Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Quatermass · 05-10-2002, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveJes1979:
ALL SUFFERING is a manifestation of his wrath.

If all suffering is a manifestation of God's wrath then he must have been pissed off from the beginning. Looking at the 'design' of the ecosystem we live in, it is apparent that suffering is unavoidable. It is difficult to think how life could be supported without the death (and suffering) of other living things. The notion that weeds, suffering, and death were introduced as a result of original sin is difficult (putting it mildly) to reconcile with the world as we know it.

I never cease to be amazed at reformed theology...

daemon · 05-10-2002, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveJes1979:
Dave: and you find it unappealing because....??? I find vanilla ice cream unappealing. So what?

Why do I find it unappealing? Because people who demonstrate such behavior are usually unreasonably demanding and selfish. Does this necessarily correlate to God? No; I have no way of determining what God is like. Given that most Christians believe man is "made in God's image," I assume traits common to man are analagous to those of "God," however.

As to the "so what," I have no idea what you're looking for.

Quote:

Dave: of course one can "question" it. But I don't think such questioning can be sustained, as God is the only possible ground of objectivity.

Are you simply asserting that, or can you prove that God is the only such ground?

Quote:

Dave: I am not sure you understand my meaning of skepticism. It involves a rationalistic assertion - namely that certain knowledge is not possible (irrationalism). It is epistemological schitzophrenia of sorts. I find these types making statements that (explicit or not) boil down to such self-refuting statements as "there is no truth".

That is decidedly not the normal use of the word "skepticism;" in light of that definition, I am forced to ask why subjectivism necessarily entails that "there is no truth." Further, I'd like to know what you mean by subjectivism is--it is a fairly broad term. For example, I tend to be subjectivist in my view of value, but objectivist in my view of fact.

Quote:

Dave: if they are subjective only - what makes you think that they bear any correspondence or meaning to reality outside of the person (subject)?

Primarily it is the consistency and interconnectedness of meaning which leads me to believe that meaning maps to reality, when it does. For example, when I observe an object and determine that it is blue, usually others agree with me. Thus, it seems that my meaning for "blue" maps to something outside myself. However, there are occasions where someone will disagree with me--I say the object is blue, they say it is green, or perhaps purple. Thus it appears that the meaning of blue is different for me than for others; it encompasses a slightly different range of the spectrum. This is what I mean by the intersubjective nature of meaning; there are shades of it which differ from person to person, but there is some consistency to it.

Quote:

That is the downfall of subjectivsm. It does not bridge the "I believe" with the reality outside of the thinker.

I'm not sure what you even mean by that.

Quote:

Dave: it is axiomatic to the Christian conception of God, yes. "God" carries no meaning apart from his nature or attributes.

Okay.

Quote:

Dave: well, what else does the atheist ground their conception of meaning in that is not arbitrary? That is the challenge I have been sustaining all along. Atheists, since they have no God, have no universal to ground their knowledge in.

I'll restate the request: why does the abandoning of God's perfections necessarily result in an inability to derive meaning from history?

As to a universal for the atheist, why wouldn't the universe count?

Quote:

Dave: included in anyone's set of presuppositions, however, is either the denial or acceptance of the Creator.

As I neither deny nor accept a God (Creator is a more generic term which I have no problem accepting, given my definition of such is "that which created me"), it appears that you are incorrect. How do you reconcile this?

Quote:

Dave: it follows from the way I framed my sentence, that there is no "third route". It is a binary choice - reasoning from God, or reasoning from something else.

Sorry, but you said "pale imitation." I did not think that the phrase "pale imitation of God" referred to "anything other than God."

Quote:

Dave: how are you supposed to know that God is worthy? Simply because, intrinsic to God's nature (and any meaningful defenition), God is the source of all WORTH.

I'm sorry, but worth/value appears to be inherently subjective, and as such has no single "source." If you're saying that God's values are the only important values, why should I believe you?

Quote:

God has indeed informed you - in every fact in the universe.

The phrase "God has informed you" implies two subconcepts: God transmitting information, and my understanding of that information. Given that the second has not occurred, it is inaccurate to say that God has informed me of anything. He may be attempting to, but he is failing.

Quote:

YOur atheistic presuppositions, however, will not admit of a theistic interpretation of any fact whatsoever.

Given that I appear not to have any atheistic presuppositions, this does not follow.

Quote:

Dave: circular argumentation is not fallacious when dealing with ultimate epistemological issues. Circularity here, is unavoidable.

I see no reason to accept this; it simply seems to be special pleading. If such is the case, I can construct airtight arguments that are unarguable, simply because they are unarguable.

