Book X, Chapter Y, Verse Z...?

[ThinkingSapien]

Haha I’m surprised you think this would actually make a difference. How many people didn’t believe in Jesus in the Bible even though he was right in front of them performing miracles…guys would just say he was just a very good magician, or maybe an alien.

I’ve not limited the the only form of authentication to “miracles.” I’ve not even hinted or suggested miracles. Nor the possibilities to only the Christian denominations; one (or many) of them could be correct, or they could all be fiction, or one could be correct but all of our interpretations could be wrong.

If he/she/they/it that might be described as god(s) could take a few moments to send e-mails, make phone calls, use telepathy, or establish a dialog in some other way that would be a start and an opportunity to discuss doubts.

If anything history attests to the fact that God not making his presence explicitly obvious has brought more people to faith then if he did.

That comes across as a bit of a play on words. If it were obvious then people would tend not to call it faith. And I am assuming that by “faith” you mean “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence” (from answers.com). The word has many meanings and I’ve found that people some times have creative definitions for words (so if I am using the wrong definition please say so).

This is an opportunity to illustrate what I meant in one of my sentences. I made mention to unambiguous communication. Right now there is the potential for ambiguity because of possible differences in your intended meaning for the word “faith” and the meaning that I am applying when interpreting your phrase. We can have a dialog and resolve the correct meaning here instead of different forum members applying different meanings based off of accounts of your words written down months after you’ve moved on to other forums, clustering into groups based on interpretation of these meanings, and all insisting that they are right based on “faith” where each group may mean something different by the word (yes, I am exaggerating, but caricature scenarios can be useful tools of communication at times).

 

[Candide_West]

There is absolutely no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who considers that he has no obligation to be reasonable…

Silliness TR, I expected better from you.

If you are interested in continuing with this discussion then by all means reply to my post #86. Otherwise, no worries and take care of yourself.

 

[Spock]

You speak as though you know the actual purpose of these things.
Without such knowledge, you cannot claim one way or the other if we ‘need’ them.

There is apparently no purpose of such things and events. Starting from that “apparent” lack of purpose I apply the duck principle → unless there is a very compelling reason to doubt it: “things are what they seem they are”.

The funny thing is that believers also go by the same principle. If you would see a person running toward you, wielding a bloody knife and screaming obscenities with a foaming mouth, leaving a trail of dead and bleeding people behind himself, you probably would assume “bad intent” and not that actually he is a very nice person, who just uses “unconventional ways” to express his love for others. You would never think that it is “rational” to give a benefit of doubt. Your post is just another example of the general believers’ hypocrisy; you do not live by the principle you preach. And that is why I don’t think “highly” of you (generally speaking, not just personally).

 

[Spock]

Good is a matter of perspective.

Ah, so “good” is relative now? When you decide to give your child a good beating (“do not spare the cane” - says the bible) that is “good for him”? But if I would give a good beating to you (for some very good and compelling reasons, which I choose not to reveal to you) then it would not be “good” to you?

If God is all-knowing he would have the best perspective by which to determine what was good and bad, especially since he created everything by which we use to determine good from bad. If there is no God then talking about what is good and bad is relative and meaningless in my opinion. You appear to think that death is “bad”, which is not surprising coming from someone whom I presume doesn’t believe in anything after death.

And you also think that death is bad. If you did not, you would not mourn the parting of your loved ones, you would celebrate it, gayly and happily - after all he or she just “escaped this Valley of Tears” and is now on God’s bosom, enjoying indescribable bliss. You are such a hypocrite.

So “forcing” someone who is mentally ill to be put in a mental hospital would be “bad” then?

You are a lousy apologist, changing the subject when you have no answer. A drug addict is not mentally ill person, and many times those who are labelled mentally ill are actually quite sane. And yes, forcefully putting someone into a mental institution can be very bad.

All your other examples seem to be leading towards the idea that you consider all suffering to be “bad”. I would love to hear you explain your reasoning behind this assumption.

