Posts
EJ:
Can't see numbers? Put a couple apples on the table and look at them. Two apples, Steve.
SR:
I see two apples. I do not see “two.” Twoness is an eternal quality we abstract or apply to the universe, not in itself visible, and existing somehow quite independent of any specific application. As Plato pointed out, this is true of just about everything we think we see out there: we also never see, say, “blue.” We see only blue objects, but we cannot see blue as a thing in itself. You can go through and discover the same thing about almost everything we think we know about the physical universe. Who knows what is really out there?
Nor do we have any reason, a priori, to believe what our sense organs tell us has any relation to external reality in the first place.
There is no security in “empirical” proofs.
EJ:
Saying that God is visible from his effects is arguing from a false antecedent (I.e that a god exists in the first place.)
SR:
No, it is the same as saying I could know someone has robbed my house from the effects: the window is smashed and the stereo is gone. To deny the possibility of such a proof is tautological: you are insisting on the non-existence of God as an article of faith.
EJ:
Another example: Rabbi Joshua, who became known as Jesus Christ after many biblical translations, embelishments and falsifcatations of history, was not recognized as the son of God while he was alive.
SR:
You are necessarily asserting this as an article of faith. You certainly can’t know that he _wasn’t_ considered by some the son of God during his life.
Sources are indeed scanty. But that comes with the turf of trying to sort out events that long ago. We have more on Jesus than we do on, say, Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.
The Bible makes the claim clearly and repeatedly; and the earliest books of the New Testament are within a hundred years of his death. We also have separate attestations by others that he was considered the son of God at least very soon after his death. Josephus appears to refer to him as “the Christ” in 93 AD.
EJ:
Third proof of no God: Endless irrefutable arguments of logic. For example, imagine asking serial killers, "If you were a god, what would you have done about hurricane Katrina?" No doubt many would answer they would have diverted the storm from hitting New Orleans, or evacuated the people before it hit, etc.
This means that some serial killers are more humane than God! Because if there was a god he let the disaster happen!
SR:
That’s a good question; that involves what is called the “problem of evil.” But I think the answer is fairly simple. No question, we humans by and large do not want suffering, the loss of our property and death. But it does not follow that suffering, the loss of our property, and death are bad things. Good and evil are absolutes, and are not dependant on what you or I want. Children want candy constantly; but it is not good for them.
Now, consider the possibility that death, at least for many, is a ticket to a better existence. Then it is a good thing, and we have no cause to condemn God for permitting it. Suffering, too, may be redemptive: “the vale of soul-making,” as Keats saw it. Material goods may be a barrier to achieving heaven, as Jesus claims.
Therefore, for any Christian, there is not a problem here. No doubt you do not believe this—but that is based on your own premises, which are not inevitable. You would need to defend them to make this stick.
EJ:
Re: Photos of concepts such as love: there are plenty. When a parent hugs their child, that's an expression of brain chemicals that have evolved into human beings.
SR:
That is an expression of love—we are able to deduce the existence of love from such effects. (Although you actually deny this possibility above.) But this is not love itself, as it is experienced. Similarly, the chemicals you are looking at under the microscope are the effects of love, or possibly the causes of love, not love itself—similarly, the LSD is not the trip, and the poison is not the death.
And while we’re at it, give me a photo of consciousness. Give me a Polaroid snap of the ego, and the will. Of justice, right and wrong. Of truth, peace, freedom, democracy, and happiness.
EJ:
I have read the Pope's apology. His exact words were "the Christian's lack of discernmet." What part of this apology confuses you?
SR:
Interesting. An actual search of the official English version of the document for either of the words, “lack” or “discernment,” turns up nothing.
EJ:
In essence, Christians turned their backs on the very people responsible for Christianity (I.e Jesus was a Jew, Mary was a Jew, St. Paul was Jew, well, you get the hypocricy here).
SR:
You could say the same of Judaism: Jews turned their backs on the very people responsible for Judaism (i.e., Moses was an Egyptian prince).
Of America: the Americans turned their backs on the very people responsible for the US (i.e., most of the founding fathers were ethnically English).
Protestants turned their backs on the very people responsible for the Reformation (i.e., Luther was a Catholic monk).
Marxists turned their backs on the very people responsible for Marxism (both Marx and Engels were middle class).
I fail to see anything strange or shocking here. This is the way it necessarily works, whenever a new idea arises. There is no other way it can.
EJ:
Religion is antidemocratic and antihumanistic because it causes the superiority complex of a god delusion to fester into acts of superstitious atrocity. Think of this the next time you pretend to drink blood.
SR:
Our Christian religion is largely where our faith in democracy came from. This can be traced clearly in writers like Locke and Aquinas. Of course religion is not “humanistic”; but you are probably again confusing “humanism” with “humane.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good, you said "two apples," so you admit numbers can be seen as a way to classify objects. Seeing blue is merely recepters in our eyes absorbing the reflection of light. Nothing supernatural about it.
