"we Two Kings Of Orient Is, Totally Confused About When We Started The Biz"

November 25, 2006

I did not mean that as an attack. What I meant was in a more perfect world (as you see it), what would you do with believers?
Again, I don't see a perfect World with humans in it. Humans are not now, and most likely, will never be perfect. So, I'm not inclined to enter into any discussion that deals with any kind of perfection.
How generous would you be in extending to them the freedom to follow their logic wherever it leads, even if it doesn't lead them to the same place your logic does.
You're glossing over my point, so I'll restate it for you: they ain't usin' logic. Just because you call it logic, doesn't mean it is. And don't give me that silly, sophomoric, come back; just because you say it isn't logic doesn't mean it isn't. Logic is a system to distinguish logical from flawed arguments. Your friends are using flawed arguments so it cannot be called "logic."

So one is properly employing logic only when their conclusions are the same as yours? That sounds very fundamentalist to me. I allow for myriad results to be reached by the use of logic.

-CC in MA

No, one is not empoying logic only when they reach the same conclusions as Dave. I can see nowhere that Dave said that. If you'd like to show where Dave said that, that would be great, and Dave should admit that he said that. Otherwise, it's left to you to LOGICALLY show that Dave said that.

I will say that Dave said flawed arguments are not logical. I do disagree with this: in Informal Logic, a flawed argument uses flawed logic. To put it bluntly, the friends of yours that he is referring to are using retarded logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

Informal logic or non-formal logic is the study of arguments as presented in ordinary language, as contrasted with the presentations of arguments in an artificial, formal, or technical language (see formal logic). Johnson and Blair (1987) define informal logic as "a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation in everyday discourse."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a conversation.

An example of BAD logic would be thus:

1. The sky is blue

2. Therefore, unicorns exist

Or

1. The Bible says it is true

2. Therefore, it is true

Neither of these examples show in any way how their claim is true. In fact, they skip the section of the logical sequence in which the validity of the claim is illustrated. The validity of the claims rely solely on the acceptance of the claim sans evidence. This would definitely be BAD logic. Or retarded logic. Either way, logic is like anything else. It's a two-sided sword. One side cuts sharp, the other cracks against its target.

So perhaps you allow for "myriad" results to be reached through the use of logic. The question is, do those results show truth? Do the logical processes used to reach those results use good logic, thus hammering home the truth of their claim, as illustrated in the logical process used to reach the conclusion, or do they use bad logic, that hampers any possible truth in the claim, as shown by the use of faulty logic to render the conclusion?

November 25, 2006

So one is properly employing logic only when their conclusions are the same as yours?

LOL, I knew you'd try some sophomoric dodge like that.

That sounds very fundamentalist to me. I allow for myriad results to be reached by the use of logic.

Now THAT is a fundamentalist reply. Of course you would have to contort things to fit your illogic, that way your beliefs are protected.

No, one is not empoying logic only when they reach the same conclusions as Dave. I can see nowhere that Dave said that. If you'd like to show where Dave said that, that would be great, and Dave should admit that he said that. Otherwise, it's left to you to LOGICALLY show that Dave said that.

I predicted his response too.

If he can point to it, I'd have no choice but to accept I said it.

I will say that Dave said flawed arguments are not logical. I do disagree with this: in Informal Logic, a flawed argument uses flawed logic. To put it bluntly, the friends of yours that he is referring to are using retarded logic.

OK. I'll accept that. The rest of what you said was put in much better words than mine. Somehow, I don't think the point will get across though.

November 26, 2006

Dave:

I somehow doubt that the point will get across to our "current" friend as well. Though I do like how you added "illogic" to your reply to him. A fitting term, I think.

November 26, 2006

I did not mean that as an attack. What I meant was in a more perfect world (as you see it), what would you do with believers?
Again, I don't see a perfect World with humans in it. Humans are not now, and most likely, will never be perfect. So, I'm not inclined to enter into any discussion that deals with any kind of perfection.
How generous would you be in extending to them the freedom to follow their logic wherever it leads, even if it doesn't lead them to the same place your logic does.
You're glossing over my point, so I'll restate it for you: they ain't usin' logic. Just because you call it logic, doesn't mean it is. And don't give me that silly, sophomoric, come back; just because you say it isn't logic doesn't mean it isn't. Logic is a system to distinguish logical from flawed arguments. Your friends are using flawed arguments so it cannot be called "logic."

So one is properly employing logic only when their conclusions are the same as yours? That sounds very fundamentalist to me. I allow for myriad results to be reached by the use of logic.

-CC in MA

No, one is not empoying logic only when they reach the same conclusions as Dave. I can see nowhere that Dave said that. If you'd like to show where Dave said that, that would be great, and Dave should admit that he said that. Otherwise, it's left to you to LOGICALLY show that Dave said that.

