Godless Dave

We've had this discussion before, but I'll repeat myself. I'm with Seebs. I feel "liberal", aka traditional, theology is less irrational than biblical literalism. Fundies pick and choose as much as liberals do. Have you ever met a fundamentalist Christian who doesn't eat pork? Christians like Seebs are less irrational because they admit they pick and choose from the Bible and interpret it for themselves. Fundies do the same thing but pretend they don't.

Pyrrho

You obviously have no wish to express yourself clearly. Otherwise, you would have made some attempt at an explanation for what you mean by "*inspired*". This is not the first time this has come up, and has been a major issue in our discussion, which, if you really wanted to say anything useful (if you have anything useful to say), you have had ample opportunity, yet you instead keep as much as possible unexplained.



You are demonstrating the fact that you are not carefully reading what I stated (emphasis added):

There is absolutely no assumption that anything not written by an infallible god must be false. It is merely claimed that it is not necessarily all true when it is written by someone other than god. That is to say, some of it may be false if it is written by people.



From what you have said, the Bible is not something that can be depended upon to give you only truth. Thus, one must use other means to determine the truth of any proposition in it. You then have no need for the Bible, because those other means give you all of the truth you can ever know that is contained in the Bible.

As for "useful advice", it advises people to kill disobedient children and many other very bad things. It would be difficult to come up with a book with worse advice than that which is contained in the Bible.

It is quite clear that you are not wishing to have a serious discussion of these matters, as you persist in not explaining key points when they are obviously in need of explanation, and you don't bother to read what I state with any real care.

Harumi

Pyrrho,

If I may butt in, I recall that Dan Barker went from a fundy, to a conservative, then to a liberal Christian point of view.

Apparently fundies view liberals as even worse than atheists, or at least, that's how he felt when he was a fundamentalist.

Even if you feel that to go to liberal Christianity is going backward, it seems that there are still people who manage to overcome it. Once people start realizing they are picking and choosing, realizing that they are following something inconsistent, for many, after realizing what it says, they tend to reject it. That's what happened to Dan Barker.

From someone who might believe that women are inferior and should be beaten to someone who treats women as equals, I find it hard to believe that this is going backwards.

Although I can certainly understand where your frustrations are coming from. Liberal Christians can sometimes be more infuriating than Fundies are.

Pyrrho

I do not equate "liberal" Christianity with traditional Christianity. In the context of this thread, I mean "nonfundamentalist" Christianity.

Furthermore, it will be well to remember that the Biblical "literalists" typically regard portions of the Bible as being parables, as they are presented as parables, not literal truth. I have never met a Christian of any kind who regarded the parables stated by Jesus to be literally true; all I have met who have said anything about them indicate that they regard them as parables.



You have stated this with sufficient vagueness that I may agree with you. If you merely mean that they offer different interpretations, then I agree. If, however, you mean that they reject part of the Bible as false, then I disagree. Nonfundamentalist Christians regard the Bible as being imperfect, and therefore may reject any "corrupted" passages that it pleases them to reject. They still, generally, regard the Bible as somehow essential, though how it can be both essential and flawed is somewhat unclear.



As a matter of fact, I have met fundamentalist Christians who do not eat pork. And they don't eat pork because of their religious beliefs, not due to taste, health, or a concern for the well-being of pigs.

But more to the point, many Christians seem unaware of the passage I previously quoted from Matthew 5 (both fundamentalists and nonfundamentalists), and are under the impression that Jesus told people that the law was no longer applicable. Therefore, they don't believe it is necessary to follow the rules in the Old Testament. So eating pork does not mean that one is simply rejecting the Bible as entirely divine.

(I never said that most Christians were very good Bible scholars, no matter what type they might be.)




No, they do not do the same thing. True, they both interpret things for themselves or trust some priest (obviously, one must decide what it means some way or other). But, nonfundamentalists sometimes reject outright something that is stated in the Bible, rather than attempt to interpret it in a way that pleases them. For a fundamentalist, this is not an option.

If there were no difference between their attitudes toward the Bible, then there would be no difference between a fundamentalist and a nonfundamentalist.