Quote:

Dave: but an abusive father has no right to "dole out" justice in God's name, although God does often use the evils of men as an instrument of His justice (although sometimes God's justice is unmediated).

I will assume the answer to "rape/torture is deserved" is yes, then.

Quote:

Dave: they certainly do deny the possibility of it. You have already denied the possibility of it when you claim you can reason autonomously from God. Again, this very thing is impossible if indeed God exists. There is no breaking out of that viscious circle.

A fallacious circle that you have so admirably constructed, I might add.

Further, what does it mean to "reason autonomously from God"? Jim Mitchell liked to use that phrase a lot, but he was never actually able to tell us what it meant.

Quote:

Dave: ask them.

They think you're wrong about Christianity being necessarily a presuppositional commitment. Why should I trust you over them?

Quote:

Dave: how does that follow from what was said?

Justice is good, correct? Rape and torture are evil, correct? However, rape and torture are deserved, or just. Therefore evil is just. Therefore evil is good. From this it follows that the terms "evil" and "good" are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. Therefore, moral nihilism is correct.

Quote:

Dave: ahhh, you continue to ignore my statements - not even meaningfully interacting with them, and saying "where's your proof"? If you want to challenge one of the premises in my statements - go right ahead. But these sort of blanket, cop-outs do neither of us any good.

*sigh* Since you insist on such pedantry: Why is circular argument not fallacious "when one is discussion [sic] epistemological systems and such?"

Quote:

Dave: well, I am still waiting to hear how an atheist can account for induction or morality. What does the atheist assume such exists?

Well, one response to this is <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/induction.html" target="_blank">here</a>, particularly the section "Skepticism about Inductive Skepticism." Personally, I am inclined to agree with the following:

Quote:

one uses induction because it makes getting through life easier and, although we don't know whether induction will continue to have this effect, the only way to discover if it will is to continue to use it (Madden, 1960).

As for morality, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Personally, I see morality as an intersubjective system, not objective. As to what "justifies" this, I cannot say unless you make clear what it means for it to be justified.

Quote:

I have shown you the theistic reasons.

That qualifies as "reasons"?

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]

Mu · 05-11-2002, 06:07 PM

Stone the crows and lawks a lawdy.

Been away for a few days (weeks?) and would never have guessed such a shit storm could brew out of a flippant question.

We truly share this existence with some right mad fuckers and no mistake...

To think these people have the vote.

Apologies to forum admin for the confrontational nature of this post but SHEEESH !

Get your heads out of your arses !

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

DaveJes1979 · 05-11-2002, 09:44 PM

Quatermass:

If all suffering is a manifestation of God's wrath then he must have been pissed off from the beginning. Looking at the 'design' of the ecosystem we live in, it is apparent that suffering is unavoidable. It is difficult to think how life could be supported without the death (and suffering) of other living things. The notion that weeds, suffering, and death were introduced as a result of original sin is difficult (putting it mildly) to reconcile with the world as we know it.

Dave: I do not think that a pre-Fall world necessarily was free from ALL forms of death. Only human death. Even if this were not the case, I would point out that life does not necessarily have to exist, sustained by the cycles of death that we observe in it TODAY, with our existing ecosystems as such.

daemon: Why do I find it unappealing? Because people who demonstrate such behavior are usually unreasonably demanding and selfish. Does this necessarily correlate to God? No; I have no way of determining what God is like. Given that most Christians believe man is "made in God's image," I assume traits common to man are analagous to those of "God," however.
As to the "so what," I have no idea what you're looking for.

Dave: in other words, the fact that you find certain thing "unappealing" does not give you philisophical justification to reject certain things about God.

daemon:
Are you simply asserting that, or can you prove that God is the only such ground?

Dave: I assert it on the ground that if one rejects the eternal God, it follows almost definitionally that one has to look to the finite, or some non-universal principle.

daemon: That is decidedly not the normal use of the word "skepticism;" in light of that definition, I am forced to ask why subjectivism necessarily entails that "there is no truth." Further, I'd like to know what you mean by subjectivism is--it is a fairly broad term. For example, I tend to be subjectivist in my view of value, but objectivist in my view of fact.

Dave: well one cannot divorce fact from value. Man's mind cannot conceive of a fact that has no meaning or value. Secondly, I would argue that subjectivism (any epistemology that grounds truth in the subject, the knowER) necessarily reduces to skepticism because it is a system that is inherently arbitrary. Thus, there is no truth. Only opinion or preference (from the subject).

daemon: Primarily it is the consistency and interconnectedness of meaning which leads me to believe that meaning maps to reality, when it does. For example, when I observe an object and determine that it is blue, usually others agree with me. Thus, it seems that my meaning for "blue" maps to something outside myself. However, there are occasions where someone will disagree with me--I say the object is blue, they say it is green, or perhaps purple. Thus it appears that the meaning of blue is different for me than for others; it encompasses a slightly different range of the spectrum. This is what I mean by the intersubjective nature of meaning; there are shades of it which differ from person to person, but there is some consistency to it.