I will say that Dave said flawed arguments are not logical. I do disagree with this: in Informal Logic, a flawed argument uses flawed logic. To put it bluntly, the friends of yours that he is referring to are using retarded logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

Informal logic or non-formal logic is the study of arguments as presented in ordinary language, as contrasted with the presentations of arguments in an artificial, formal, or technical language (see formal logic). Johnson and Blair (1987) define informal logic as "a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation in everyday discourse."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a conversation.

An example of BAD logic would be thus:

1. The sky is blue

2. Therefore, unicorns exist

Or

1. The Bible says it is true

2. Therefore, it is true

Neither of these examples show in any way how their claim is true. In fact, they skip the section of the logical sequence in which the validity of the claim is illustrated. The validity of the claims rely solely on the acceptance of the claim sans evidence. This would definitely be BAD logic. Or retarded logic. Either way, logic is like anything else. It's a two-sided sword. One side cuts sharp, the other cracks against its target.

So perhaps you allow for "myriad" results to be reached through the use of logic. The question is, do those results show truth? Do the logical processes used to reach those results use good logic, thus hammering home the truth of their claim, as illustrated in the logical process used to reach the conclusion, or do they use bad logic, that hampers any possible truth in the claim, as shown by the use of faulty logic to render the conclusion?

That you for the primer on logic, Trancelation.

My beef is most definitely NOT that Dave has written the following:

1. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything in the bible.

2. There is no reason or intellect in the bible.

3. The whole jesus thing. Never happened.

4. No honest scholar would claim that the jesus mentioned in the bible ever existed since there is no reliable evidence to show he did.

5. The bible is a complete myth.

My beef is that Dave asserts these views as reasonable based upon his application of logic -- and that's terrific and I have no argument with that, and he has every right to come to these conclusions, and I respect his process and his outcome -- but Dave will not allow for others the privilege of arriving at different conclusions.

It's his way, his view, or nothing. That I take to be a very serious flaw, illogical and unreasonable --and a flaw I see in, for example, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Why not allow for others to see things differently? Atheists of all people should allow for the application of reason and logic to result in varying conclusions. No one should have to goosestep to the conclusions of others.

Dave has yet to forthrightly answer if he embraces freedom of speech or freedom of religion -- if that speech and that religion differ from his. There is, therefore, no foundation for discussion if Dave insists that all must see things his way or be deemed unreasonable or illogical or intellectually deficient.

Maybe I'm misreading the situation, but that's how it comes across to me.

-CC in MA

November 26, 2006

Dave:

I somehow doubt that the point will get across to our "current" friend as well. Though I do like how you added "illogic" to your reply to him. A fitting term, I think.

Thanks, Trance. I've known several like this guy. Eventually they can't keep up the internal dissonance and dump the religion all together. It may take years, but they'll eventually do it.

....My beef is that Dave asserts these views as reasonable based upon his application of logic....

The point you are desperately trying to avoid is that it is not MY logic that I'm applying. I do not choose logic. I did not invent logic. It is not MY logic. Philosophers centuries before me have laid down the foundations of logic and how to use it as a tool to cut through the noise and get to the truth. You, my friend, are not using logic to reach a religious conclusion. One tool of logic, Occam's Razor, cuts a god out of the equation right away.

It's his way, his view, or nothing.

I see you've devolved to personal attacks. Again, it's not my view, or my logic.

Dave has yet to forthrightly answer if he embraces freedom of speech or freedom of religion -- if that speech and that religion differ from his.

You never asked that question or you preceded it with an ad hominem and I didn't read any further. And you have yet to 'forthrightly' answer about a dozen questions.

November 26, 2006

Dave:
Thanks, Trance. I've known several like this guy. Eventually they can't keep up the internal dissonance and dump the religion all together. It may take years, but they'll eventually do it.

Is this a prophecy? (Prophecy seems illogical.) I'm kidding you here.

We are at an impasse, Dave. And that's perfectly fine with me and I hope perfectly fine with you.

I'll keep reading and posting.

Thank you for your time on this strand. I learned a lot.

May we both make better use of the application of logic and reason and intellect in our pursuit of VERITAS. I certainly can grow in that regard -- and, for that matter, in all regards.

-CC in MA

November 26, 2006

That you for the primer on logic, Trancelation.

Not a problem.

My beef is most definitely NOT that Dave has written the following:

1. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything in the bible.

2. There is no reason or intellect in the bible.

3. The whole jesus thing. Never happened.

4. No honest scholar would claim that the jesus mentioned in the bible ever existed since there is no reliable evidence to show he did.

