|
OwlFancier posted:God doesn't really have logical implications on account of being, well, god. He can be as needlessly complicated as he needs to be.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:57 |
|
Chin posted:And that's why trying to reason with a religious person within the context of their theology is like arguing with a comic book enthusiast about the outcome of a super hero fight. That's kind of what we've been trying to say to Vessbot, yes.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That's kind of what we've been trying to say to Vessbot, yes. I think vessbot is assuming that people who claim their arguments are internally consistent are likewise going to settle on a starting argument that doesn't change as the argument evolves. Those arguing in favor of christian theology have to either admit that their starting argument leads to absurdities or that their faith is merely a bunch of apologies for stuff that will never make sense on its own merit. There is no internal structure for a faith based on an ever-changing foundation. Therefor, "theology" itself is a joke. Vessbot's irritation seems to be those folk who claim that theology is it's own science that is internally consistent and unassailable from outside sources when it doesn't even meet the criteria of being consistent. It doesn't matter how condescending or spergy or whatever his argument is if he's right. It's just more embarrassing for all involved parties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
He isn't right, that is the point. The first premise that he presented is unacceptable within Christian theology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:(e: it's the 1st point that's unacceptable, not 2nd. 2nd sounds logical.) OK, the "it's an analogy" angle. If it "cannot be accurately described by human understanding or language," how could the meanings of human thoughts and feelings help? What could they be "approximating?" What can be understood about this unknowable, indescribable object by the analogy to the states of ape neurons and their electro-chemical signaling? What are you even saying about any of this? No, I don't buy that when people talk about God's thoughts, they mean anything but thoughts. If you think something else is being talked about, then I invite you to describe what. The "real" God must be at least somewhat describable for an "analogy" to work. If it's completely indescribable, there is nothing for the analogy to describe. If I want to explain by analogy to someone from an isolated tribe what a car is, I might say it's like a canoe that moves by itself, really fast, and on land. There are significant differences, but also fundamental similarities that make the analogy work: that people ride in it, and it moves. That's enough to relate it to what they already understand, and then we can finish out the picture by going over the differences in speed and mode of locomotion. I've approximated it, as you say. But if I say that it's an incomprehensible indescribable infinite canoe that doesn't carry people or move, (you simplistic rube!) then I'm talking complete nonsense. There is nothing that can be understood from it. There is nothing that can be meaningfully made to be understood by a canoe analogy that is not at least in some way like a canoe, and there is nothing that can be meaningfully made to be understood by a human mind analogy that is not at least in some way like a human mind. Thereby, your second point can have absolutely no connection to the first, and the "God" (and his "love") from the second point represents absolutely nothing. Who What Now posted:Worse, I'm saying that it's trivial and meaningless. OK though but is it unsound or have a false conclusion? steinrokkan posted:No, because it's complete gibberish. I've seen homeless smackheads making more cogent points in their rants than what you are offering. Do you find any flaw in the argument? Please be specific. OwlFancier posted:All I can say is that you appear to be taking the most tortuously long winded approach to pointing out that religious belief is often a bit silly by the standards of non believers. Well I'm showing why, not merely pointing it out. Furthermore, it's by the standards of believers too, as applied to everything but the special-pleaded belief. Miltank posted:This is why it is important to have at least a cursory understanding of theology before you try to debate it. Picking through the Old Testament is not going to cut it. Do you find any flaw in the argument? Please be specific. Chin posted:And that's why trying to reason with a religious person within the context of their theology is like arguing with a comic book enthusiast about the outcome of a super hero fight. Disinterested posted:That's kind of what we've been trying to say to Vessbot, yes. Well the main and obvious flaw with that is that comic book enthusiasts realize that comic books are fiction, while