Please note, I have not said that each individual fundamentalist is more rational than every nonfundamentalist, nor have I said anything about which might be more annoying to be around. All I have said is that there is a certain kind of inconsistency inherent in nonfundamentalism that is not necessarily in fundamentalism. Any religious individual may add many inconsistencies to their beliefs beyond the essential aspects of their beliefs, so many fundamentalists are, in fact, extremely inconsistent and irrational. But the position, as an abstract idea, is not inherently inconsistent.


To make this a bit clearer, let us consider something entirely abstract and fictional.

Suppose there was a book that some people claimed was written by a God (and let us suppose that this God always tells the truth, whatever other attributes it may or may not have). These people, therefore, will, whenever they read portions of it, regard it as being entirely true. They therefore base many of their beliefs upon what is in the book. The book, among other things, gives people advice on how to live one's life. They claim the book is an appropriate guide to life because of its connection to God. (They may, of course, not understand it all, which can lead to disputes regarding what it means, and they may, therefore, make mistakes regarding it.) These are the fundamentalists.

Now, suppose there is another group of people, who say that the book is basically right, but not entirely right, as it was not simply written by God, but written by men. God may have spoken with some of them, and some of them may have tried to faithfully relate what God said, but they may not have been as careful as one would really want. The book, among other things, gives people advice on how to live one's life. They claim the book is an appropriate guide to life because of its connection to God. These are the nonfundamentalists.

Let us suppose further that the foundation of certain beliefs (such as the belief that God had anything at all to do with the book) is solely contained in this book, and is not to be found independently of the book. (With the example mentioned, i.e., the idea that God had something to do with the writing of the book, this fact is sometimes obscured by the fact that after the book was written, other people, who believed that the book was connected with God based on what is said in the book, have written their own books, and spoken with others about their beliefs, so many, today, believe it because others have told them that it is connected with God, though the root source of all of it is merely what is contained within the book.)

Now, both groups would have the problem of circularity in their reasoning, because the source of the belief that the book is connected with God at all is the book itself. In other words, they are essentially committing the fallacy known as Petitio Principii, or Begging the Question. But since both types of believers have this same flaw, neither can be said to be more or less rational than the other based upon this.

With the fundamentalists, their claim that the book is an appropriate guide to life follows reasonably (after we get over the hurdle of Begging the Question above, common to both types of believers). The book gives advice about how to live, and, having been written by god, it is entirely true (remember, this God always tells the truth). This is, at least, a valid argument (though whether the premises are true or not is another matter).

With the nonfundamentalists, there is an acknowledgement that some of it is likely to be false (it was not simply written by God, according to them), and yet it is regarded as an appropriate guide to life. However, given the way it was written, they have no way of knowing which parts are true and which parts are not true, except for whatever portions can be verified independently of the book. So the book cannot be the source of any knowledge, because it is only that which is verified independently that can ever be known to be true. This means that the book is not a source of knowledge at all, but only something that can be verified to some extent via other means. These other means are the source of any knowledge that they might gain that might be contained in the book. This means that the book is not really a guide to anything at all, nor is it the source of any knowledge whatsoever. So, when they claim it is a guide, they are necessarily being inconsistent. They, in fact, do not simply use it as a guide, but gain their beliefs elsewhere, and act accordingly. Or, if they do use it as a guide, then they are using something that they believe may be false to guide their lives, which is not a very rational approach. Additionally, the source of the claim that the book is connected with God at all is the book itself, and by their own acknowledgement, the book probably contains errors. The trouble is, the claim that the book is connected with God may be, for all they know, one of the errors in the book. So, not only have they committed the fallacy of Begging the Question when they connect the book with God (like the fundamentalists), they also are using a source that even they acknowledge to be faulty. Even if their argument were valid, by supplying a premise that is questionable, they destroy any possibility of being able to rely upon the conclusion. Thus, the nonfundamentalist position is inherently more irrational than the fundamentalist position.

Pyrrho

This is due to Jesus supposedly saying things like:

However, I don't think that every fundamentalist Christian feels quite that way, not that it really matters.



I agree that that is sometimes the case. Some, however, never become a liberal Christian in their conversion to irreligion. Different people change their minds in different ways.



First of all, I think it is extremely rare for women to ever be treated as equals, no matter what people's beliefs are about religion. Second, I never said that it was a backward step in every way or in every sense of the word. Only that it had a certain inherent inconsistency that fundamentalism lacked. (For more on this, see my comments above in my response to Godless Dave.)

I do agree, however, that treating women better is a good thing.