5. The bible is a complete myth.

My beef is that Dave asserts these views as reasonable based upon his application of logic -- and that's terrific and I have no argument with that, and he has every right to come to these conclusions, and I respect his process and his outcome -- but Dave will not allow for others the privilege of arriving at different conclusions.

Dave points out in a reply to you that logic cannot be his - and indeed, I think he makes a fine point there. Good logic or bad logic, logic is indifferent to the person. It's the argument, and the evidence in that argument, that matters. Saying that someone is not allowing other conclusions based on their logic is like saying someone will not allow other conclusions based on their math. Math is math. When we have crumbled away to dust, math remains, staunchly independent of our interference. The same thing, I think, goes for logic.

Having said that, I think the point is trivial. Let's focus on the ARGUMENT and the EVIDENCE. If both of these are bad, or lacking, or faulty, or outright retarded, it's only natural to say that the conclusion is wrong. To say that a conclusion is wrong - reflective of the nature of the argument and its evidence - is not to say that no one is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Only that bad logic, crappy arguments and inadmissable or non-existent evidence was used. In ANY case, the conclusion reached by using these is wrong. That's not saying that one way is right: that's a fact.

It's his way, his view, or nothing. That I take to be a very serious flaw, illogical and unreasonable --and a flaw I see in, for example, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Why not allow for others to see things differently? Atheists of all people should allow for the application of reason and logic to result in varying conclusions. No one should have to goosestep to the conclusions of others.

So . . . where is this logic and reason being used to assert that Christianity is true? Let me rephrase that: where is this WORKING logic and WORKING reason that asserts that Christianity is true? Because we are talking about that, right? We are talking about the Bible, and its claims of absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth? We are talking about the logic, reasoning, arguments and evidence used to reach the conclusion (which is different from Dave's) that the Bible is true, right?

Or are we talking about the idea that atheists (or ex-Christians, or non-Christians) should allow Christians to reach separate conclusions from their own based on THEIR argument that Christianity does not allow for the reaching of alternate conclusions, and that by doing so, they are no better than Christians, and thusly Christians should be allowed to do the same thing?

That might have been a bit wordy, so let me try to say this another way. One of the most common arguments used against non-Christians in their calling out of Christianity is this:

1. Non-Christians believe in non-Christianity

2. Non-Christians say that Christians should not believe

3. Therefore, non-Christians should not say that Christians should not believe, because non-Christians believe

This sequence is used in a myriad of other ways to attempt to discredit non-Christianity and its arguments against Christianity. The crux of the argument is that since non-Christians can do it, so can we. This argument is a logical fallacy, in that it relies on the premise of two wrongs making a right, as well as the assumption that the non-Christian is doing something similar to the Christian. If you're saying that, since Dave can reach a different conclusion than my own, I should be allowed to reach a different conclusion than his, then to that I say: sure. Why not? But my questions, and Dave's, are:

What is the evidence for the argument made in favor of Christianity?

If one cannot display sufficient evidence, anyone in their right mind will call it questionable, at least. If one is using a faulty logic sequence, then I, and anyone else with even a remote understanding of logic, will point out that that sequence is screwed up, and therefore the conclusion is screwed up. This isn't about the freedom to reach different conclusions: of course we all have that freedom. I sincerely doubt that Dave does not embrace freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

But if Dave goes to a used car salesman, and this salesman tries to sell him a used car which he claims will open up trans-dimensional wormholes, give him blowjobs and mow his yard, I would expect Dave to call this saleman out and demand evidence for these claims. If that car salesman called Dave a bigot and claimed that Dave was not allowing him to reach a conclusion different from his own, I would not be surprised nor upset if Dave called the men with white jackets on this salesman.

And that, my friend, is what this comes down to. Is Dave allowing you to practice freedom of speech and religion? Of course he is. And of course Dave is right to call you out and demand evidence for your claims. When Dave says you are wrong because you do not present evidence, that's not saying you are not allowed to reach a different conclusion from his own. Only that you have no evidence for your conclusion. And if there is no evidence for your conclusion, then that means . . . what?

November 26, 2006

So . . . where is this logic and reason being used to assert that Christianity is true? Let me rephrase that: where is this WORKING logic and WORKING reason that asserts that Christianity is true? Because we are talking about that, right? We are talking about the Bible, and its claims of absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth? We are talking about the logic, reasoning, arguments and evidence used to reach the conclusion (which is different from Dave's) that the Bible is true, right?

Well, not exactly. The Bible does not claim to be the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth," nor do I make such claims for it. Some do, and doing so seems to me very much like an insupportable conclusion. Also insupportable, seems to me, is the claim that the application of the laws of logic necessarily lead one to conclude that the Bible is without merit or historicity of any kind. Like the fundamentalists, of course one has this right, it just seems insupportable to me.