Dave: but this does not account for intersubjective testimonies that flatly contradict each other. Where does one find a standard then? I would also point out that your example is not extremely helpful, since it is addressing a linguistic convention only.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the downfall of subjectivsm. It does not bridge the "I believe" with the reality outside of the thinker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

daemon: I'm not sure what you even mean by that.

Dave: in other words, is what "I believe" simply a convention that I, as the subject, arbitrarily (based on mere preference, with no outside referent) assign to the reality about me? Or is there something inherent in the reality about me that compels me to believe something beyond a self-referential preference.

daemon: I'll restate the request: why does the abandoning of God's perfections necessarily result in an inability to derive meaning from history?
As to a universal for the atheist, why wouldn't the universe count?

Dave: abandoning God's perfections leaves you with no meaningful, reliable, non-arbitrary standard. One cannot derive historical meaning from the universe alone - because it is the universe itself that is undergoing history.

daemon: As I neither deny nor accept a God (Creator is a more generic term which I have no problem accepting, given my definition of such is "that which created me"), it appears that you are incorrect. How do you reconcile this?

Dave: your failure to accept God is still, in effect, a denial - because this STILL presumes that you can reason autonomously from Him.

daemon: I'm sorry, but worth/value appears to be inherently subjective, and as such has no single "source." If you're saying that God's values are the only important values, why should I believe you?

Dave: it is is subjective only, then there is no point of authority as a standard of measurement. This follows defenitionally. If it is subjective, then there is no objective truth. Of course, when one does this, one has destroyed any possibility of the existence of authoratative moral norms.

daemon: The phrase "God has informed you" implies two subconcepts: God transmitting information, and my understanding of that information. Given that the second has not occurred, it is inaccurate to say that God has informed me of anything. He may be attempting to, but he is failing.

Dave: your failure to acknowledge (I believe at some level you DO understand) God's information stems not from the unclarity of God's revelation, but from your moral corruption which leads to a systematic misinterpretation of the "facts" of reality as revealed by God.

daemon: Given that I appear not to have any atheistic presuppositions, this does not follow.

Dave: as I said before, you have already presupposed that you can think autonomously from God.

daemon: I see no reason to accept this; it simply seems to be special pleading. If such is the case, I can construct airtight arguments that are unarguable, simply because they are unarguable.

Dave: you have demonstrated yourself that your worldview can only be argued for "circularly". In arguing against God's existence, you have employed the assumption that you can come to knowledge autonomously from God. But that is an inherently atheist assumption.

But presuppositions are argued for transcendentally, as I have tried. That is, I believe that Christian presuppositions alone can account for, justify, or make possible different forms of knowledge (logic, science, morality, etc.)

daemon: I will assume the answer to "rape/torture is deserved" is yes, then.

Dave: well, that's a qualified "yes". All humanity deserves ETERNAL suffering. It is God's grace alone that we enjoy even a moment of pleasure on earth, and it is only God's grace that provides eternal life to those who believe in Him.

daemon: A fallacious circle that you have so admirably constructed, I might add.

Dave: and the fallacy is....?

daemon: Further, what does it mean to "reason autonomously from God"? Jim Mitchell liked to use that phrase a lot, but he was never actually able to tell us what it meant.

Dave: it means that one does not start and end one's thinking and reasoning with God. It means that one has assumed that the human mind does not need divine revelation, or that it does not need to submit to divine revelation, and that finite humans can find truth simply by trying to collect up enough "facts", tie them together, find meaning in them, and arrive at truth.

daemon: They think you're wrong about Christianity being necessarily a presuppositional commitment. Why should I trust you over them?

Dave: this is not about trusting people, it is about trusting in propositions backed by argumentation. I am certainly willing to argue even against Christians who reject presuppositionalism as the basis for our faith (as a matter of fact, I do just that all the time).

daemon: Justice is good, correct? Rape and torture are evil, correct? However, rape and torture are deserved, or just. Therefore evil is just. Therefore evil is good. From this it follows that the terms "evil" and "good" are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. Therefore, moral nihilism is correct.

Dave: you are confusing the motivations and intentions of the creature (which are evil), the child-abusing father, and God's intentions (justice). God uses evil for His own righteous purposes, but it is indeed EVIL nonetheless.

daemon: sigh* Since you insist on such pedantry: Why is circular argument not fallacious "when one is discussion [sic] epistemological systems and such?"