Been there many times. I apply the “duck principle”. See also in the post right above to vz71.

Haha so your saying people are human? This has little to do with “doublethink” and a lot to do with humans only being able to hold so many pieces of information at the front of their mind at one time. If we could look at everything at once we would be God

Holding contradictory things equally true and valid is what “doublethink” is all about. And that is what I see believers doing all the time.

 

[Spock]

Thank God for that … please note that you’re excluded from the thrashing … it applies only to us Catholics …for to whom much is given, much is expected …

You know, I don’t think that procrastinating is good. A friendly warning in time might make someone reconsider. To wait with the “thrashing” until after death is useless, since we cannot change our minds when we are “gone”. What is the point then?

 

[Nate13]

Ah, so “good” is relative now? When you decide to give your child a good beating (“do not spare the cane” - says the bible) that is “good for him”? But if I would give a good beating to you (for some very good and compelling reasons, which I choose not to reveal to you) then it would not be “good” to you?

Good is a matter of perspective though among people. That is undisputed correct? Some people think abortion is good and others hold a complete opposite view. If there is no God and no natural law then “good” and “bad” are relative. Thus when you speak to me about what you see as “good” or “bad” it means nothing to me or really to anyone but yourself. My response before was targeted to this statement:

“If you call God “good”, you have no idea what “good” means.”

And you also think that death is bad. If you did not, you would not mourn the parting of your loved ones, you would celebrate it, gayly and happily - after all he or she just “escaped this Valley of Tears” and is now on God’s bosom, enjoying indescribable bliss. You are such a hypocrite.

Actually I don’t think death is bad. I find it to be morally neutral and it can be determined to be good or bad based on the circumstances under which it occurs. If find it offensive that you presume on my emotions towards death and that you assume sadness at death has anything to do with whether death is viewed as a good thing or a bad thing. Many people do think back with happiness towards relatives who have died and are hopefully in Heaven. As Catholics we don’t believe in any guarantee of our salvation, thus it is very natural that some grief would happen over ultimately not knowing where loved ones might end up.

You are a lousy apologist, changing the subject when you have no answer. A drug addict is not mentally ill person, and many times those who are labelled mentally ill are actually quite sane. And yes, forcefully putting someone into a mental institution can be very bad.

I was making a point which a gift doesn’t have to be wanted in order to be a gift. We look down on doing this as humans because when a gift is given like this it assumes one person knows whats best for the other person. This does occur with parent children relationships and when people are incapable of making rational decisions. It is looked down upon though because we are imperfect and many times are wrong in our presumptions. An all-knowing, all-loving God does not have this problem, thus any gift from God is assuredly a good gift.

Been there many times. I apply the “duck principle”. See also in the post right above to vz71.

Well you had this to say before:

“I am not interested in one particular example. God supposedly “gives” us our lives. We have no say-so in the matter. God also “gives us” leprosy, HIV, Earthquakes, wildfires, none of which we “ask for”, nor do we need.”

If you agree that you cannot say any of the “gifts” above are “bad” then it negates your point. The duck principle is based on perspective yet again. Its based on YOU not seeing any apparent good reason for said event to occur and still doesn’t rule out the fact that there might be one.

Holding contradictory things equally true and valid is what “doublethink” is all about. And that is what I see believers doing all the time.

lay out the two contradictory opinions in another thread under the idea that its double think to believe both simultaneously and we can have a conversation. I’ve read 1984 before. Its actually a pretty risque book haha.

 

[levinas12]

You know, I don’t think that procrastinating is good. A friendly warning in time might make someone reconsider. To wait with the “thrashing” until after death is useless, since we cannot change our minds when we are “gone”. What is the point then?

Well, hopefully, our thrashing will come before we leave the asylum … but, don’t worry, you’re off the hook …

 

[Nate13]

I’ve not limited the the only form of authentication to “miracles.” I’ve not even hinted or suggested miracles. Nor the possibilities to only the Christian denominations; one (or many) of them could be correct, or they could all be fiction, or one could be correct but all of our interpretations could be wrong.