Your robber argument is easily revealed as false. First off, anyone who walks into a boken into home does not think, "Gee, I wonder if god took all my stuff!" Why is that Steve? Because we know enough about human behaviour to piece together it was a human who broke in, something real, as oppossed to something imaginary like a god.
Second, the burglar would have have left remnants of himself behind, maybe a fingerprint, some dandruff, whatever. Call CSI, they'll find something!
There is nothing whatsoever like fingerprints to prove there's a god.
Finally, if the thief kept breaking into homes, it would become inevitable someone would see him. For centeries we have no proof of a god showing himself, other than mythical stories found in the bible.
Emperical proof may not be perfect, but it's the closest source of bona fide evidence we have to perfection. If not for seeing phenomena with our own eyes, we'd still believe infections were caused by demons.
No serious historian takes the bible as literal. It's easy to track how Joshua went from a Rabbi in Jerusalem to Jesus the Roman icon. Rabbi Saul came up with the idea that Jesus was son of God, but it did not become official dogma until 325 years after the crucifixtion. There were plenty of Christian sects at that time that believed it was sacrilege to deify Jesus.
Read up on it and you will see. And there's plenty more historical proof that the bible is loaded with myth. For example, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Exodus did not happen. These facts are the tip of the iceberg.
"Article of faith" as you call it, is more brainwash talk, something you can say about anything, so it means nothing.
You think events like Hurricane Kartina and the Holocaust are like giving a child too much candy? Come now Steve. You're proving to be quite the humanist with these sorts of statements. It just shows how weak your over all argument has been.
There is no proof whatsoever that there's a "ticket" as you call it, to heaven. It's pure brainwashing talk to threaten hell or promise heaven, (i.e necessary mind control for all sorts of superstitious behavior, such as suicide bombing). It's a sort of swamp land in Florida, sold at the bargain price of human suffrage.
Because matter is ever-changing in an infinite universe, reoccurrence is inevitable. Thus, religions have hijacked the natural birthright of all living things to re-exist, as a means to manipulate followers into submission.
Re seeing love: as it is with much of religious thought, you have it backwards. The chemical reaction is not caused by love, it IS love. Those who suffer certain brain damage have proved this. Like all emotions, love is a chemical reaction in the brain, susceptible to conditioning.
A photo of consciousness? Sure, look at a CAT scan. Billions of neurons working together so that the whole is stronger than the sum of it's parts. The same happens with a computer (all those wires are a pile of junk until they are assembled [as opposed to the brain which has been developed through evolution]).
Re the Pope's apology: I have the article on my wall if you want to know more about it (published by the Globe a few years back).
Re Jews turning their backs on Judaism and the other examples you gave: your point then, is that many wrongs make for a righteous? This is pure scapegoating, (pointing out other's faults to avoid facing your own).
Finally, Christians do not vote the Pope in. They can not question biblical dogma no matter how wrong said dogma is proven to be. Because Christians are a part of democracy does not mean that religion is democratic. It clearly is not. For another thing, count how many female priests you have. Indeed, as can be easily proven, the bible is a manifest of misogyny.
Humanists believe in equality. You need to read up on it so you can stop making these ridicous accusations like that it does not mean "humane." It's like saying Christmas is not Christian.
When children believe in Santa Clause, it's not their fault. They have been duped by elders and forced to believe fantasy is reality. Therefore, I can't blame you Steve for believing in a god. However, after a while, it's in the child's best interest to grow up and face the fact there is no jolly fat elf. The same applies to humanity and its god delusions: sooner or later, the masses must wake up from their dream.
Peace out!
Jeff
EJ:
Good, you said "two apples," so you admit numbers can be seen as a way to classify objects. Seeing blue is merely recepters in our eyes absorbing the reflection of light. Nothing supernatural about it.
SR:
Note that “supernatural” is your term, Jeff, not mine. I do not use it; I find it a nonsense concept. The opposite of nature is culture; the opposite of the physical is the spiritual or mental.
EJ:
There is nothing whatsoever like fingerprints to prove there's a god.
SR:
Interesting that you say that, though you completely misunderstand my analogy. Because the founders of science used very similar words: the goal of science is to “trace the footprints of God in nature.” Stephen Hawking, more recently, says it is “to understand the mind of God.”
EJ:
Emperical proof may not be perfect, but it's the closest source of bona fide evidence we have to perfection.
SR:
That’s quite wrong. Mathematical proofs are certain. Logical proofs can be. Empirical proofs are their poor cousin.
Note that there are many proposed logical proofs of God. I know of only one logical proof for the empirical world—Descartes’s. And he based it on the assumption that an all-good God would not mislead. In other words, there is no proof of the physical world unless you first accept the proof of God’s existence.
