some kind of statement about reality. Without justification of said claim, no one--including person X--has any reason to believe said claim, since it would be impossible to tell whether or not said claim is true.

Sincerely,

Goliath

john76m

No, I want to be fair to her and me. I don't want to live a lie for the rest of my life.

John Michael

ishalon

don't start believing because she does, you'll lose it eventually
I simply define God differently, he is fate and the passage of time for me... it stops me from getting stressed or lying if someone who would not react civilized if they knew i was atheist found out
my girlfriend is a believer, and I am an atheist, and we're happy, and im not hypocriting or making myself believe
just look at the proof for each side... and remember one side tends to misquote and misinterpret (not saying all atheists are perfect)