If he/she/they/it that might be described as god(s) could take a few moments to send e-mails, make phone calls, use telepathy, or establish a dialog in some other way that would be a start and an opportunity to discuss doubts.

How about first person accounts from people who heard Jesus say on multiple occasions that he was the son of God? If the New Testament had been written 200 years ago instead of around 2000 years ago you would take it much more seriously. Your ignore what today would be taken very seriously because of how much time has passed. What proof do you have that we have the real Constitution of the United States and that it was actually written by who we think wrote it?

That comes across as a bit of a play on words. If it were obvious then people would tend not to call it faith. And I am assuming that by “faith” you mean “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence” (from answers.com). The word has many meanings and I’ve found that people some times have creative definitions for words (so if I am using the wrong definition please say so).

This is an opportunity to illustrate what I meant in one of my sentences. I made mention to unambiguous communication. Right now there is the potential for ambiguity because of possible differences in your intended meaning for the word “faith” and the meaning that I am applying when interpreting your phrase. We can have a dialog and resolve the correct meaning here instead of different forum members applying different meanings based off of accounts of your words written down months after you’ve moved on to other forums, clustering into groups based on interpretation of these meanings, and all insisting that they are right based on “faith” where each group may mean something different by the word (yes, I am exaggerating, but caricature scenarios can be useful tools of communication at times).

Yeah I see your point. I’d define faith as meaning believing in something in which you can’t have 100% certainty is true. For instance lets say your 60% sure about something. Faith is what fills the other 40%. It probably would have made more sense for me to use “belief” instead of “faith”.

 

[Nate13]

There is apparently no purpose of such things and events. Starting from that “apparent” lack of purpose I apply the duck principle → unless there is a very compelling reason to doubt it: “things are what they seem they are”.

The funny thing is that believers also go by the same principle. If you would see a person running toward you, wielding a bloody knife and screaming obscenities with a foaming mouth, leaving a trail of dead and bleeding people behind himself, you probably would assume “bad intent” and not that actually he is a very nice person, who just uses “unconventional ways” to express his love for others. You would never think that it is “rational” to give a benefit of doubt. Your post is just another example of the general believers’ hypocrisy; you do not live by the principle you preach. And that is why I don’t think “highly” of you (generally speaking, not just personally).

I would treat that situation exactly as I treat my belief. I would weigh the possibilities based on my knowledge up to that point and figure out whether I thought it more or less likely that the man was going to do me harm. I’d base my decision on which way I swayed and then start figuring out a proper response to my decision. My belief in God is the same way. I have weighed the arguments and the evidence that we do have, and have decided it is more likely that God exists than that he does not exist. Faith makes up for the evidence and certainty I lack from that point on.

 

[tonyrey]

There is absolutely no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who considers that he has no obligation to be reasonable…

Why should one attempt to have a rational discussion with a person who considers he has no obligation to be reasonable?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How about first person accounts from people who heard Jesus say on multiple occasions that he was the son of God?

As opposed to first person accounts on things on Mohammad, Joseph Smith, or ghost? The “first person account” labeling doesn’t automatically result in something being believed.

If the New Testament had been written 200 years ago instead of around 2000 years ago you would take it much more seriously. Your ignore what today would be taken very seriously because of how much time has passed.

No, I don’t think so. The “Book of Mormon” was written slightly less than 200 years ago (remember that Mormon’s are also Christians). Hubbard’s writings were written about 60 years ago. But I don’t think that I can take Scientology seriously.

What proof do you have that we have the real Constitution of the United States and that it was actually written by who we think wrote it?

I’m assuming you are talking about the second attempt of creating a constitution in the USA (the original being “The Articles of the Confederation”). Personally “proof” is a word I try not to use except to quote some one else since in usage the word seems to refer to that which convinces some one (which can occur even if the “fact” of which the person is convinced is not true). So no, I’ve got no such “proof.”