Dave: because epistemology is not logic. Logic is a concern of epistemology, but logical fallacies are simply a seperate category from epistemological fallacies. And once again, I argue this because circularity in epistemological systems is unavoidable (see my discussion above).

daemon: Well, one response to this is here, particularly the section "Skepticism about Inductive Skepticism." Personally, I am inclined to agree with the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one uses induction because it makes getting through life easier and, although we don't know whether induction will continue to have this effect, the only way to discover if it will is to continue to use it (Madden, 1960).

Dave: how does one know that it "makes getting through life easier"? One has to practice induction in order to come to that conclusion in the first place.

daemon: As for morality, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Personally, I see morality as an intersubjective system, not objective. As to what "justifies" this, I cannot say unless you make clear what it means for it to be justified.

Dave: to justify something, one has to provide a basis that shows some form of knowlege (in this case, morality) to be coherent, true, meaningful, and non-arbitrary. Concerning subjectivism, even intersubjective systems, see my critiques above.

Mu: Stone the crows and lawks a lawdy.
Been away for a few days (weeks?) and would never have guessed such a shit storm could brew out of a flippant question.

We truly share this existence with some right mad fuckers and no mistake...

To think these people have the vote.

Apologies to forum admin for the confrontational nature of this post but SHEEESH !

Get your heads out of your arses !

Dave: ahhh, yes. The juvenile responses I have come to expect from many atheists in these threads.

Dave Gadbois

Quatermass · 05-11-2002, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveJes1979:
I do not think that a pre-Fall world necessarily was free from ALL forms of death. Only human death. Even if this were not the case, I would point out that life does not necessarily have to exist, sustained by the cycles of death that we observe in it TODAY, with our existing ecosystems as such.

Well you've got some explaining to do - what was God thinking when he gave lions those sharp teeth!

But then I have heard presuppositionalists say that no amount of evidence could ever persuade them to doubt God's word. In such a case there is nothing that can challenge the authority of the bible - no matter how questionable its contents.

But it is troublesome that within the Christian ranks there are contradicting authorities. If we cannot question the presupposition of the Christian God, how on earth can we know which unquestioned authority to follow?

Presuppositionalism assumes objective truth but God still has to communicate that truth. The disagreement within the Christian community shows that he isn't getting the message across too clearly.

Here's a simple demonstration of the confusion; please answer the following simple question. Does God love me?

DaveJes1979 · 05-12-2002, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Well you've got some explaining to do - what was God thinking when he gave lions those sharp teeth! But then I have heard presuppositionalists say that no amount of evidence could ever persuade them to doubt God's word. In such a case there is nothing that can challenge the authority of the bible - no matter how questionable its contents.

Dave: that is not quite accurate. Evidence cannot persuade us to doubt God's word, because of the fact that evidence must be interpreted by one's presuppositions. Since Christian presuppositions entail that God's word is the standard of truth, we interpret all "facts" accordingly. One can only "question" its contents if one assumes that they have a valid, self-derived set of criteria and methodology that one can test God's words with. We contest that finite man is in any such position at all.

Quote:

But it is troublesome that within the Christian ranks there are contradicting authorities. If we cannot question the presupposition of the Christian God, how on earth can we know which unquestioned authority to follow?

Dave: well, those conflicting authorities within the Christian ranks are not the "final" authorities within the Christian worldview. The Bible is. Read the Bible is you want unmediated answers.

Quote:

Presuppositionalism assumes objective truth but God still has to communicate that truth. The disagreement within the Christian community shows that he isn't getting the message across too clearly.

Here's a simple demonstration of the confusion; please answer the following simple question. Does God love me?

Dave: the "Christian community", as such, does indeed harbor many disagreements, but we are united on a myriad of essential doctrines - the deity of Christ, monotheism, the Trinity, the 2 natures of Christ, salvation by grace alone, justification by faith, etc. etc. etc.

Concerning your "simple" question, my guess is that 99% of all Christians would say, YES, God loves you. Now many Christians (especially us Calvinists) would debate as to exactly HOW God loves you, compared to how God loves Believers (the distinction between saving love vs. common grace love), but God never promised us that we would have every theological minutiae worked out.

Dave Gadbois

Quatermass · 05-12-2002, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveJes1979:

the "Christian community", as such, does indeed harbor many disagreements, but we are united on a myriad of essential doctrines - the deity of Christ, monotheism, the Trinity, the 2 natures of Christ, salvation by grace alone, justification by faith, etc. etc. etc.