We seem to agree on several things.

seebs

I thought it was pretty clear you weren't interested; you've already snipped lots of things.

Anyway, the word "inspired" is a perfectly good English word, with a well-understood meaning, and I stand by my use of it.

It means what it normally means.

I have read it, but I have noticed that you keep spinning it and drawing conclusions as though it meant something much stronger.

You may not know this, but outside of mathematics, nothing is 100% certain; all we have is degrees of confidence. I have higher confidence in a given thing I find in the Bible than I do in a given thing I find in the op-ed section of a newspaper; that doesn't mean I'll take my own understanding of the text and believe that it trumps the observable world.

This is possible, but perhaps more importantly, all of the conclusions people draw while trying to read it may be false; people are fallible.

However, this is not a particular problem. When the Bible is spoken of as "inerrant", by Christians before about 1800-1900, that means only that the core message is correct, and that studying the Bible should lead you there. And that means studying the whole thing, not yanking passages out of context and pretending they're perfect.

This is not merely false, but frankly stupid.

Take the old liar/truthteller puzzles. There are many puzzles where you must ask two questions to find out the truth. Since the first question is not sufficient, is it then safe to say that the second contains all the truth? Nope!

The Bible, taken in conjunction with a bit of common sense, some study of history, and so on, is a very good guide to some issues.

Once again, your assumption of fundamentalist premises makes your point deeply irrelevant. The Bible, *TAKEN AS A WHOLE*, does not advise people to do that.

Any text whatsoever, subjected to the same sorts of willful misquoting, will yield nonsense.

I have read what you state, and I have watched you then jump to conclusions not supported by what you actually said - but would be supported by something you almost said, and the sleight-of-hand is fairly obvious. It may or may not be intentional, but that's why I keep calling you on the premises you use, rather than the weaker statements you claim to be using.

You seem to have an astoundingly narrow and poor understanding of the way in which sources of information are used.

Anyway, I don't see why I need to explain anything to you; I'm just pointing out that what you claim is necessary to Christianity is, in fact, not at all necessary, and much of it contradicts the core teachings of the faith. It seems pretty clear that your goal here is to try to trap Christians into stepping into a straw man, which you then burn.

Won't work. Christianity predates fundamentalist nonsense, and will most likely outlive it.

Rational BAC

Fascinating thread going on here. Don't have a lot of time right now ---------but a couple of things.

1---------atheists love to debate Fundies. Because it is soooooo easy to win. Unfortunately------- fundamentalist, literalist Christianity is very close in numbers to being a cult of Christianity. What do you gain by winning against a very minor sector of Christianity? Liberal Christians can do exactly the same thing---------win against a Fundie.

So what is the point after all?

2-------forget what #2 is right now and have to watch my time---

Later---

Rational BAC

Try these analogies. --------------

Arguing with fundies and so easily winning by your vast historical and philosophical knowledge is like major league baseball players playing against minor leaguers. Or like 1-A football team playing against 111-A . Or like the Tampa Buccaneers playing the Bengals. Or like the USA defeating Iraq.

What is it? You like an easy win against no real competition?

Are you a little afraid of playing in the "big leagues"? The "big leagues" are mainstream. "liberal" Christianity. You know it. We know it. Don't lower yourself to argue with Fundies.

You are better than that.

DoubleDutchy

Sounds almost like a definition of good litterature to me; pretty much the same can be said about a lot of classics. On this particular one I happen to disagree with you; 'taken as a whole' i.m.o. its not good litterature (in spite of some good stuff that is in it too) and the potential harm in its ideas outweighs its possible usefulness by far.
This disagreement could just be a matter of differing litterary tastes, not a big deal really; after all recommending books you have enjoyed to others ends up in frustration more often than not.
If you accept this view then, yes, Pyrho is a bore and should stop annoying you with his pedantic questions; de gustibus non disputandem.
If you don't accept it (and I suppose you don't) because the Bible is one way or another 'inspired' and not just another piece of litterature then you do owe us an explanation what this is supposed to mean and how you found out.
I am sorry, in this context i don't understand it.

SecularFuture

Rational BAC
EASY?!?!?!?!
:banghead:

Please... OH PLEASE... tell me... WHAT IS YOUR TECHNIQUE?? Debating fundies, for me at least, is one of the most frustrating things in the HISTORY of frustrating things.