The Constitution of the United States isn’t a static document. It’s been amended and has had parts repealed many times. A lot of hands have been in that pot. It’s had it’s own problems of interpretation though (ex: the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply consistently to Internet enabled scenarios). But let’s not go into a full discussion of the constitution. It’s not the document interest in this thread.

 

[Spock]

Good is a matter of perspective though among people. That is undisputed correct? Some people think abortion is good and others hold a complete opposite view.

Nonsense. I am not talking about the “problem” that chocolate ice-cream is “better” than vanilla ice-cream. There is a certain element of subjectivity involved, but only a fool would consider “rape” to be good and would accept that allowing “rape” to be “good”. (God allows it all the time… so obviously he either considers it to be good, or does not consider it to be bad enough to intervene.) No one considers abortion to be “good”. I have never heard of a woman who became pregnant just so that she could have an abortion.

If there is no God and no natural law then “good” and “bad” are relative. Thus when you speak to me about what you see as “good” or “bad” it means nothing to me or really to anyone but yourself.

Also nonsense. Good equals “useful”. Something is good if it promotes life or if it makes life more enjoyable. There is nothing subjective about this.

Actually I don’t think death is bad. I find it to be morally neutral and it can be determined to be good or bad based on the circumstances under which it occurs. If find it offensive that you presume on my emotions towards death and that you assume sadness at death has anything to do with whether death is viewed as a good thing or a bad thing.

I have never seen a celebration over the death of a loved one. And if catholics would be honest about it, they would celebrate the event, because they never think that their particular loved ones will burn in hell for eternity. That fate is reserved for “others”. What I said comes from experience.

An all-knowing, all-loving God does not have this problem, thus any gift from God is assuredly a good gift.

And now the “only” thing for you to do is to prove that God is “all-knowing” and “all-loving”, because for the time being it is an unsupported assumption on your part. I have been asking many times now to show me where does God manifest his love, so I can see it with my own eyes. So far there was no answer…

If you agree that you cannot say any of the “gifts” above are “bad” then it negates your point. The duck principle is based on perspective yet again. Its based on YOU not seeing any apparent good reason for said event to occur and still doesn’t rule out the fact that there might be one.

Since you use the duck principle all the time, you have no rational ground to criticize me for using it. You are (of course!) most welcome to come to the pulpit and show us why each and every one of the tortures, rapes, mutilations and deaths that happened during the Holocaust was “good, beneficial, admirable and in the best interest of the victims”. If you can do that, you will have a point. If you cannot do it, then you are just full of hot air…

Learn this simple lesson: “maybe” is not an argument! To say that “maybe” there was some benefit to some seemimgly atrocious action, and if only we were privy to the reasons we could see that - is not an argument, it is the admission that there is no rational and reasonable explanation, and all you can offer is your empty, vacuous and blind faith.

I would treat that situation exactly as I treat my belief.

Would you now? That is exactly the “duck principle” I was talking about! If something looks bad, it is most probably bad. You just cut yourself down at the knee by admitting it. In everyday situations you adhere to the duck principle, but when it comes to God, you abandon it. That is precisely what I called “special pleading” also know as “hypocrisy”. Now, again, if you can come forward and explain how allowing “rape, torture and mutilation” is the best solution for the victim, then you can shut me up most effectively. Come, I can hardly wait for the explanation.

 

[Spock]

Well, hopefully, our thrashing will come before we leave the asylum … but, don’t worry, you’re off the hook …

You are most kind to stipulate that I am “off the hook”. Best of luck to you, and let me say that I do NOT think that you (personally) deserve that “spanking”. I have not seen hypocrisy in your words, and in my (obviously skewed opinion) there is only one really “deadly” sin, and it is - (yep, you guessed it) - hypocrisy. After all one can practice gluttony, pride, sloth, etc… part-time, but hypocrisy is an all time “job”. There is no such person as a part-time hypocrite.