An exchange of views is good and healthy and beneficial. Unlike the automobile in your used car salesman parable, however, views regarding religion ultimately are insupportable. Therefore, one pieces together the evidential and experiential scraps the best one can and goes with it. In my view, logic cannot lead one to theism or atheism. I stand with JPII who opened his encyclical Fides et Ratio with this memorable line: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." An argument from this authority does not make it right or logical or reasonable, but his words sound a true note for me.

I often think of anthropologist Margaret Mead whom I saw in a mid-1970's interview (I viewed the interview in the 1990's). She humbly expressed her views with introductory statements such as "seems to me," and "the evidence might indicate," and "it may be the case that," and "we don't know for sure, but..." That always has remained with me and -- it seems to me -- couching one's statements thusly is wise.

-CC in MA

November 26, 2006

We are at an impasse, Dave. And that's perfectly fine with me and I hope perfectly fine with you.

I'll keep reading and posting.

Thank you for your time on this strand. I learned a lot.

May we both make better use of the application of logic and reason and intellect in our pursuit of VERITAS. I certainly can grow in that regard -- and, for that matter, in all regards.

but have you learned enough to honestly question your compartmentalized beliefs?

.... I sincerely doubt that Dave does not embrace freedom of speech or freedom of religion.....

But I did know it as a trick question, so I didn't answer. CCs problem is that he actually believes all his arguments are original to him. He doesn't know that many of us have heard them hundreds of times before.

November 26, 2006

We are at an impasse, Dave. And that's perfectly fine with me and I hope perfectly fine with you.

I'll keep reading and posting.

Thank you for your time on this strand. I learned a lot.

May we both make better use of the application of logic and reason and intellect in our pursuit of VERITAS. I certainly can grow in that regard -- and, for that matter, in all regards.

but have you learned enough to honestly question your compartmentalized beliefs?

.... I sincerely doubt that Dave does not embrace freedom of speech or freedom of religion.....
But I did know it as a trick question, so I didn't answer. CCs problem is that he actually believes all his arguments are original to him. He doesn't know that many of us have heard them hundreds of times before.

I have learned enough to honestly question my compartmentalized beliefs. Have you?

Margaret Mead would never say, "CC's problem is that he actually believes all his artuments are original to him."

--CC in MA

November 26, 2006

Well, not exactly. The Bible does not claim to be the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth," nor do I make such claims for it.

It certainly does, and you also claim it to be truth since it is the ONLY source for your beliefs.

Also insupportable, seems to me, is the claim that the application of the laws of logic necessarily lead one to conclude that the Bible is without merit or historicity of any kind. Like the fundamentalists, of course one has this right, it just seems insupportable to me.

Of course you have to believe that since it supports your a priori assumption that the god of the bible is real. Accepting that logic cuts out gods right away automatically forces you to use illogic to reach the conclusion that your beliefs dictate.

An exchange of views is good and healthy and beneficial. Unlike the automobile in your used car salesman parable, however, views regarding religion ultimately are insupportable. Therefore, one pieces together the evidential and experiential scraps the best one can and goes with it. In my view, logic cannot lead one to theism or atheism.

That is just another excuse to maintain an irrational belief. There is no evidential or experiential scraps that support any religious belief. If you want to claim it all on belief, then be honest and do so. It's just that you cannot stand on logic since it does not support gods.

I stand with JPII who opened his encyclical Fides et Ratio with this memorable line: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." An argument from this authority does not make it right or logical or reasonable, but his words sound a true note for me.

Only because he is saying what you want to hear.

November 26, 2006

Only because he is saying what you want to hear.

Yes, but havent we all dont that at leas once?

The Bible does not claim to be the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth,"

What bible do you read? Its not the same one I have read...

Accepting that logic cuts out gods right away automatically forces you to use illogic to reach the conclusion that your beliefs dictate.

I agree however both sides here atempt to use logic and say that it is on their side. The bible is not a logical book, thus believing in a god who wrote the bible is not logical. Atheists usually use logic the way it should be used, in accordance with free thought. Religious people usually dont. I believe it is safe to say both sides can throw logic to the wind sometimes.

