Faith and Reason.

[kareface]

My argument wasn't refuted once. You refute an argument by showing a contradiction, something that has yet to be done. Surprising considering its college philosophy horseshit... It should be easy for you...


Apparently, I'm arguing for nothing because circular logic and self-reference is something most of you are fine with. I mean, it's not like those things are important in a logic argument (aka: reason)?

So, enjoy your serious grown-up discussion about truth, when none of you can define it properly. I'm sure it will go somewhere. Right?

Wow, 2 good posts and back to this BS. I'm glad I feel asleep when I did.

2nd: I never made a reference to a matrix like reality

You claim that you don't reference a matrix like situation where the reality we interpret is different then the ones our senses allows us to. Here comes the dumbstick:

If you define god before your definition of reality, it won't create issue.

If you accept reality as it is, then yes

You have to believe there is a reality that can be explained (consciously or not) if you want to do sciences.

Basically, I can't prove this reality exist

working under the assumption that we all exist in the same reality

You keep rehashing the fucking matrix argument. Yes, reality can be totally different then our senses allow us to interpret. Our reality is not defined by paradigms or axioms, but by the most basic ways we can comprehend the world that surrounds us. I've covered this several times now. You can make the claim that reality differs from what we can understand given our limited senses and technology, but then you run into a problem. Any reality that we can't interpret can not be distinguished from fantasy. Once you get away from what we can understand of the world around us using the natural realm, there is no way to distinguish it from insanity. You can make any claim about the nature of reality, and there would be no way to disprove such a claim. As such it's a non-argument. You toss this turd out there like it's some philosophical jewel, but this is something that you can apply to any argument.

Example: I'm wrong about the earth being flat. But have no real evidence to support my claim.

However, reality as we know it can differ from what we are able to perceive, by that logic it's possible that the reality is that the earth is flat, and my argument is made valid.

Example: I'm wrong about the existence of a deity.

However, reality as we know it can differ from what we are able to perceive, by that logic it's possible that the reality is that there is a god, and my argument is made valid.

It's not a real argument, because no one can ever 'discredit' the possibility of an alternate reality. Does that mean that any claim made by the alternate reality gambit is anymore likely to be true? No, not at all. All false claims can be made true given a reality in which they could exist. Philosophy has no place in a real debate. You can always end up running to concepts that are beyond answers. In that regard it's a non-response. you might as well just post an image of a lump of shit. We have to accept that the reality we are able to extrapolate through our senses and our technology is the reality we exist in. If you don't, then anything is possible, and all points of argument are validated.

The fact that I've actually had to sit here and explain this to you means that you really are just that fucking thick headed. If you try and use that in any real debate format, you'll be laughed off the stage. Any more reference to a reality that is different then what our senses allow us to understand will be met with ridicule. As it truly is ridiculous to bring such a blanketed non-argument up.

My argument wasn't refuted once.

Yes, I've brought up time and time again it's pointless to reference a matrix like reality. Yet you rehash it over and over. Stop trying to justify your position with something can justify anyone's position.

So, enjoy your serious grown-up discussion about truth, when none of you can define it properly. I'm sure it will go somewhere. Right?

How arrogant. You act as you have the one and only understanding of truth, when some of the greatest minds in our worlds history grappled with the concept for their entire lives. You reference everyone besides yourself as being incapable of understanding a concept that is really not completely agreed upon to this day. That arrogance is breathe taking. To be honest, most of the references of the term have been rather accurate based on the generally held understanding of the word. However, truth, like reality is a philosophical black hole. Something in which you keep returning to. Much like the reference to reality, you can end a debate by manipulating the paradigms of reason. If the basis for knowledge is made on something that is false, then everything we know can be false as well. Another turd from the great pile of crap you seem to spout. Yes, it's possible, but because it's possible, does not mean that it's likely. It's also possible that I'm actually a magic ham sandwich, but not very likely.

The results we've seen using the definitions held to be most common are what helps define them as such. If another hypothetical concept of truth was more likely to be accurate, then the system that would provide the most accurate results would be one based on that definition as the framework. As such, the majority of planet has agreed that truth represents that which can describe reality or fact. Reality is that which we can interpret through our senses and technologies. Because any other definitions of the two opens the doors to anything and everything being possible, and prevents real debates from taking place. It's an ignorant, non-argument, and you throw into the debate like you're enlightening the peasants. Most people have heard this stupid argument made in phil 101 in high school.