The Christian community has been more than willing to kill �heretics� (i.e. those who don�t agree with one�s own interpretation of the bible) for their �misguided� beliefs. Calvin included in the charges against Servetus his statement that Judea was a barren place as opposed to a land flowing with milk and honey as the bible described it. Burning him at the stake probably seemed too lenient a punishment against such heresy! As a Calvinist perhaps you can tell us how accepting you are of the Roman Catholic Church and the essential doctrines they share with you. The myriad of denominations are a standing testimony to the divisive nature of the Christian church, not its unity.

Quote:

DaveJes1979:

Evidence cannot persuade us to doubt God's word, because of the fact that evidence must be interpreted by one's presuppositions. Since Christian presuppositions entail that God's word is the standard of truth, we interpret all "facts" accordingly.

You use Christian presuppositions like it actually has meaning. The majority of Christians do not accept presuppositionalism so it is unclear what �Christian presuppositions� entail. Your so-called standard is ambiguous, in some cases immoral, and in others erroneous. Would you be in favor of school teachers using the bible as a standard to teach that bats are birds or rabbits chew their cud or mustard are the smallest seeds? If the bible is used as your standard, how could you ever say that these teachings were wrong? Evidence does influence interpretation as shown in how the church has revised its doctrines over time. The evidence for the antiquity of the earth and humans caused the literal interpretation of Genesis to fall from favor. The moral outrage against slavery forced a change in the Christians of the south who had used the bible to show that blacks were less than human and slavery an institution blessed by God.

Quote:

DaveJes1979:

those conflicting authorities within the Christian ranks are not the "final" authorities within the Christian worldview. The Bible is. Read the Bible is you want unmediated answers.

All of the divergent strains of Christianity read the Bible. And there are as many interpretations as readers. What rational standard can be used to determine the correctness of contradictory bible-based doctrines? Your standard is neither God nor the bible but the Calvinist tradition you have adopted.

Quote:

DaveJes1979:

Now many Christians (especially us Calvinists) would debate as to exactly HOW God loves you, compared to how God loves Believers (the distinction between saving love vs. common grace love), but God never promised us that we would have every theological minutiae worked out.

Theological minutiae indeed. The fore-ordained damned should praise God for a little sunshine and rain before the everlasting barbeque! This is nonsense.

Making God�s glory the ultimate purpose of the universe allows any type of evil to be committed in the name of God and any actions by God�s supposed agents can be justified. Authoritarian based systems of beliefs or ethics, whether religious or secular, are fatally flawed.

MadMordigan · 05-12-2002, 10:10 PM

monotheism, the Trinity,

ROTFLMFAO

DaveJes1979 · 05-12-2002, 11:18 PM

Quatermass

Quote:

The Christian community has been more than willing to kill �heretics� (i.e. those who don�t agree with one�s own interpretation of the bible) for their �misguided� beliefs. Calvin included in the charges against Servetus his statement that Judea was a barren place as opposed to a land flowing with milk and honey as the bible described it. Burning him at the stake probably seemed too lenient a punishment against such heresy! As a Calvinist perhaps you can tell us how accepting you are of the Roman Catholic Church and the essential doctrines they share with you. The myriad of denominations are a standing testimony to the divisive nature of the Christian church, not its unity.

Dave: once again, all of those diverse denominations are still united by the fundamental doctrines I already listed.

Secondly, I do not believe that the Bible supports the enforcement of Christian doctrine by the sword. Its a shame that some have.

Quote:

You use Christian presuppositions like it actually has meaning. The majority of Christians do not accept presuppositionalism so it is unclear what �Christian presuppositions� entail.

Dave: they do not formally subscribe to presuppositionalism (few are even aware that such an epistemological issue exists), but they still have their presuppositions, whether they like to admit that or not.

Quote:

Your so-called standard is ambiguous, in some cases immoral, and in others erroneous. Would you be in favor of school teachers using the bible as a standard to teach that bats are birds or rabbits chew their cud or mustard are the smallest seeds?

Dave: well, I do believe that school teachers should use the Bible as their standard. But I think that your criticism of the Bible, on those particulars, overlooks the fact that the Hebrew word for "rabbit" is in dispute - we are not sure precisely what "chews the cud" in the Torah. Secondly, I would point out that your "bats are birds" criticism is an anarchronistic demand - you are ignoring the linguistic convention of ancient Hebrew (which classified bats as birds) in favor of a modern, scientific, taxonomic convention. You make the same error in your understanding of a mustard seed as the "smallest seed" (this term, most likely meant to be understood as the smallest crop seed of the original audience).