November 26, 2006

Well, not exactly. The Bible does not claim to be the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth," nor do I make such claims for it.
It certainly does, and you also claim it to be truth since it is the ONLY source for your beliefs.
Also insupportable, seems to me, is the claim that the application of the laws of logic necessarily lead one to conclude that the Bible is without merit or historicity of any kind. Like the fundamentalists, of course one has this right, it just seems insupportable to me.
Of course you have to believe that since it supports your a priori assumption that the god of the bible is real. Accepting that logic cuts out gods right away automatically forces you to use illogic to reach the conclusion that your beliefs dictate.
An exchange of views is good and healthy and beneficial. Unlike the automobile in your used car salesman parable, however, views regarding religion ultimately are insupportable. Therefore, one pieces together the evidential and experiential scraps the best one can and goes with it. In my view, logic cannot lead one to theism or atheism.
That is just another excuse to maintain an irrational belief. There is no evidential or experiential scraps that support any religious belief. If you want to claim it all on belief, then be honest and do so. It's just that you cannot stand on logic since it does not support gods.
I stand with JPII who opened his encyclical Fides et Ratio with this memorable line: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." An argument from this authority does not make it right or logical or reasonable, but his words sound a true note for me.
Only because he is saying what you want to hear.

Hello ... again ... Dave; you and I have become buddies!

You mischaracterize me when you say the Bible is the only source of my truth. You have not been reading my posts very carefully. Sources of truth, for me, are experience, science, history, psychology, religion, movies, music, television, friends, family, forums, etc. At the very least, Dave, please don't mischaracterize my views as that detracts from your legitimate arguments. It's easy to say such things, but throwing out views willy-nilly makes no sense ... to me and do not bolster your views. And we all quote from those with whom we agree more than from those with whom we disagree. Rarely, very rarely indeed, do I quote Hitler.

-CC in MA

November 26, 2006

Only because he is saying what you want to hear.
Yes, but havent we all dont that at leas once?

Not to the extent that a christian does.

The Bible does not claim to be the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth,"
What bible do you read? Its not the same one I have read...

The christian bible. The best cure for belief in that book is to actually read it. Most christians don't actually read the book, they pick and choose the lines (usually out of context) and just ignore the ones they don't like or are inconvenient.

Accepting that logic cuts out gods right away automatically forces you to use illogic to reach the conclusion that your beliefs dictate.
I agree however both sides here atempt to use logic and say that it is on their side. The bible is not a logical book, thus believing in a god who wrote the bible is not logical. Atheists usually use logic the way it should be used, in accordance with free thought. Religious people usually dont. I believe it is safe to say both sides can throw logic to the wind sometimes.

Again, the Atheists don't do it to the extent the christians do. They're pros at obfuscation and evasion to support their illogic.

You mischaracterize me when you say the Bible is the only source of my truth.

it is your only source for information about the god you choose to believe in.

You have not been reading my posts very carefully. Sources of truth, for me, are experience, science, history, psychology, religion, movies, music, television, friends, family, forums, etc.

Those are not sources of truth, especially religion. They are sources of information.

At the very least, Dave, please don't mischaracterize my views as that detracts from your legitimate arguments.

I'm not mischaracterizing anything here. I am not the one presenting the bible, or religion, as a source of truth.

It's easy to say such things, but throwing out views willy-nilly makes no sense ... to me and do not bolster your views. And we all quote from those with whom we agree more than from those with whom we disagree. Rarely, very rarely indeed, do I quote Hitler.

I rarely quote from anyone. I don't need an argument from authority to support my views. I'm capable of thinking on my own.

November 27, 2006

Only because he is saying what you want to hear.
Yes, but havent we all dont that at leas once?
Not to the extent that a christian does.

The Bible does not claim to be the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth,"
What bible do you read? Its not the same one I have read...
The christian bible. The best cure for belief in that book is to actually read it. Most christians don't actually read the book, they pick and choose the lines (usually out of context) and just ignore the ones they don't like or are inconvenient.

Accepting that logic cuts out gods right away automatically forces you to use illogic to reach the conclusion that your beliefs dictate.
I agree however both sides here atempt to use logic and say that it is on their side. The bible is not a logical book, thus believing in a god who wrote the bible is not logical. Atheists usually use logic the way it should be used, in accordance with free thought. Religious people usually dont. I believe it is safe to say both sides can throw logic to the wind sometimes.
Again, the Atheists don't do it to the extent the christians do. They're pros at obfuscation and evasion to support their illogic.

You mischaracterize me when you say the Bible is the only source of my truth.
it is your only source for information about the god you choose to believe in.
You have not been reading my posts very carefully. Sources of truth, for me, are experience, science, history, psychology, religion, movies, music, television, friends, family, forums, etc.
Those are not sources of truth, especially religion. They are sources of information.
At the very least, Dave, please don't mischaracterize my views as that detracts from your legitimate arguments.
I'm not mischaracterizing anything here. I am not the one presenting the bible, or religion, as a source of truth.
It's easy to say such things, but throwing out views willy-nilly makes no sense ... to me and do not bolster your views. And we all quote from those with whom we agree more than from those with whom we disagree. Rarely, very rarely indeed, do I quote Hitler.
I rarely quote from anyone. I don't need an argument from authority to support my views. I'm capable of thinking on my own.