religious people think their religion is objectively true, for everybody. Even aside from mystical personal revelations, there is a major strain in Christian thought (scholarly as well as lay) that it's justified on rational grounds from natural knowledge. You can't pretend not to know this in a thread where the religious defense tapped so heavily on the Catholic heritage of philosophical scholarship. There's a whole goddamn field called "apologetics" that aims to defend the rational basis of religion to the outside intellectual world. Quit playing dumb. A Terrible Person posted:It doesn't matter how condescending or spergy or whatever his argument is if he's right. It's just more embarrassing for all involved parties. This. It's pretty funny watching people try to squirm away from admitting that they actually agree with me, but it's still stupid and doesn't matter anyway 
vessbot fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
There's only one party here that should feel any sense of embarrassment, but I have my doubts as to whether or not they possess the emotional toolbox necessary to experience the emotion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:He isn't right, that is the point. The first premise that he presented is unacceptable within Christian theology. I sourced it from the beliefs of regular believers (Pew poll), theologians, and some guy that wrote a FAQ-style website. I didn't make any of that stuff up. Berke Negri posted:There's only one party here that should feel any sense of embarrassment, but I have my doubts as to whether or not they possess the emotional toolbox necessary to experience the emotion. Do you found any flaw in the argument? Please be specific.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
vessbot posted:To summarize: God does not have human thoughts- human emotions are attributed to God as means of relating morality. Additionally, it is improper to say that God has anything "human" rather than humans having qualities of God. vessbot posted:OK, the "it's an analogy" angle. If it "cannot be accurately described by human understanding or language," how could the meanings of human thoughts and feelings help? What could they be "approximating?" What can be understood about this unknowable, indescribable object by the analogy to the states of ape neurons and their electro-chemical signaling? What are you even saying about any of this? vessbot posted:No, I don't buy that when people talk about God's thoughts, they mean anything but thoughts. If you think something else is being talked about, then I invite you to describe what. vessbot posted:The "real" God must be at least somewhat describable for an "analogy" to work. If it's completely indescribable, there is nothing for the analogy to describe. vessbot posted:If I want to explain by analogy to someone from an isolated tribe what a car is, I might say it's like a canoe that moves by itself, really fast, and on land. There are significant differences, but also fundamental similarities that make the analogy work: that people ride in it, and it moves. That's enough to relate it to what they already understand, and then we can finish out the picture by going over the differences in speed and mode of locomotion. I've approximated it, as you say. But if I say that it's an incomprehensible indescribable infinite canoe that doesn't carry people or move, (you simplistic rube!) then I'm talking complete nonsense. There is nothing that can be understood from it. There is nothing that can be meaningfully made to be understood by a canoe analogy that is not at least in some way like a canoe, and there is nothing that can be meaningfully made to be understood by a human mind analogy that is not at least in some way like a human vessbot posted:Do you found any flaw in the argument? E:God the Father, not the trinity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:God does not have human thoughts- human emotions are attributed to God as means of relating morality. Additionally, it is improper to say that God has anything "human" rather than humans having qualities of God. Okay, while Vessbots little sperg is pretty annoying, this is too. You don't know this, this is what humans having gone as far as DESCRIBING what they BELIEVE about god. Unless you've suddenly attained enlightenment and ascended above us mere mortals through one of Brandor's many theological scholars and touched the face of god. Everything you've said is conjecture and interpretation of theological standards, not actual proven ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Wow great insight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
he's right and you're very nearly as bad as brandor who is basically the eripsa of christianitychat vessbot is also terrible and is close to fishmech-bad
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Why would anyone expect to find "proven" ideas in apologia?
Miltank fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Why would anyone expect to find "proven" ideas in apologia? Maybe you should treat them as unproven ideas versus established facts if you want that? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
Miltank hasn't said anything wrong, and has been neither verbose, nor obnoxious about his points. These ideas are unproven if you will, but proving them has never been the point of this discussion. The key is: They are the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, and are internally consistent and based on a set of unchanging axioms which, by definition, can't be relativized without moving the argument entirely outside theology. It's the same as any ideology, I don't understand why so many people have trouble understanding that. Posters who pretend that theology is shifting goalposts or whatever only think that because they aren't willing to accept the axiomatic foundations of theological constructs, and are frustrated that theology, instead, doesn't move to accept their ontology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Maybe you should treat them as unproven ideas versus established facts if you want that? Does the word faith ring a bell? You are the bad poster here for constantly enforcing your own notions of authority on a discipline which derives its value from something completely different. It is an apologetic / hypothetical science, not a natural science. Stop returning to your trite little points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
While sure, God isn't real, an utter incapability for being able to appreciate theology just speaks to me as someone wracked by myopia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:These ideas are unproven if you will, As an unbeliever I consider this argument won then (  ), and lose interest at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 10:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:As an unbeliever I consider this argument won then ( Well, good, it's not like anybody was asking for your approval. The world would be a much better place if less people whined about things that don't affect them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 11:01
|
|
blowfish posted:As an unbeliever I consider this argument won then ( This is basically the only sane reaction, but apparently we have to do 12 rounds over the question of whether or not God has a central nervous system. steinrokkan posted:Miltank hasn't said anything wrong, and has been neither verbose, nor obnoxious about his points. These ideas are unproven if you will, but proving them has never been the point of this discussion. The key is: They are the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, and are internally consistent and based on a set of unchanging axioms which, by definition, can't be relativized without moving the argument entirely outside theology. It's the same as any ideology, I don't understand why so many people have trouble understanding that. Yup. - Nobody denies that there are people who believe in all kinds of things in relation to Christianity or any other religion. There is no perfect or uniformly accepted belief about anything. But I'm also not sure how much you should expect some Christians to care if a bunch of usually very stupid people argue that there is a big human being in the sky who (for the sake of argument) put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith. This is also to confuse different definitions of Christianity, which include (1) A wide variety of literary sources, taken in their individual contexts (2) A doctrine that has been shaped to try to make it as consistent and coherent as possible, as shaped by a particular church (3) Christianity as a practice, amongst different adherents. In a lot of Jesus-related arguments you have a lot of people who are using 1 or 2 as a definition arguing with people who make 3 their definition, without really realising that's what they're doing. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Well I'm showing why, not merely pointing it out. Furthermore, it's by the standards of believers too, as applied to everything but the special-pleaded belief. If you believe in god, you grant god special exemption from logic because he's god. Essentially the only thing you're going to convince anyone of is that non-believers think belief in god is silly. Which I don't think anyone needs convincing of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
yes, attacking the internal logic of religious belief is somewhat of a waste of time because so much of it depends on articles of faith. A better tack is to attack concepts that god is used in support of - generally explaining the universe from a micro to a macro level. In short, try to lead others to the conclusion that god isn't necessary to explain the universe; this leaves personal faith and belief alone but allows a person to get away from the necessity of that belief, should they choose to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Does the word faith ring a bell? You are the bad poster here for constantly enforcing your own notions of authority on a discipline which derives its value from something completely different. It is an apologetic / hypothetical science, not a natural science. Stop returning to your trite little points. And yet you, Miltank, Kyrie, and Brandor keep arguing from a position of 'My faith is the right faith' so acting as if everyone else is in the wrong for questioning your hypotheticals that you all love to treat as proofs of validity IS moving the goalposts. You can't come in here and say "Hey, do you know what FAITH is  " and then pretend you didn't spend an entire thread arguing about the validity of your faith over all others. Obviously you have MORE faith than all other believers.No one is required to accept your ontological arguments because YOU have faith in them. steinrokkan posted:The world would be a much better place if less people whined about things that don't affect them. Do you live in the US? Because others 'faith' and their personal beliefs ARE affecting us. Don't play coy and act as if just because you have the decency to keep your theological viewpoint out of the public office, that others don't feel entitled to force it upon their fellow citizens. This is such a bad faith argument. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The world would be a much better place if less people whined about things that don't affect them. If only.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Then how can God exhibit emotions, reactions, intentions, and speech acts like the ones produced by our nervous system, without something significantly like it? I realize this is way back in the thread but: robots and AI in video games and computers are capable of fooling a decent portion of the population into thinking they're real humans, with emotions, reactions, etc. They clearly do not possess something significantly like our nervous system. Not to mention that they can seem even more humanlike if you're being told a story about one of them by someone who believed it, which is basically what reading in the bible about God is like. Let alone if the story about the one time someone interacted with them was translated through a few other languages before you read it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I realize this is way back in the thread but: robots and AI in video games and computers are capable of fooling a decent portion of the population into thinking they're real humans, with emotions, reactions, etc. They clearly do not possess something significantly like our nervous system. However, the AI still have rational and logical explanations for their processes versus some mystical explanation of their reactions and appeals. And again, the AI seem human to us because WE like project our humanity upon things, we tend to anthropomorphize everything we see. Maybe we did the same thing to the idea of a God to make him more relatable, who knows. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:However, the AI still have rational and logical explanations for their processes versus some mystical explanation of their reactions and appeals. You seem to have missed the point completely. Things don't have to think to appear like they're thinking to someone, especially if you hear about their supposed behavior secondhand, let alone thirdhand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
I have a stupid, kind of off topic question. Is there a theological justification out there as to why God has a gender, and that gender is male? Or is this a translation error that took on a life of its own? I mean, if you think about it, wouldn't it make more sense for God to be female, if God has a gender? I mean, all a father does in the creation process is contribute the sperm. Also if you think about it, female is the "default" gender in a manner of speaking, as the Y chromosome is a corrupted X. That being said, I would hope theologians avoid using any gender pronouns to refer to God, because if God isn't a person, then God cannot have a gender, and thus should not be referred to as if It does. I'd just like to hear the opinions of the Christians and theologically knowledgeable people on this, as I am genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:I have a stupid, kind of off topic question. Is there a theological justification out there as to why God has a gender, and that gender is male? Or is this a translation error that took on a life of its own? I mean, if you think about it, wouldn't it make more sense for God to be female, if God has a gender? I mean, all a father does in the creation process is contribute the sperm. Not a stupid question at all. God does actually not have a gender. It's not too hard to find both "male" and "female" traits attributed to God throughout the Bible and there is only one God so it makes very little sense to treat Him like He did have a gender. By definition, gender is meaningless in there exists only one of them. . But, uh, Him? Well... In Jesus, God incarnated as man and Jesus also referred to God as a father, so it's a safe bet to use the male gender. (Feminist theology exists but I'm not very familiar with it so I better not present it in any way. However, one thing I've heard of some of the feminist theologians is that if their language has genders, they sometimes refer God as She. Personally, I think that goes a bit too far, given the example of Jesus, but it's not technically wrong either. Or anymore wrong than using the male gender anyway.) e: can't spell, apparently Valiantman fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:That being said, I would hope theologians avoid using any gender pronouns to refer to God, because if God isn't a person, then God cannot have a gender, and thus should not be referred to as if It does. This has been a major issue of contention on some Bible translation projects and is a big divisive issue in Christian theology. I heard a story once of one particular radical professor at Harvard Divinity School in the early 1960s used to give female students kazoos to blow in class anytime someone referred to God as "he." Generally liberal theologians and denominations are open to what pronoun to describe God while Fundamentalists and conservative Evangelicals are not. In the Bible itself God is generally depicted as male, but some verses complicate this and compare God to a mother. "Wisdom" or Sophia, one of the aspects of God, is usually personified as female. In the Jewish tradition the Shekinah, God's presence, is feminine. Feminist Biblical scholarship in the past few decades by theologians like Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza has done a lot to make these ideas more widely known. Valiantman's point about he incarnation (Jesus as a man) is interesting, and the case for the Roman Catholic Church not having female priests is based on this. On the other hand the divine part of Jesus in most traditions was separate from his human part. Further in most traditions God chose a women, Mary, to bear the Christ which some have taken to indicate a particularly exalted place for women in God's creation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Further in most traditions God chose a women, Mary, to bear the Christ which some have taken to indicate a particularly exalted place for women in God's creation. Especially with that whole Genesis 3:16 thing, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
A Terrible Person posted:Especially with that whole Genesis 3:16 thing, right? It's really odd to me when people who are atheist or agnostics insist that people who think Christianity requires equal treatment of genders, kindness towards homosexuals or even forbids slavery are somehow interpreting scripture wrong. You are far more likely to persuade people that Christianity requires oppressing others doing that than you are to break people of their faith. This gets really weird when people pull this on Muslims and try to argue to them that their religion requires killing unbelievers, wouldn't it be better to let them think Islam is a religion of peace? Barlow fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Here's the thing with Christianity, you can always find a verse that supports the interpretation that you want. You want to subjugate women you quote Ephesians 5:22-24, you believe in equality you can cite Galatians 3:28. The community interprets the text, spouting off lines from scripture doesn't prove much. They have decided Christianity as a concept is Evil, and so good people that follow it and act in generally moral ways must therefore not be True Christians. It's a funhouse mirror No True Scotsman argument. Miltank said something a few pages back about Mormons not being Christian, and that's the same thing, people saying this person is Christian, this person isn't, this is Christianity, this isn't. Who has the authority to decide that, though? Mormons believe they are Christians, and so they are Christians. Also, people want to divide the world into Good Guys and Bad Guys, so it's easier for them if all the Muslims are bad or all the Christians are bad. From a more rational perspective, it makes little sense, but there are all sorts of curious cognitive phenomena at work when cognitive dissonance happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 06:43
|
|
Spatula City posted:Who has the authority to decide that, Comedy answer: 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
Barlow posted:Here's the thing with Christianity, you can always find a verse that supports the interpretation that you want. You want to subjugate women you quote Ephesians 5:22-24, you believe in equality you can cite Galatians 3:28. The community interprets the text, spouting off lines from scripture doesn't prove much. Uh, yeah? So if there's one thing that doesn't matter, then it's anything whatsoever contained in scripture including the existence of Jesus Christ. If every last bit of it can be shrugged away as metaphor than none of it can be expected to mean anything. It's stupid. It doesn't matter if it's good or evil if it's fiction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
vessbot posted:OK though but is it unsound or have a false conclusion? Are you illiterate? I just told you that it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Barlow posted:
I uh...it would have been really weird if he had chosen a man to bear him? I mean he being born a man is pretty significant as to what gender is important, him being born out of a woman is literally how every human being ever has been brought out. Are we really pretending the Bible isn't misogynistic as poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
You can argue that Mary being the holy mother is a sign of an exalted position of women in the religion, or you can argue that it only contributes to the establishing of femininity as a reproductive force in service of masculinity, and to its discursive subjugation. It doesn't really prove anything
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:02
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You can argue that Mary being the holy mother is a sign of an exalted position of women in the religion, or you can argue that it only contributes to the establishing of femininity as a reproductive force in service of masculinity, and to its discursive subjugation. It doesn't really prove anything And that the necessity of her virginity implies something unpleasant, too.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I uh...it would have been really weird if he had chosen a man to bear him? I mean he being born a man is pretty significant as to what gender is important, him being born out of a woman is literally how every human being ever has been brought out. Are we really pretending the Bible isn't misogynistic as poo poo? Athena sprouted out of Zeus's head so it's not like divine beings really are handicapped by physical limitations, it's perfectly possible to think that the Bible could have had Christ arrive fully formed or born via some supernatural means. As for the Bible being "misogynistic as poo poo" you're right that it certainly right that a text compiled almost 2000 years ago unsurprisingly does not adhere to contemporary egalitarian gender norms. That said the early Christian community described in the book of Acts seems to have been pretty progressive and included women in leadership roles (much to Paul's chagrin). The Bible is a bunch of books and comes from many perspectives, they don't always agree on these points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You can argue that Mary being the holy mother is a sign of an exalted position of women in the religion, or you can argue that it only contributes to the establishing of femininity as a reproductive force in service of masculinity, and to its discursive subjugation. It doesn't really prove anything So Mary get's to be exalted among women, but all others better be submissive and non-exalted. But to be honest, there are so many other significant women that if you are not a Christian, Mary seems rather unimportant other than giving birth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:18
|
|