 

[Nate13]

As opposed to first person accounts on things on Mohammad, Joseph Smith, or ghost? The “first person account” labeling doesn’t automatically result in something being believed.

Agreed. However there are multiple accounts surrounding Jesus. Jesus was not a “personal revelation”. Mohammed, and Joseph Smith were like the apostles except there was only one them. They were the people in charge of spreading the good news. Mohammed and Joseph Smith are the only ones who actually had direct contact with the “good news” though. Jesus came into contact with tons of people, and you have at least 12 people who were there experiencing it every step of the way.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

I apply the duck principle → unless there is a very compelling reason to doubt it: “things are what they seem they are”.

I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine about elections, in particular the studies that have shown that a significant number of people vote based upon nothing more than how a politician looks (i.e. photos on their posters). My friend opined that we can actually tell a lot about a person’s trustworthiness by examining their facial features. I objected with the old adage “You can’t judge a book by its cover”, a proverb that has stood the test of time. Does your duck principle not contradict this proverb, and if so can you please explain why the proverb is incorrect?

 

[ASimon]

I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine about elections, in particular the studies that have shown that a significant number of people vote based upon nothing more than how a politician looks (i.e. photos on their posters). My friend opined that we can actually tell a lot about a person’s trustworthiness by examining their facial features. I objected with the old adage “You can’t judge a book by its cover”, a proverb that has stood the test of time. Does your duck principle not contradict this proverb, and if so can you please explain why the proverb is incorrect?

I don’t know if you can judge a book by its cover, but yes, it is possible to judge a person’s trustworthiness (specifically, whether they are lying to you in a given moment) by looking at their face. There’s good science behind this. Here’s a link to an essay talking about it.

gladwell.com/2002/2002_08_05_a_face.htm

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

I don’t know if you can judge a book by its cover, but yes, it is possible to judge a person’s trustworthiness (specifically, whether they are lying to you in a given moment) by looking at their face. There’s good science behind this. Here’s a link to an essay talking about it.

I have no problem with the idea that we can detect things “in the moment” on someone’s face, like whether they are lying or whether they are afraid. But does this extend itself into something like “this person is generally trustworthy” or “this person would make a good leader of my country”?

 

[ASimon]

I have no problem with the idea that we can detect things “in the moment” on someone’s face, like whether they are lying or whether they are afraid. But does this extend itself into something like “this person is generally trustworthy” or “this person would make a good leader of my country”?

Only by extrapolation, I think. And it can easily work the other way. The writer in the above link, Malcolm Gladwell, wrote another piece about Warren Harding. Harding was, by all accounts in his day, an exceptionally handsome man - the kind of man that “looked” like he should be holding high office. As history has shown, he was also a legendary drinker, gambler, and carouser, with no particular talent for governmental policy, leadership, or public service. Perhaps the best thing that can be said about his Presidency, is that he only served half a term before dying of a stroke.

 

[Nate13]

Nonsense. I am not talking about the “problem” that chocolate ice-cream is “better” than vanilla ice-cream. There is a certain element of subjectivity involved, but only a fool would consider “rape” to be good and would accept that allowing “rape” to be “good”. (God allows it all the time… so obviously he either considers it to be good, or does not consider it to be bad enough to intervene.) No one considers abortion to be “good”. I have never heard of a woman who became pregnant just so that she could have an abortion.

Haha I envy you then that you haven’t seen such evil. There are people who believe abortion is “good” and I have debated with them. They are extremely utilitarian and would basically argue that the ends justify the means.
You say that only a fool would find rape to be “good” however your own definition of good is “useful”. Can you think of no circumstances by which rape might be deemed “useful” by someone using your definition of “good”?
In Russia the primary form of birth control is abortion. Women have unprotected sex with the full knowledge they are very likely to get pregnant. They do nothing to prevent getting pregnant with full intent to have an abortion if they do. Obviously they are getting pregnant because they want to have abortions, but it is not very far from that. It would be similar to if you had a person that could barely swim that kept jumping in the pool and needed to be saved. He might not want to have to keep being saved, but his stupidity has reached a point where you have to assume he really doesn’t mind it that much and probably sees it as “good” since its useful.