In all sincerity, your attacks against Christians (who can be a stupid, intolerable, intolerant, blind, ridiculous, etc.!) verge on being Christophobic. Some of the words you have written seem almost hateful, and reminiscent of the type of Jewphobic propoganda preached over and over and over prior to pogroms. I will aim to be more tolerant and understanding and libertarian. You might want to try to be more of these things, too. We can all grow in this way!

-CC in MA

November 27, 2006

In all sincerity, your attacks against Christians (who can be a stupid, intolerable, intolerant, blind, ridiculous, etc.!) verge on being Christophobic.

Or the truth?

Some of the words you have written seem almost hateful, and reminiscent of the type of Jewphobic propoganda preached over and over and over prior to pogroms.

Of course, not agreeing with any religion will bring the same accusations.

I will aim to be more tolerant and understanding and libertarian. You might want to try to be more of these things, too. We can all grow in this way!

Great. You start changing the christian religion so that it says OUT of my life, OUT of my government, OUT of our schools, then we can talk about my behavior.

November 27, 2006

Great. You start changing the christian religion so that it says OUT of my life, OUT of my government, OUT of our schools, then we can talk about my behaviour.

Agreed!

Well said Dave.

Also, with the abundance of scholarly evidence that points to "Jesus" beeing nothing more than a fictional construct from the imaginations of men, how does anyone still cling to it?

I would offer this as a definition of a Christian - a person who believes they can be saved if they believe in a god who sacrifices himself to himself, to appease himself.

November 27, 2006

Great. You start changing the christian religion so that it says OUT of my life, OUT of my government, OUT of our schools, then we can talk about my behaviour.

Agreed!

Well said Dave.

Yah, I get something right once in awhile.

Also, with the abundance of scholarly evidence that points to "Jesus" beeing nothing more than a fictional construct from the imaginations of men, how does anyone still cling to it?

Maybe just to be part of the flock? What they believe makes absolutely no sense to me what so ever. It never did. When I way 7 I was kicked out of a catholic school for being an Atheist. If a 7 year old can see thought it, why can't millions of adults?

I would offer this as a definition of a Christian - a person who believes they can be saved if they believe in a god who sacrifices himself to himself, to appease himself.

Not a very bright god.

November 27, 2006

Hi CC,

Here are a couple of sites I'd like you to check out when you have time:

Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

Solar Mythology and the Bible

Both are rather lenghty, but very informative.

Dan

November 27, 2006

Hi CC,

Here are a couple of sites I'd like you to check out when you have time:

Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

Solar Mythology and the Bible

Both are rather lenghty, but very informative.

Dan

Hi Dan, Thank you for the two links. I just spent about an hour with the first link. It's a very fine site. Of course, it would take me years of study in order to really know what I think about the pagan origins of Christianity. Initial thoughts are these:

1. Just because something is said to have happened in a pagan religion doesn't mean it didn't happen for real somewhere else in time -- in this case in 1st century Palestine. (I hear the smirks!! ) Here's an extreme version: Osiris gave a speech; therefore any account of Jesus giving a speech is simply a recounting of Osiris' speech. All history and story is repetition, some fiction, some nonfiction.

2. There is controversy among "scholars" regarding how much influence these pre-Christian "myths" may have had, if any. One might rightly choose to stand by the scholar who writes that the entire Christian story is a borrowed myth; one might rightly choose to stand by the scholar who writes that there was no such borrowing; or one might rightly choose to stand by a scholar in-between these two points. It seems to me that equally erudite, educated and enlightened scholars have taken all three positions.

3. And, of course, there's always C.S. Lewis's view of myth: shadows of the great story or what Lewis often called "the myth that became fact." Here are Lewis's words from Surprised by Joy:

"I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste...nothing else in all literature was just like this. If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it. And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognisable, through all the depths of time, as Plato's Socrates or Boswell's Johnson, yet also numinous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god-we are no longer polytheists-then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, man. This is not "a religion," nor "a philosophy." It is the summing up and actuality of them all." (p. 88)

Lewis surmised that the myths of old were "prophecies" or "forecasts" of what was to come.

I have bookmarked both sites your kindly sent my way, and will definitely spend more time with them and will add some of the books referenced to my "to buy" list at amazon.com. When will I get a chance to read all this!!??

Thank you, Dan. I very much appreciate the links.

CC in MA

November 27, 2006

Lewis surmised that the myths of old were "prophecies" or "forecasts" of what was to come.

I have bookmarked both sites your kindly sent my way, and will definitely spend more time with them and will add some of the books referenced to my "to buy" list at amazon.com. When will I get a chance to read all this!!??

Thank you, Dan. I very much appreciate the links.