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Quote:

If the bible is used as your standard, how could you ever say that these teachings were wrong? Evidence does influence interpretation as shown in how the church has revised its doctrines over time.

Dave: yes, indeed. Interpretations do change - but one is still interpreting a given standard, understanding it as an infallible standard. Our individual interpretations, however, are fallible.

Quote:

The evidence for the antiquity of the earth and humans caused the literal interpretation of Genesis to fall from favor. The moral outrage against slavery forced a change in the Christians of the south who had used the bible to show that blacks were less than human and slavery an institution blessed by God.

Dave: and how, precisely, does the mishandling of Scripture go to prove that Scripture itself is somehow defective?

Quote:

All of the divergent strains of Christianity read the Bible. And there are as many interpretations as readers. What rational standard can be used to determine the correctness of contradictory bible-based doctrines? Your standard is neither God nor the bible but the Calvinist tradition you have adopted.

Dave: the Bible itself is still the standard - even when two diverging biblical interpretations are being contested. All interpretations, and all traditions are subject to the scrutiny of Scripture. There is no other standard. And I am more than willing to defend my Calvinism, by demonstrating its roots in Scripture. As a matter of fact, I do it all the time in Christian discussion forums.

Quote:

Theological minutiae indeed. The fore-ordained damned should praise God for a little sunshine and rain before the everlasting barbeque! This is nonsense.

Dave: I am not sure how that follows from what I said. I simply pointed out that Christians would differ on precisely what TYPE of love that God loves unbelievers with.

Quote:

Making God�s glory the ultimate purpose of the universe allows any type of evil to be committed in the name of God and any actions by God�s supposed agents can be justified. Authoritarian based systems of beliefs or ethics, whether religious or secular, are fatally flawed.

Dave: this is simply not the case at all. Simply because God uses evil for his own glory does not mean that evil is good. It is indeed EVIL that God uses. As a matter of fact, God even punishes the evildoers whom He has used for His purposes. The fact that God uses evil in no way makes it justified for man to commit it.

Dave Gadbois

Mu · 05-13-2002, 05:31 AM

Mu: Stone the crows and lawks a lawdy.
Been away for a few days (weeks?) and would never have guessed such a shit storm could brew out of a flippant question.

We truly share this existence with some right mad fuckers and no mistake...

To think these people have the vote.

Apologies to forum admin for the confrontational nature of this post but SHEEESH !

Get your heads out of your arses !

Dave: ahhh, yes. The juvenile responses I have come to expect from many atheists in these threads.

Dave Gadbois

Juvenile ? Oh, touche...

Meanwhile, spending hours online justifying your CONVICTions that your schizophrenic imaginary friend is the creator of the universe is...what...mature ?

Methinks not, alas.

It fascinates me that a nation which rejected the monarchical politics of Europe and the Middle East still clings to the idea of a spiritual monarch.

Do you know why subjects of a monarch have to bow in his / her presence?

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

It is because it is very difficult to launch an effective attack from your knees with your head bowed.

Monarchs were quite rightly paranoid that their subjects might wish to attack them, since power begets desire in others to possess it. Therefore, they were throned with backs to the wall, and all who came before them had to bow down.

Churches are designed with this monarchical court as a blueprint.

But why would God need people to bow before her ?

Surely God can't be paranoid at the risk of attack from power hungry subjects ? Wouldn't she be keen to just hug and greet everyone.

Anyone with a mind to mess would be spotted a mile off and swiftly despatched with a quick round of smiting.

So why does God require the power structures and rituals prevalent in early Middle Eastern politics ?

Pray tell.

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

05-11-2002, 06:07 PM	#53
Mu Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 31	Stone the crows and lawks a lawdy. Been away for a few days (weeks?) and would never have guessed such a shit storm could brew out of a flippant question. We truly share this existence with some right mad fuckers and no mistake... To think these people have the vote. Apologies to forum admin for the confrontational nature of this post but SHEEESH ! Get your heads out of your arses ! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