Also nonsense. Good equals “useful”. Something is good if it promotes life or if it makes life more enjoyable. There is nothing subjective about this.

So your utilitarian? Definitely subjective btw, because it relies on the assumption that nothing we do while we are alive will any impact on what happens to us after we die.

I have never seen a celebration over the death of a loved one. And if catholics would be honest about it, they would celebrate the event, because they never think that their particular loved ones will burn in hell for eternity. That fate is reserved for “others”. What I said comes from experience.

Haha so now your saying we shouldn’t be sad over someone dying because we are bigoted. I think you are really just pointing out a somewhat irrational behavior we all display though. For instance lets say you had a close friend who ended up moving away because they got an awesome job opportunity. Would you not be sad they were leaving even though they were headed towards better things? The sadness is not based out of what is happening to the other person, but rather the effect them leaving has on us. We are sad because we won’t get to enjoy having them around anymore.

And now the “only” thing for you to do is to prove that God is “all-knowing” and “all-loving”, because for the time being it is an unsupported assumption on your part. I have been asking many times now to show me where does God manifest his love, so I can see it with my own eyes. So far there was no answer…

Great, this is all I was trying to get across. If God is all-knowing and all-loving he would know what was best for us and thus every gift from him would be a good gift. I was merely trying to establish that this was a rational conclusion and you kept denying it. I’m not going to further derail this thread by starting a discussion about why God must be all-knowing and all-loving.

Since you use the duck principle all the time, you have no rational ground to criticize me for using it. You are (of course!) most welcome to come to the pulpit and show us why each and every one of the tortures, rapes, mutilations and deaths that happened during the Holocaust was “good, beneficial, admirable and in the best interest of the victims”. If you can do that, you will have a point. If you cannot do it, then you are just full of hot air…

I assume you have a problem with my conclusion that “good” and “bad” are relative if God and natural law doesn’t exist. I of course believe in God and have no problem saying the above things are eternally bad. If God and natural law don’t exist then I could definitely argue that the things above could be deemed good depending on your perspective. You above deemed “good” to mean useful. Why do you think Hitler did them unless he thought they were useful and therefor “good”? If you cede that point then I assume you base what is considered “useful” and therefore “good” on a democratic majority vote. That however only cedes my point that “good” and “bad” become relative depending on who’s perspective your coming from and the question then becomes who’s perspective is right.

Learn this simple lesson: “maybe” is not an argument! To say that “maybe” there was some benefit to some seemimgly atrocious action, and if only we were privy to the reasons we could see that - is not an argument, it is the admission that there is no rational and reasonable explanation, and all you can offer is your empty, vacuous and blind faith.

 

[Nate13]

You used the duck principle to reach that conclusion. I used the duck principle to reach a number of other beliefs which contradict yours. The logical thing to do is then use the duck principle again as to which conclusions are more apparent to be true and assume the other conclusions, even though at first apparently true, must be not so obviously wrong. Contradictions using the duck principle are unavoidable. The question then becomes which conclusions hold the most weight.

Would you now? That is exactly the “duck principle” I was talking about! If something looks bad, it is most probably bad. You just cut yourself down at the knee by admitting it. In everyday situations you adhere to the duck principle, but when it comes to God, you abandon it. That is precisely what I called “special pleading” also know as “hypocrisy”. Now, again, if you can come forward and explain how allowing “rape, torture and mutilation” is the best solution for the victim, then you can shut me up most effectively. Come, I can hardly wait for the explanation.

I apply the duck principle to my belief in God. As I said above you when contradictions using the duck principle are reached, you go with whichever conclusion appears most apparent and has the most weight behind it.

You seem to be operating on the fact that the existence of a good God, is impossible if evil exists in the World. If that is what you are insinuating above that yet again deserves an entirely new thread.