Probably most of the world’s cultures actually do not believe the physical world exists.
EJ:
No serious historian takes the bible as literal.
SR:
Again, you are under a misconception here as to the Catholic position. Neither does any serious Catholic.
Traditionally, in the Catholic Church, the Bible is to be understood in four senses: the spiritual, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical. You are not talking to an Evangelical Protestant here. Save your breath.
Note too that “historical” is not one of the proper senses in which to read the Bible. It is not claimed to be history, although its anagogical sense involves an interest in history.
Much of the Bible is poetry. Much of it is identified in the Bible as parable. What does it mean to read poetry or a parable “literally”?
EJ:
Rabbi Saul came up with the idea that Jesus was son of God, but it did not become official dogma until 325 years after the crucifixtion.
SR:
We don’t know whether Paul was the first to come up with the idea; he certainly says he was not. He was merely the author of the first books of the New Testament. Jesus is clearly God throughout the New Testament.
EJ:
There were plenty of Christian sects at that time that believed it was sacrilege to deify Jesus.
SR:
I don’t know how you can know that, because there is no historical trace of them. What is striking is the opposite: there seems to have been no dispute over Jesus’s divinity from the beginning. A thing only becomes dogma once it is challenged, to clarify the traditional, apostolic, and catholic teaching—and even at Nicea, it was not Jesus’s divinity that had been challenged, but whether he was fully equal to the Father.
EJ:
And there's plenty more historical proof that the bible is loaded with myth. For example, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Exodus did not happen. These facts are the tip of the iceberg.
SR:
You doubt too little, Jeff. Nothing about the ancient world can be known with that kind of certainty.
I see two separate misconceptions here: besides your assumption that the Bible is intended as history, there is an apparent assumption that “myth” means “false history.” Like the Bible, myths were never meant as history. History would probably have seemed to their authors pretty trivial.
As for the Bible not being history, consider the obvious fact that the four gospels, covering the same events, differ significantly in details. You don’t think anyone in two thousand years ever noticed that?
EJ:
Because matter is ever-changing in an infinite universe, reoccurrence is inevitable. Thus, religions have hijacked the natural birthright of all living things to re-exist, as a means to manipulate followers into submission.
SR:
That’s a very weird statement, Jeff. Just what is your religion? You seem to be speaking here of reincarnation, but it somehow only works if you believe in it.
EJ:
Re seeing love: as it is with much of religious thought, you have it backwards. The chemical reaction is not caused by love, it IS love.
SR:
That is a sad, a terribly sad, statement.
I take it you believe you have no mind?
How does this attitude in any way ennoble humanity? Which is what you claim humanism does.
EJ:
Re the Pope's apology: I have the article on my wall if you want to know more about it (published by the Globe a few years back).
SR:
Basic lesson to be learned here: never rely on secondary sources.
EJ:
Re Jews turning their backs on Judaism and the other examples you gave: your point then, is that many wrongs make for a righteous?
SR:
That would hold only if you believe the Americans somehow wronged Britain by splitting from them, or the Jews the Egyptians by separating from them, and so forth. Do young adults wrong their parents if they move out of their house?
EJ:
Finally, Christians do not vote the Pope in.
SR:
Why does this come up? What a perfect non sequitor!
EJ:
They can not question biblical dogma no matter how wrong said dogma is proven to be.
SR:
That’s upside down. Unlike a government, or a family, or a school, or a business, a religion has only moral authority. It almost uniquely cannot force anybody to do or think anything.
EJ:
Because Christians are a part of democracy does not mean that religion is democratic. It clearly is not.
SR:
Another false assumption here: that religion should be democratic. No true religion is democratic. It has to be theocratic, or it has nothing to teach us.
EJ:
For another thing, count how many female priests you have. Indeed, as can be easily proven, the bible is a manifest of misogyny.
SR:
You’re talking to the wrong church here.
The role of priest is a ritual one; which is to say, a priest is an actor. Specifically, he acts the role of Jesus Christ in the Mass. Jesus was male. To call this misogyny is to see misogyny in insisting that a male play Hamlet, or Othello.
Now, ask yourself, who is it that the Catholic Church considers to be the greatest human being who ever lived?
A bit of a trick question; it is not Jesus, really, because he combined human and divine natures.
It is the Virgin Mary.
Now, name me another institution of any sort that similarly so places a woman, literally, on a pedestal?
Then look in any Catholic Church, and count male and female heads.
Now, it seems to me that those who insist that women ought to reject their biological nature—i.e, motherhood-- and strive to be in every way more like men is the one doctrine most properly characterized as misogynist. However, as to merely giving women the choice whether to be mothers or to assume other jobs, nobody takes second place to the Catholic church in that. By becoming a nun, a woman in a Catholic country could always choose to be a teacher, or a nurse, or any one of a dozen other occupations. Not possible in non-Catholic countries.