05-11-2002, 09:44 PM	#54
DaveJes1979 Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camarillo, CA, U.S.A. Posts: 72	Quatermass: If all suffering is a manifestation of God's wrath then he must have been pissed off from the beginning. Looking at the 'design' of the ecosystem we live in, it is apparent that suffering is unavoidable. It is difficult to think how life could be supported without the death (and suffering) of other living things. The notion that weeds, suffering, and death were introduced as a result of original sin is difficult (putting it mildly) to reconcile with the world as we know it. Dave: I do not think that a pre-Fall world necessarily was free from ALL forms of death. Only human death. Even if this were not the case, I would point out that life does not necessarily have to exist, sustained by the cycles of death that we observe in it TODAY, with our existing ecosystems as such. daemon: Why do I find it unappealing? Because people who demonstrate such behavior are usually unreasonably demanding and selfish. Does this necessarily correlate to God? No; I have no way of determining what God is like. Given that most Christians believe man is "made in God's image," I assume traits common to man are analagous to those of "God," however. As to the "so what," I have no idea what you're looking for. Dave: in other words, the fact that you find certain thing "unappealing" does not give you philisophical justification to reject certain things about God. daemon: Are you simply asserting that, or can you prove that God is the only such ground? Dave: I assert it on the ground that if one rejects the eternal God, it follows almost definitionally that one has to look to the finite, or some non-universal principle. daemon: That is decidedly not the normal use of the word "skepticism;" in light of that definition, I am forced to ask why subjectivism necessarily entails that "there is no truth." Further, I'd like to know what you mean by subjectivism is--it is a fairly broad term. For example, I tend to be subjectivist in my view of value, but objectivist in my view of fact. Dave: well one cannot divorce fact from value. Man's mind cannot conceive of a fact that has no meaning or value. Secondly, I would argue that subjectivism (any epistemology that grounds truth in the subject, the knowER) necessarily reduces to skepticism because it is a system that is inherently arbitrary. Thus, there is no truth. Only opinion or preference (from the subject). daemon: Primarily it is the consistency and interconnectedness of meaning which leads me to believe that meaning maps to reality, when it does. For example, when I observe an object and determine that it is blue, usually others agree with me. Thus, it seems that my meaning for "blue" maps to something outside myself. However, there are occasions where someone will disagree with me--I say the object is blue, they say it is green, or perhaps purple. Thus it appears that the meaning of blue is different for me than for others; it encompasses a slightly different range of the spectrum. This is what I mean by the intersubjective nature of meaning; there are shades of it which differ from person to person, but there is some consistency to it. Dave: but this does not account for intersubjective testimonies that flatly contradict each other. Where does one find a standard then? I would also point out that your example is not extremely helpful, since it is addressing a linguistic convention only. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is the downfall of subjectivsm. It does not bridge the "I believe" with the reality outside of the thinker. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- daemon: I'm not sure what you even mean by that. Dave: in other words, is what "I believe" simply a convention that I, as the subject, arbitrarily (based on mere preference, with no outside referent) assign to the reality about me? Or is there something inherent in the reality about me that compels me to believe something beyond a self-referential preference. daemon: I'll restate the request: why does the abandoning of God's perfections necessarily result in an inability to derive meaning from history? As to a universal for the atheist, why wouldn't the universe count? Dave: abandoning God's perfections leaves you with no meaningful, reliable, non-arbitrary standard. One cannot derive historical meaning from the universe alone - because it is the universe itself that is undergoing history. daemon: As I neither deny nor accept a God (Creator is a more generic term which I have no problem accepting, given my definition of such is "that which created me"), it appears that you are incorrect. How do you reconcile this? Dave: your failure to accept God is still, in effect, a denial - because this STILL presumes that you can reason autonomously from Him. daemon: I'm sorry, but worth/value appears to be inherently subjective, and as such has no single "source." If you're saying that God's values are the only important values, why should I believe you? Dave: it is is subjective only, then there is no point of authority as a standard of measurement. This follows defenitionally. If it is subjective, then there is no objective truth. Of course, when one does this, one has destroyed any possibility of the existence of authoratative moral norms. daemon: The phrase "God has informed you" implies two subconcepts: God transmitting information, and my understanding of that information. Given that the second has not occurred, it is inaccurate to say that God has informed me of anything. He may be attempting to, but he is failing. Dave: your failure to acknowledge (I believe at some level you DO understand) God's information stems not from the unclarity of God's revelation, but from your moral corruption which leads to a systematic misinterpretation of the "facts" of reality as revealed by God. daemon: Given that I appear not to have any atheistic presuppositions, this does not follow. Dave: as I said before, you have already presupposed that you can think autonomously from God. daemon: I see no reason to accept this; it simply seems to be special pleading. If such is the case, I can construct airtight arguments that are unarguable, simply because they are unarguable. Dave: you have demonstrated yourself that your worldview can only be argued for "circularly". In arguing against God's existence, you have employed the assumption that you can come to knowledge autonomously from God. But that is an inherently atheist assumption. But presuppositions are argued for transcendentally, as I have tried. That is, I believe that Christian presuppositions alone can account for, justify, or make possible different forms of knowledge (logic, science, morality, etc.) daemon: I will assume the answer to "rape/torture is deserved" is yes, then. Dave: well, that's a qualified "yes". All humanity deserves ETERNAL suffering. It is God's grace alone that we enjoy even a moment of pleasure on earth, and it is only God's grace that provides eternal life to those who believe in Him. daemon: A fallacious circle that you have so admirably constructed, I might add. Dave: and the fallacy is....? daemon: Further, what does it mean to "reason autonomously from God"? Jim Mitchell liked to use that phrase a lot, but he was never actually able to tell us what it meant. Dave: it means that one does not start and end one's thinking and reasoning with God. It means that one has assumed that the human mind does not need divine revelation, or that it does not need to submit to divine revelation, and that finite humans can find truth simply by trying to collect up enough "facts", tie them together, find meaning in them, and arrive at truth. daemon: They think you're wrong about Christianity being necessarily a presuppositional commitment. Why should I trust you over them? Dave: this is not about trusting people, it is about trusting in propositions backed by argumentation. I am certainly willing to argue even against Christians who reject presuppositionalism as the basis for our faith (as a matter of fact, I do just that all the time). daemon: Justice is good, correct? Rape and torture are evil, correct? However, rape and torture are deserved, or just. Therefore evil is just. Therefore evil is good. From this it follows that the terms "evil" and "good" are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. Therefore, moral nihilism is correct. Dave: you are confusing the motivations and intentions of the creature (which are evil), the child-abusing father, and God's intentions (justice). God uses evil for His own righteous purposes, but it is indeed EVIL nonetheless. daemon: sigh* Since you insist on such pedantry: Why is circular argument not fallacious "when one is discussion [sic] epistemological systems and such?" Dave: because epistemology is not logic. Logic is a concern of epistemology, but logical fallacies are simply a seperate category from epistemological fallacies. And once again, I argue this because circularity in epistemological systems is unavoidable (see my discussion above). daemon: Well, one response to this is here, particularly the section "Skepticism about Inductive Skepticism." Personally, I am inclined to agree with the following: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- one uses induction because it makes getting through life easier and, although we don't know whether induction will continue to have this effect, the only way to discover if it will is to continue to use it (Madden, 1960). Dave: how does one know that it "makes getting through life easier"? One has to practice induction in order to come to that conclusion in the first place. daemon: As for morality, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Personally, I see morality as an intersubjective system, not objective. As to what "justifies" this, I cannot say unless you make clear what it means for it to be justified. Dave: to justify something, one has to provide a basis that shows some form of knowlege (in this case, morality) to be coherent, true, meaningful, and non-arbitrary. Concerning subjectivism, even intersubjective systems, see my critiques above. Mu: Stone the crows and lawks a lawdy. Been away for a few days (weeks?) and would never have guessed such a shit storm could brew out of a flippant question. We truly share this existence with some right mad fuckers and no mistake... To think these people have the vote. Apologies to forum admin for the confrontational nature of this post but SHEEESH ! Get your heads out of your arses ! Dave: ahhh, yes. The juvenile responses I have come to expect from many atheists in these threads. Dave Gadbois