The simple fact is, you have to agree with the definition, otherwise anything can be true, and everyone's point is valid. This isn't a problem for someone like yourself who has completely failed a making any real points, but for people who are actually interested in furthering the discourse... it's a pointless exercise in basic philosophy.

Any more reference to a truth that is different then what is commonly accepted will be met with ridicule. As it truly is ridiculous to bring such a blanketed non-argument up.

Why do you make the distinction between beliefs with some logic and or evidence behind them and beliefs that have no evidence behind them and may be illogical.

I've already explained this. This will be the final time I cover this. Yes, anything that is personally held to be true, regardless of fact or accuracy is a belief. In that regard, the whole of science is based on a belief system. I differentiate between the two states because there is a world of difference between believing that the Sun is the center of the solar system vs. every night underpants gnomes come to raid my dresser. I make the distinction because just because 2 things are brown, doesn't mean they will taste the same. Just because belief can be used to define anything held to be true, does not mean that all beliefs are equal.

Beliefs that are based in reality, have other labels, such as truth or knowledge. I use those terms in reference to them instead because they are a more accurate description of the examples. An example of this, there are many ways to address another person. You can reference species, race or sexuality. But people generally reference people in more specific terminology, just because someone is black, doesn't mean I say, "how's it going black skinned person". Or "Nice to see you again Woman". While those terms can be used as a reference, they are blanked and are not specific to them. That's why we reference people by names, because it's the most specific definition we can regard them with. Much like how belief can be used to describe many things, it's not always the most accurate description of understanding. I use belief to refer to religious assumptions because there is no term that is more define with out being derogatory. If you prefer, can I start referring to religious convictions as delusions instead.

People define those words in that way for a reason. Any other definitions have been thrown out long ago because the ones commonly held are the ones that have produced the most compelling results. It's not a mistake that we have mathematics, computers, medicine, clean water and food. At some point someone had to make the leap that the endless redefinition of reality, truth, knowledge, and such is an exercise in futility. Those debates have raged for years, and still exist today. If we waited for a common definition of them before establishing a system to measure and evaluate the reality we can comprehend with the senses we have, then we'd never of seen the renaissance. It's lucky there were people who pushed past those pointless debates, or we would not enjoy the things we take for granted today.

For reference, I will continue to use belief to describe that which is not based in fact or truth, that can be commonly defined. Things that accurately describe reality as we can comprehend through our senses and technology I will continue to reference as truth or fact, because while they are also beliefs, they are not most accurately described as such.

If you define god before your definition of reality, it won't create issue.

God and reality can't coincide. God by definition is supernatural. If you define reality as something that includes something outside the realm of nature, there is no way to distinguish it from fantasy. In that regard, anything and everything can be true. If god is not supernatural, if he exists with in the realm of nature, then he is something that can be examined using natural means. So far this is unlikely to be true as we have yet to find any gods or proof of the existence of gods. As such, the claim made with out proof is no different then a claim made by a crazy person.

What I'm getting at, people who claim the existence of god are on the same level as people who can hear aliens talking to them through their teeth. Even if the argument for gods existence turns out to be true, the chances of it's truth no more likely then teeth talking aliens.

I'm sorry, but it's not a "logic tree", you should change your title to "sequence of action" and use the correct wording.

Oh the irony, the 'logic tree' I made to describe your thought process is illogical. I'm going to go ahead and keep the name, because you seem to think that there is some reason or logic behind your statements. Even if it's false.

My definition come from the dictionary. You didn't even defined yours, and from your post, the only thing I see is: FAITH = RELIGION, BELIEF = RELIGION, TRUTH = SCIENCE. i mean..come on. If this is how you define the word, your argument will be very different obviously.

No, this is how we have to define the words for a discourse to occur. Faith can be held for anything, but it is only REQUIRED to define the supernatural. It's likely that you don't have faith in anything besides the supernatural because most of your decisions are based on some understanding. Because it's based on something, by definition it's not faith. The reason faith has become more commonly referenced as "trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being"-wiki, is because it's the most accurate definition of that state of knowledge. You can not verity the supernatural, so you can only have faith in it's existence. Unfortunately for you, this also applys to anything else that can be imagined outside the realm of nature. I can define anything, then have faith in it's existence. My personal god looks a great deal like this:
http://www.botanicgardensblog.com/wp...tard-small.jpg
He answers all my hotdog based preyers.