EJ:
Humanists believe in equality. You need to read up on it so you can stop making these ridicous accusations like that it does not mean "humane." It's like saying Christmas is not Christian.
SR:
If someone calls themself “King of Spain,” it does not make them King of Spain. A bit more is involved. But there is not even a close semantic relationship between the terms “humanist” and “humane.” They just come from the same root. Check your dictionary.
EJ:
When children believe in Santa Clause, it's not their fault. They have been duped by elders and forced to believe fantasy is reality.
SR:
You are making another rash assumption here: that Santa Claus is not real. The name is Dutch for “Saint Nicholas.” A bishop in Myrna, Asia Minor. It is possible he did not/does not really exist, but you cannot know that.
"Supernatural" is not my term but how God is defined in the Bible, dictionary, etc.
You already admitted math is empirical when you classified a couple of apples as "two apples."
Cut Descartes a break! He knew nothing of evolution or the life span of a star. If he did, it's not likely he'd maintain his arguments in favor of a god. The example you gave is easy to refute, for I don't accept a god whatsoever and exist in the physical world completely.
Catholics don't take the Bible literally? That's news to me. I read about them standing up for myth as if it were history all the time in the paper.
But if you consider the good book as metaphorical, then great, you've evolved far beyond the average Christian.
Name one historical figure who thought Jesus was the son of God before Paul. According to Norman Cantor in "Antiquity" Rabbi Saul (Paul) had a "vision" that Jesus was the "Lamb" mentioned in the Old Testament. This was how the whole concept started. (Meanwhile, Paul never even met the man!)
Re Christian sects that thought the deification of Christ was sacrilege, read up on the "Arians" (not to be confused with white supremacists).
As for Exodus, see "The Bible Unearthed--There was no Exodus," (Finkelstein and Siberman).
Re: Eternal re-existence: in no way was I referring to reincarnation (spirits floating around and landing in new entities, [another supernatural myth]).
What I'm talking about is the inevitbility found in probability as ever-changing matter separates and binds back together through infinite time and space.
Imagine when people realize death is not the end of existence regardless if they believe in a god or not. Tyrants will lose control over those they manipulate with the false threat of hell, false promise of a heaven.
I've already proved that your mind is a net of neurons (the sum greater than it's parts). If there was a soul, where does it go when people lose control of their thoughts and feelings after a head injury? Brain damage proves a direct link between brain matter and thoughts, emotions, memory, etc. There's nothing sad about it. Love is still real, more real in fact.
Don't trust the Globe and Mail? Do you really think a right wing paper would make stuff up about the Pope? The article I have quoted JP2 directly from his proclimation.
You're analogy of Christians ideological departure from the Jews does not hold water when discussing the Holocaust. You claim it's like when a child moves away from home. Well, let me ask you this: if a child moves away from his parents and becomes ensnared by saditic slavery and genocidal massacre, do you think it's right for his parents to turn their backs on him? According to your analogy, this is perfectly acceptable. I'm glad you're not my Dad!
Good, you admit religion is anti-democratic. State needs to be completely separate from church.
Religon does have ways to force dogma onto its followers. We've already discussed how they terrify followers with the notion of eternal burning, we've already discussed sick rituals, like pretending to drink blood. Cults also ostracize those who ask too many questions. They can network to hire those from their own religion. There are plenty of ways to enforce dogma on followers.
Re misogyny in Catholsism: Marry Magdalene, remember her? She was likely Jesus' # 1 disciple. What did Pope Gregory do? Turned her into a whore!
It's true the church threw women a bone by giving Mother Mary status (although many Christian sects believe it's sacrilege to worrship her). All a woman has to do to live up to the Madonna is have children without having (enjoying) sex! Not much of an impossible standard!
Almost all the major heroes in the bible are men. Women tend do be depicted as underhanded or subserviant (do I really need to give examples?).
Consider the Commandment "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife...: women are treated as man's property, like his man servant and barn animals.
Again, your scapegoating of society at large for the inequality of woman does not cut it. Where do you think it came from? The bible!
A woman who believes in Christianity is like a Jew who worships Nazism. During various crusades, tens of thousands of innocent women were tortured and killed to annihilate the notion of woman as divine, equal to man.
Re your King of Spain analogy: it only works if you are not actually the said King. Humanists place humanity above all else. This is what it is to be humane: I.e compassionate, rational, without bias, believes in equality, etc.
Steve, you were soothsaying when you spoke of the Dutchman who was the basis for Santa Clause. You know full well this is not what children believe in when they are duped; they believe in a supernatural entity that flies around the sky in a sled (the way Christians have embelished a brilliant prophet by preaching he walked on water, reserected the dead, etc.).
Jeff, keeping it real.
Post a Comment