05-12-2002, 10:10 PM	#58
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	monotheism, the Trinity, ROTFLMFAO

05-13-2002, 05:31 AM	#60
Mu Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 31	Mu: Stone the crows and lawks a lawdy. Been away for a few days (weeks?) and would never have guessed such a shit storm could brew out of a flippant question. We truly share this existence with some right mad fuckers and no mistake... To think these people have the vote. Apologies to forum admin for the confrontational nature of this post but SHEEESH ! Get your heads out of your arses ! Dave: ahhh, yes. The juvenile responses I have come to expect from many atheists in these threads. Dave Gadbois Juvenile ? Oh, touche... Meanwhile, spending hours online justifying your CONVICTions that your schizophrenic imaginary friend is the creator of the universe is...what...mature ? Methinks not, alas. It fascinates me that a nation which rejected the monarchical politics of Europe and the Middle East still clings to the idea of a spiritual monarch. Do you know why subjects of a monarch have to bow in his / her presence? <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> It is because it is very difficult to launch an effective attack from your knees with your head bowed. Monarchs were quite rightly paranoid that their subjects might wish to attack them, since power begets desire in others to possess it. Therefore, they were throned with backs to the wall, and all who came before them had to bow down. Churches are designed with this monarchical court as a blueprint. But why would God need people to bow before her ? Surely God can't be paranoid at the risk of attack from power hungry subjects ? Wouldn't she be keen to just hug and greet everyone. Anyone with a mind to mess would be spotted a mile off and swiftly despatched with a quick round of smiting. So why does God require the power structures and rituals prevalent in early Middle Eastern politics ? Pray tell.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.