CC in MA

Here's a thought, If God is so original,set apart, and the only *true* god why would he have to redress the evil pagan worship and apply it to himself? Shouldn't he have something that completely sets him a part from pagans? There isn't one thing original in Christianity, not one. A god that copycats other gods is a wanna be god. The forecast angle is a lame attempt to justify being a carbon copy has-been/re-do.

November 27, 2006

QUOTE(currentchristian0Well @ not exactly. The Bible does not claim to be the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth," nor do I make such claims for it. Some do, and doing so seems to me very much like an insupportable conclusion. Also insupportable, seems to me, is the claim that the application of the laws of logic necessarily lead one to conclude that the Bible is without merit or historicity of any kind. Like the fundamentalists, of course one has this right, it just seems insupportable to me.

There's only way to verify what the Bible says concerning truth, and that's to look in the Bible.

I did a search for the word "truth" on www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/t/1164662767-3771.html), and was given NINE pages of results. Here are a few that stand out:

[i)

Psa 33:4 For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth.

3Jo 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.

2Jo 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

1Jo 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth

Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

Col 1:6 Which is come unto you, as [it is] in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as [it doth] also in you, since the day ye heard [of it], and knew the grace of God in truth:

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Tts 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, [/i]

And on and on it goes. Least of all, we cannot forget the classic "I am the way, the truth, the life . . ." There are an overwhelming number of verses referring to "the truth," specifically "THE" truth, especially in the New Testament. I performed a search for the definitions of "truth":

a fact that has been verified; "at last he knew the truth"; "the truth is that he didn't want to do it"

conformity to reality or actuality; "they debated the truth of the proposition"; "the situation brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat"; "he was famous for the truth of his portraits"; "he turned to religion in his search for eternal verities"

a true statement; "he told the truth"; "he thought of answering with the truth but he knew they wouldn't believe it"

accuracy: the quality of being near to the true value; "he was beginning to doubt the accuracy of his compass"; "the lawyer questioned the truth of my account"

Considering that, one must wonder what this "truth" the writers of the Bible keep referring to is, and if they are maintaining that their "truth" is true or, as you say, 'not . . . the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth'. Do you think the writers of the Bible would agree with you if you told them that what they had written was 'not . . . the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth' . . . or would they disagree with you, given the sampling of the Bible verses pertaining to "truth" I listed above, as well as the rest that were given by the BLB search?

Does the Bible speak a half-truth? A lie? Or does the Bible claim to speak . . . "the truth"? And if so, does that "truth" posses the qualities of truth as defined by the above definitions, or is it openly lying to us? A claim can either be true or false. If the Bible writers are speaking an unverifiable claim by which there is no evidence for whatsoever, then they are lying. There is no magical halfway point wherein they speak "their" truth.

Simply attaching the word "truth" to a thing does not make it true. Do you agree with this? If I say, "It is my truth that the Holocaust never happened," would you demand evidence for my truth, or would you shrug your shoulders and allow that one can have their "truth," no matter how unverifiable, simply because YOUR "truth" in Christianity is unverifiable? Because that's what I think is going on here, current; you have to appear tolerant of other claims for the "truth" because of a lack of evidence for your own. But this is not becoming of Christianity as defined in the Bible. That is how I define a Christian: strictly by the foundation that the Bible lays for one.

Another aspect of the "truth" of the Bible is the way it outlines non-Christians to be treated:

Kill them.

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. -- Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Shun them.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord. -- 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

This is what the Bible says concerning the character of non-Christians:

They are without God.

"Whosoever ... abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." -- 2 John 9

They are all antichrists.

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." -- 2 John 7

Are these the words of a document that is 'not . . . the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth'? You have to tell me, current. I see the hostility outlined for non-Christians, and I see the myriad references to "the truth," and I see a book that claims to be the absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth. What am I missing here? How is the Bible claiming not to be the absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth? I eagerly await your answer.

An exchange of views is good and healthy and beneficial. Unlike the automobile in your used car salesman parable, however, views regarding religion ultimately are insupportable.

*blinks*

Okay, CC. Let's take this one . . . step . . . at . . . a . . . time.

1. How is the car salesman in the parable providing support for his claims of a car that can open trans-dimensional wormshomes, perform oral sex, and mow yards?

1A. He is not. The used car salesman is like the Christian promoting the Bible and Christianity. The salesman makes a fantastic claim about something, and then cannot show that it is true.

2. How is the car in the parable NOT like the unverifiable claims regarding religion (SPECIFICALLY Christianity)?

2A. It is exactly like Christianity. The car can only be what it is. So, too, is the Bible. People beef up used cars (and Bibles) as being something that they are not. The Bible writers made fantastic claims about their religion, as the used car salesman kames fantastic claims for his car.