I've already covered truth and belief. I won't rehash those (I know, new concept).

Truth is a mathematical concepts, and your conclusion depend of your axiom. Is it causing you any problem?

Wow, that's just plain false. You really need to stop pulling the bullshit out of your ass. Absolute truths only exist in mathematics. Truth however is never absolute in regards to nature. Truth can be used to describe reality. Saying otherwise is false. There are degrees to truth like anything. Some things are more likely to be true based on the evidence provided.

You are benched until you can expand the discourse with out relying on redefinitions or philosophical black holes.

[Bearsan]

The points that you brought up are very interesting. The defensive nature of Biblical writings and their creation of a "Christian" community untainted by false beliefs seems xenophobic and unreasonable today because we're used to seeing Christianity as such a powerful cultural force. Keep in mind though, that the Old and New Testaments were written at a time during which Christianity was not the dominant faith, and the Christian community a small one among large empires. Within that context, I think it's easier to understand the emphasis on "us vs. them."

When you mention "The Church" (which in and of itself is a historically complex and fraught term) and its political agendas in canonizing, I don't know quite how to respond because I'm not familiar with the entire range of texts that they had to choose from. Because questioning God is not an option for Christians, we have to somehow make sense of contradictions in the Bible to interpret what living a "good" life means besides accepting the mission of evangelism (a good example is the "go forth and multiply" that someone mentioned earlier. God says this to Adam in Genesis, but Paul refutes it by writing that chastity is the most exemplary form of life. Neither extreme is reasonable or favorable, so what should we do?).

I understand the negativity toward organized religion. Many of the churches I've visited in Berkeley have been downright terrible at forcing people to actually think about the Bible. Pastors give sermons and the congregations accept them word for word. Earlier in this thread, people discussed the dangers of people thinking that they were doing God's work when in fact they were just being insane. I think that is the most difficult part of living a good religious life. When all you really have is the Bible with all its contradictions and complexities, how do you know if you're living a life that is pleasing to God?

[Kaylia]

You keep rehashing the fucking matrix argument. Yes, reality can be totally different then our senses allow us to interpret. Our reality is not defined by paradigms or axioms, but by the most basic ways we can comprehend the world that surrounds us. I've covered this several times now. You can make the claim that reality differs from what we can understand given our limited senses and technology, but then you run into a problem. Any reality that we can't interpret can not be distinguished from fantasy. Once you get away from what we can understand of the world around us using the natural realm, there is no way to distinguish it from insanity. You can make any claim about the nature of reality, and there would be no way to disprove such a claim. As such it's a non-argument. You toss this turd out there like it's some philosophical jewel, but this is something that you can apply to any argument.

Example: I'm wrong about the earth being flat. But have no real evidence to support my claim.

However, reality as we know it can differ from what we are able to perceive, by that logic it's possible that the reality is that the earth is flat, and my argument is made valid.

Example: I'm wrong about the existence of a deity.

However, reality as we know it can differ from what we are able to perceive, by that logic it's possible that the reality is that there is a god, and my argument is made valid.

It's not a real argument, because no one can ever 'discredit' the possibility of an alternate reality. Does that mean that any claim made by the alternate reality gambit is anymore likely to be true? No, not at all. All false claims can be made true given a reality in which they could exist. Philosophy has no place in a real debate. You can always end up running to concepts that are beyond answers. In that regard it's a non-response. you might as well just post an image of a lump of shit. We have to accept that the reality we are able to extrapolate through our senses and our technology is the reality we exist in. If you don't, then anything is possible, and all points of argument are validated.

At the very least, my quote are consistant. Can't say that about everyone in this thread.

I'm not sure where to start with this, because there seem to be multiples misunderstanding. Before I address your point, can you tell me in one statement what my "argument" is? Which premise I used, and which one you disagree with? I'm not even sure what argument you're refering to.

Because you keep bringing up the "matrix argument", I can't help but think you're completely missing my point. I never once talked about not accepting the reality we lived it, I'm saying we have to set this reality as the cornerstone to build everything else in sciences.

The fact that I've actually had to sit here and explain this to you means that you really are just that fucking thick headed. If you try and use that in any real debate format, you'll be laughed off the stage. Any more reference to a reality that is different then what our senses allow us to understand will be met with ridicule. As it truly is ridiculous to bring such a blanketed non-argument up

I had similar argument between classes a few time. Teachers usually side with me, most students get annoyed when you say "truth" is relative to your axiom. I suspect most of them never stopped to think about those concepts tho, so I'm perfectly fine with my stance. To be sincere, I'm almost certain more physicists would agree with what I said than the opposite. I'm not the only one who think like this, and most people who spent their life working on finding the "truth" will eventually realize how shaky those definition are.

You can think the argument is ridicule, but the point I'm trying to address is the main reason why people often end up saying innacuracy like "I can disprove theism", or "theism is stupid". Theism only seem stupid when science is everything for one person.

How arrogant. You act as you have the one and only understanding of truth, when some of the greatest minds in our worlds history grappled with the concept for their entire lives. You reference everyone besides yourself as being incapable of understanding a concept that is really not completely agreed upon to this day. That arrogance is breathe taking. To be honest, most of the references of the term have been rather accurate based on the generally held understanding of the word. However, truth, like reality is a philosophical black hole. Something in which you keep returning to. Much like the reference to reality, you can end a debate by manipulating the paradigms of reason. If the basis for knowledge is made on something that is false, then everything we know can be false as well. Another turd from the great pile of crap you seem to spout. Yes, it's possible, but because it's possible, does not mean that it's likely. It's also possible that I'm actually a magic ham sandwich, but not very likely.

You can call me arrogant if you want, I don't give a damn. I'm not here to make any friends or give easy answer that will please one side more than the other.

My argument may or may not be correct, but I'm building it using the tool mathematics give us. If you believe rationality can exist outside mathematics, then so be it. I will try build my understanding of reality using the smallest set of axioms, and linking them together to establish the scientific methods, and everything else after.



And one last thing, I wasn't implying that I understand the "truth", I was saying people in this thread go ahead and uses the word without understanding it. Truth is only defined mathematically (pretty sure you said this earlier), and if you want to uses the word, you have to define axioms. You can't talk about truth without talking about axioms.


I will answer the rest tomorrow, I'm running out of time.

As such, the majority of planet has agreed that truth represents that which can describe reality or fact

Because we all use the same axiom about the existance of this reality?

Your whole paragraph is nice, and I agree entirely with it, but it doesn't really adresse any argument I made.

[Kaylia]

God and reality can't coincide. God by definition is supernatural. If you define reality as something that includes something outside the realm of nature, there is no way to distinguish it from fantasy. In that regard, anything and everything can be true. If god is not supernatural, if he exists with in the realm of nature, then he is something that can be examined using natural means. So far this is unlikely to be true as we have yet to find any gods or proof of the existence of gods. As such, the claim made with out proof is no different then a claim made by a crazy person.

What I'm getting at, people who claim the existence of god are on the same level as people who can hear aliens talking to them through their teeth. Even if the argument for gods existence turns out to be true, the chances of it's truth no more likely then teeth talking aliens.

There is no way to distinguish God from fantasy, both are defined outside this reality.

Anyone who come up with a "scientifical evidence" that God exist is bullshitting. Anyone who tell me they found a philosophical evidence that God exist simply used a logical falacy, or a differents set of axiom. Anyone who tell me that God is a lie used a logical falacy, or a differents set of axioms.

The simple fact is, you have to agree with the definition, otherwise anything can be true, and everyone's point is valid. This isn't a problem for someone like yourself who has completely failed a making any real points, but for people who are actually interested in furthering the discourse... it's a pointless exercise in basic philosophy.

Any more reference to a truth that is different then what is commonly accepted will be met with ridicule. As it truly is ridiculous to bring such a blanketed non-argument up.

Yes, except that your typical atheist and theist don't agree with the definitions. It happened in this thread, and it's one of the main reason why I made my first comment, and why I'm arguing about semantic.

If everyone would agree with the definition, there would be no possible argument.

Oh the irony, the 'logic tree' I made to describe your thought process is illogical. I'm going to go ahead and keep the name, because you seem to think that there is some reason or logic behind your statements. Even if it's false.

But further verification would demonstrate that there is no logic in this tree. No "and", "or" and "premise". It also loop on itself, which seem to be a problem with the logic you're using. While my apparently illogical thought process could lead to wrong results, an experiment using mathematician would prove you wrong.

Wow, that's just plain false. You really need to stop pulling the bullshit out of your ass. Absolute truths only exist in mathematics. Truth however is never absolute in regards to nature. Truth can be used to describe reality. Saying otherwise is false. There are degrees to truth like anything. Some things are more likely to be true based on the evidence provided.

You are benched until you can expand the discourse with out relying on redefinitions or philosophical black holes.

Truth can be used to describe reality? Holy shit. Did you really just wrote this huge wall of text to say the exact same thing I said initially? If you can't see the similarities between "reality has to be set true" and "truth is used to describe reality", I can't help you.

And philosophical black hole...I like the term. Let me know when you reach the singularity, I will keep observing them from away.

[kareface]

At the very least, my quote are consistant. Can't say that about everyone in this thread.

I'm not sure where to start with this, because there seem to be multiples misunderstanding. Before I address your point, can you tell me in one statement what my "argument" is? Which premise I used, and which one you disagree with? I'm not even sure what argument you're refering to.

Because you keep bringing up the "matrix argument", I can't help but think you're completely missing my point. I never once talked about not accepting the reality we lived it, I'm saying we have to set this reality as the cornerstone to build everything else in sciences.




I had similar argument between classes a few time. Teachers usually side with me, and most students get annoyed when you say "truth" is relative to your axiom. I suspect most of those students never stopped to think about those concept tho, so I'm perfectly fine with my stance.

You can think the argument is ridicule, but the point I'm trying to address is the main reason why people often end up saying innacuracy like "I can disprove theism", or "theism is stupid". Theism only seem stupid when science is everything for one person.


You can call me arrogant if you want, I don't give a damn. I'm not here to make any friends or give easy answer that will please one side more than the other.

My argument may or may not be correct, but I'm building it using the tool mathematics give us. If you believe rationality can exist outside mathematics, then so be it. I will try build my understanding of reality using the smallest set of axioms, and linking them together to establish the scientific methods, and everything else after.



And one last thing, I wasn't implying that I understand the "truth", I was saying people in this thread go ahead and uses the word without understanding it. Truth is only defined mathematically (pretty sure you said this earlier), and if you want to uses the word, you have to define axioms. You can't talk about truth without talking about axioms.


I will answer the rest tomorrow, I'm running out of time.

Who said they can disprove theism? You can't disprove something that exists outside the realm of proof. "theism is stupid" is inaccurate? You are conflating something that can't be proven with something that can. Is the likely hood of theism any higher then the likely hood of any other supernatural idea? No. Would you call someone stupid for believing a talking dog dressed as a delicious treat answers prayers? I would hope so.

Just because you don't agree that it's stupid doesn't mean that isn't not stupid. It's ironic that theism flourishes where education is lacking. So while, "theism is stupid" might not be accurate, one could accurately say, "A theist is more likely to be stupid".

At the very least, my quote are consistant. Can't say that about everyone in this thread.

Being consistent and pointless isn't something I'd be bragging about.

can you tell me in one statement what my "argument" is?

You respond to peoples points by questioning things that, if questioned, prevent any debate from taking place. As an example:

It doesn't prove that we all exists,it shows that we are all working under the assumption that we all exist in the same reality.

This is a fatuous statement. Debating existence is pointless and counter productive then the objective of the thread is "Faith and Reason". To get to a point where one must have faith, the premise of existence is assumed. One that does not exist can not have faith. So making claims to a reality different then what is commonly understood is not something you can do in reasonable discourse. Because you can apply that argument equally for every possible perspective. No one can ever be wrong or right, because evidence and truth aren't applicable. If your teacher sides with an argument like that, then you can deadlock any debate in class by rehashing the same point. There's always someone in the class that does too, that first year that's only just grasping the idea and is infatuated with it.

I'm not here to make any friends or give easy answer that will please one side more than the other.

No, you are here to give non-arguments and try and deadlock the tread because you have some personal revelation about truth and reality, and you won't let anyone else suggest otherwise.

My argument may or may not be correct, but I'm building it using the tool mathematics give us. If you believe rationality can exist outside mathematics, then so be it. I will try build my understanding of reality using the smallest set of axioms, and linking them together to establish the scientific methods, and everything else after.

You don't get to establish the scientific methods. Those are already established. Here's the problem with your premise. You can spout those ideals all you want, but once you get to a position where you need to communicate some aspect of the known reality to someone else, you must do so providing the same axioms that are assumed by everyone else. The fact that you are talking to us at all means that some lines have already been drawn even if you would like to pretend otherwise. At the end of the day, your line of thinking doens't provide anything. ANYTHING. Not answers, not solutions, no development of any sort. Not with out making the same assumptions that everyone else has to make.

And one last thing, I wasn't implying that I understand the "truth", I was saying people in this thread go ahead and uses the word without understanding it. Truth is only defined mathematically (pretty sure you said this earlier), and if you want to uses the word, you have to define axioms. You can't talk about truth without talking about axioms.

Yes, but it's pointless to mention this because it's assumed. Because if you don't make those assumptions, everything is nothing, and nothing is everything.

My point is, that line of thought is a black hole, a waste of time. I can use that sentence to defend any argument. If that's the case, then there's no reason to address it. If you want to debate theism, you'll need to do it through points and arguments that don't apply to every other possible point of view as well.

Last time now, after this line:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments should consist of things that are specific to topic and not relate to the definition of things that can't go undefined with out tearing apart everything we know. If you have another, more accurate definition of truth, realty, fact, ect. ect. then publish it and win a noble prize. Go and prove everyone in this thread wrong. But until then, you'll have to live with the axioms and paradigm that is commonly agreed upon to continue the discussion.

[Kaylia]

Ok, everything above was just insults and fallacies that I won't bother replying to, except for 1-2 line that were already addressed before. Not that I was expecting anything off you considering every lines start with an insults.

If you can't tell me which "argument" your arguing against, you're the one who is just arguing for the sake of arguing.


The only thing I asked you for was a set of premise that we could use to build an argument. Not only did you refuse by dodging the question, you're accusing me of trying to deadlock the thread. I'm sorry, but setting the premise and stating the statement you're trying to prove or disprove is the only way to debate, otherwise it's not a debate, it's someone listening to himself.

[kareface]

There is no way to distinguish God from fantasy, both are defined outside this reality.

Anyone who come up with a "scientifical evidence" that God exist is bullshitting. Anyone who tell me they found a philosophical evidence that God exist simply used a logical falacy, or a differents set of axiom. Anyone who tell me that God is a lie used a logical falacy, or a differents set of axioms.




Yes, except that your typical atheist and theist don't agree with the definitions. It happened in this thread, and it's one of the main reason why I made my first comment, and why I'm arguing about semantic.

If everyone would agree with the definition, there would be no possible argument.




But further verification would demonstrate that there is no logic in this tree. No "and", "or" and "premise". It also loop on itself, which seem to be a problem with the logic you're using. While my apparently illogical thought process could lead to wrong results, an experiment using mathematician would prove you wrong.




Truth can be used to describe reality? Holy shit. Did you really just wrote this huge wall of text to say the exact same thing I said initially? If you can't see the similarities between "reality has to be set true" and "truth is used to describe reality", I can't help you.

And philosophical black hole...I like the term. Let me know when you reach the singularity, I will keep observing them from away.

Nothing you've said requires rebuttal. I could take the time to point out some conflicts in your statements, but it wouldn't serve the discussion. So instead, I'll develop it instead.

How do you deal with the logical inconsistencies in the bible? Conflicting tales of Jesus's resurrection, time line, location, even the characters in the story. His disciples all got one thing right, and that was they each got everything wrong. What about god speaking of absolute forgiveness, and love, then slaughtering and causing so much pain.

People talk about Jesus like they know him, but if you recant on his stories, he comes off as a violent cult leader. He tells people that they must not love their families if they are to follow him. He talks about overthrowing the established government, his ideals more akin to anarchy. He talks about not bringing peace but the sword. He is a mysonginist, and supports slavery. Tho he appears to be a saint when compared to Yahweh or Muhammad; who almost glorify violence.

If all regions rely on faith, how can you know that your religion is correct? Many of them have conflicting doctrines, they can't all be right.

Based on dating the stories in the bible, and the time lines of the decedents of Adam and Eve, the world should only be 6,000-10,000 years old. Yet this conflicts with countless scientific fields. It says that Eve was made from the rib of man, but woman are the default genotype. It says all life was created in it's present form, but we know that we've evolved from other species. If some aspects of the bible are proven to be untrue, how can any of it be taken on faith? How can you use it to justify a moral position when then supposed basis of your morality it ladled with fiction?

If god answers prayers, why do all studies preformed by 3rd parties (I.E. Places that aren't the 'family research institute') show prayer has makes no difference in the outcome of an event? If miracles exist, how come amputees have never miraculously recovered a leg or arm?

If morality comes from the bible, how come Christians don't stone their disobedient children to death?

[kareface]

Ok, everything above was just insults and fallacies that I won't bother replying to, except for 1-2 line that were already addressed before. Not that I was expecting anything off you considering every lines start with an insults.

If you can't tell me which "argument" your arguing against, you're the one who is just arguing for the sake of arguing.


The only thing I asked you for was a set of premise that we could use to build an argument. Not only did you refuse by dodging the question, you're accusing me of trying to deadlock the thread. I'm sorry, but setting the premise and stating the statement you're trying to prove or disprove is the only way to debate, otherwise it's not a debate, it's someone listening to himself.

That's a bold response. "I don't have to answer any of your points because they are all false" Feel free to points out a fallacy. I dare you...

You claim that what I've posted is false to avoid having to offer a real answer.

[Kaylia]

Feel free to points out a fallacy. I dare you...

Arguing without setting your axiom for one.


And nothing I said require rebutal because I asked you to set a base for the argument, and you refused.

I could take the time to point out some conflicts in your statements, but it wouldn't serve the discussion.

Good logic. I'm convinced.

[Kaylia]

How do you deal with the logical inconsistencies in the bible? Conflicting tales of Jesus's resurrection, time line, location, even the characters in the story. His disciples all got one thing right, and that was they each got everything wrong. What about god speaking of absolute forgiveness, and love, then slaughtering and causing so much pain.

People talk about Jesus like they know him, but if you recant on his stories, he comes off as a violent cult leader. He tells people that they must not love their families if they are to follow him. He talks about overthrowing the established government, his ideals more akin to anarchy. He talks about not bringing peace but the sword. He is a mysonginist, and supports slavery. Tho he appears to be a saint when compared to Yahweh or Muhammad; who almost glorify violence.

If all regions rely on faith, how can you know that your religion is correct? Many of them have conflicting doctrines, they can't all be right.

Based on dating the stories in the bible, and the time lines of the decedents of Adam and Eve, the world should only be 6,000-10,000 years old. Yet this conflicts with countless scientific fields. It says that Eve was made from the rib of man, but woman are the default genotype. It says all life was created in it's present form, but we know that we've evolved from other species. If some aspects of the bible are proven to be untrue, how can any of it be taken on faith? How can you use it to justify a moral position when then supposed basis of your morality it ladled with fiction?

If god answers prayers, why do all studies preformed by 3rd parties (I.E. Places that aren't the 'family research institute') show prayer has makes no difference in the outcome of an event? If miracles exist, how come amputees have never miraculously recovered a leg or arm?

If morality comes from the bible, how come Christians don't stone their disobedient children to death?

Oh wow, I think you just scored a few points for the worst rebutal of the night. Theism doesn't involve all those specifications. I don't understand why I would have to argue this particular case to prove my point.

[kareface]

Arguing without setting your axiom for one.


And nothing I said require rebutal because I asked you to set a base for the argument, and you refused.




Good logic. I'm convinced.

Stop bringing up axioms and paradigms, it's pointless. For you to be talking with me at all requires countless assumed points about truth, reality, language. You've accepted them regardless of your personal feelings otherwise, because you are communicating with me on some level and to do so requires it. I've defined truth, reality, belief in great detail, the basis of the superfluous axioms you've presented. You know how I define them, it's the same as how you have to define them to be participating in this discourse. Stop pretending like rehashing this point is providing you with some intellectual high ground.

[kareface]

Oh wow, I think you just scored a few points for the worst rebutal of the night. Theism doesn't involve all those specifications. I don't understand why I would have to argue this particular case to prove my point.

You don't seem to understand much. To be a theist, you have to assume something that has no evidence to be true. A supernatural being exists. How do you come to this assumption? How can any religion continue to draw countless, likely false assertions, based on a logic-less starting point. Then to make matters worse, the claims are riddled with inconsistencies, both internally with it's own scripture, and externally with the observations of the known world. If you wish to defend the theists position in regards to reason, which is the bases of this thread, you'll have to do just that.

[thatwasnifty]

My question in return is: do those of you who are non-Christians read the Bible, or have you read through it in the past?

Yes. In Hebrew, even. The language it was originally written in, free from some translator's personal (mis)interpretation. Alas, that doesn't make it any less full of crap.

[Neosutra]

The points that you brought up are very interesting. The defensive nature of Biblical writings and their creation of a "Christian" community untainted by false beliefs seems xenophobic and unreasonable today because we're used to seeing Christianity as such a powerful cultural force. Keep in mind though, that the Old and New Testaments were written at a time during which Christianity was not the dominant faith, and the Christian community a small one among large empires. Within that context, I think it's easier to understand the emphasis on "us vs. them."

When you mention "The Church" (which in and of itself is a historically complex and fraught term) and its political agendas in canonizing, I don't know quite how to respond because I'm not familiar with the entire range of texts that they had to choose from. Because questioning God is not an option for Christians, we have to somehow make sense of contradictions in the Bible to interpret what living a "good" life means besides accepting the mission of evangelism (a good example is the "go forth and multiply" that someone mentioned earlier. God says this to Adam in Genesis, but Paul refutes it by writing that chastity is the most exemplary form of life. Neither extreme is reasonable or favorable, so what should we do?).

I understand the negativity toward organized religion. Many of the churches I've visited in Berkeley have been downright terrible at forcing people to actually think about the Bible. Pastors give sermons and the congregations accept them word for word. Earlier in this thread, people discussed the dangers of people thinking that they were doing God's work when in fact they were just being insane. I think that is the most difficult part of living a good religious life. When all you really have is the Bible with all its contradictions and complexities, how do you know if you're living a life that is pleasing to God?

As for your bible question, yes I have obviously read the bible in detail many times due to my past work in the clergy as a missionary/youth pastor.

As for your above post: It isnt just people that take the bible literal that we dont want making legislation, but theists in general that take their motives and base their decisions on faith, rather than reason. People like W. Bush who stated he let god lead him through the tough decisions. I want my leaders to base their decisions on the rational facts, their hundreds of advisors, the millions of people it will effect, and not some superstitious feeling they have based on their childhood dogma.

Its why gay marriage and abortion are still the only voting issues for the red states (occasionally evolution too) when we have much bigger problems today.

[Acturus]

As for your above post: It isnt just people that take the bible literal that we dont want making legislation, but theists in general that take their motives and base their decisions on faith, rather than reason. People like W. Bush who stated he let god lead him through the tough decisions. I want my leaders to base their decisions on the rational facts, their hundreds of advisors, the millions of people it will effect, and not some superstitious feeling they have based on their childhood dogma.

Its why gay marriage and abortion are still the only voting issues for the red states (occasionally evolution too) when we have much bigger problems today.

I've often wondered what the conservative side of the US democracy would look like if it could separate itself from the Christian belief.

[Neosutra]

I've often wondered what the conservative side of the US democracy would look like if it could separate itself from the Christian belief.

They're called democrats.

[Mizango]

They're called democrats.

Well played sir.

For you

[Acturus]

They're called democrats.

No, try again. the concept of Conservatism is not inherently theocratic.

[Neosutra]

No, try again. the concept of Conservatism is not inherently theocratic.

The basis isn't, that doesn't mean they haven't gone in that direction as a party. True conservative/liberalism hasn't been party dependent for many years.

[Tristam]

No, try again. the concept of Conservatism is not inherently theocratic.

Try telling that to a neocon. Cuz' we're a "christian" nation I guess....