3. Where is the evidence for the claims of the car salesmen and the Bible writers?

3A. There is none.

Therefore, one pieces together the evidential and experiential scraps the best one can and goes with it.

So let me get this straight:

1. Religion is unverifiable

1A. Therefore, religion has no evidence

2. Therefore, one should use the evidence of religion to make a decision for or against it

Remember that primer on logic I gave a few posts back? Well, it's still in effect. That was bad logic. If religion is unverifiable, it has no evidence, and therefore one cannot make a decision based on the evidence that is not there. I cannot say anything more on that. It is as simple as that.

In my view, logic cannot lead one to theism or atheism.

That's not what you said earlier:

Atheists of all people should allow for the application of reason and logic to result in varying conclusions. (Nov 25 2006, 08:34 PM, Post #54)

What is the point of applying logic and reason to reach "varying conclusions" if the application of logic and reason cannot lead one to atheism or theism, which, by their very nature, are two varying conclusions?

I stand with JPII who opened his encyclical Fides et Ratio with this memorable line: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." An argument from this authority does not make it right or logical or reasonable, but his words sound a true note for me.

I've read Dan Brown, and he seems to come to the same conclusion: that science (or reason) and religion are working towards the same goal, of understanding of the universe and life within it. That's all well and good that he should be tolerant and liberal like that, but the fact remains that science (or reason) and religion are not working towards the same goal.

The method of science (or reason) is: here is the evidence, what is the conclusion?

The method of religion is: here is the conclusion, what is the evidence?

Considering that, I would openly disagree with JPII. We're looking at two completely different animals here. JPII was clearly trying to appeal to the compassion of the reasonable with that staement. Compassion is all well and good, but it does not excuse one from backing up their claims.

I often think of anthropologist Margaret Mead whom I saw in a mid-1970's interview (I viewed the interview in the 1990's). She humbly expressed her views with introductory statements such as "seems to me," and "the evidence might indicate," and "it may be the case that," and "we don't know for sure, but..." That always has remained with me and -- it seems to me -- couching one's statements thusly is wise.

Great! We should all prephrase our statements like that. As well, we should also provide evidence for the arguments of our logic. Where's Christianity's?

I have one more issue to address before I go proofread my fiance's psych, lit and honors paper, and then proofread the 3,000 words I beltedout for my fantasy novel over Thanksgiving break. And that is concerning the issue of Christianity's pagan origins.

The argument is always thus: while Christianity seemingly uses previously pagan practices, Christianity is actually the truthful and actual application of these older practices through Jesus Christ. You could say it like this: pagans performed Ritual A, and so did Jesus; but Jesus was the REAL DEAL when he performed Ritual A; the pagans were merely of THE DEVIL.

The problem with these claims is that the responsibility of proving the claim falls on those that make it. It is up to the Christian to show that Jesus was, in fact, the real deal, and that any pagan practices incorporated into Christianity were false when they were just pagan practices.

A common argument against Christianity is that the pagan winter solstice was incorporated into Christianity for the sake of drawing pagans into the religion. The Christian might respond by saying that while pagands practiced the winter solstice on Jesus' birthday, Jesus' birthday was the REAL DEAL, and not the false pagan practice of the solstice. Okay: so . . . where is the evidence that the J-Man was born on December 25th?

That's right, Little Johnny: there is none.

Hence, the need for faith. D'oh!

November 27, 2006

<!--QuoteBegin-currentchristian0Well+ not exactly. The Bible does not claim to be the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth," nor do I make such claims for it. Some do, and doing so seems to me very much like an insupportable conclusion. Also insupportable, seems to me, is the claim that the application of the laws of logic necessarily lead one to conclude that the Bible is without merit or historicity of any kind. Like the fundamentalists, of course one has this right, it just seems insupportable to me.

There's only way to verify what the Bible says concerning truth, and that's to look in the Bible.

I did a search for the word "truth" on www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/t/1164662767-3771.html), and was given NINE pages of results. Here are a few that stand out:

[i--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(currentchristian0Well @ not exactly. The Bible does not claim to be the "absolute, unquestionable, unbending, unyielding, complete and total truth," nor do I make such claims for it. Some do, and doing so seems to me very much like an insupportable conclusion. Also insupportable, seems to me, is the claim that the application of the laws of logic necessarily lead one to conclude that the Bible is without merit or historicity of any kind. Like the fundamentalists, of course one has this right, it just seems insupportable to me.There's only way to verify what the Bible says concerning truth, and that's to look in the Bible.

I did a search for the word "truth" on www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/t/1164662767-3771.html), and was given NINE pages of results. Here are a few that stand out:

[i)</div><div class='quotemain'>Psa 33:4 For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth.