Objections to Christianity part deux
-
Sort of, but in any convincing debate it undermines a lot key claims made to demonize those who don't believe in the given god. I've always found it much harder to bite into a religion that doesn't claim to have an almighty, all loving, beneficent god(yet lets it worshipers be so terribly oppressed). And really, the old testament, or just plain Job, poor guy. Better man than me by some measure, I'd have been telling god exactly where he could stuff his love around the same time my entire family died for a friggen bet. That's just a dick move. Though that could also very well explain why I've never felt any kind of connection with one...
-
jschell wrote:
But perhaps you are suggesting that they were originally created without belly buttons?
Or that they were?That is more the question that I am getting at.
jschell wrote:
And somehow you are suggesting that God didn't have enough power to create them one way or the other?
Actually that is not my implication. It is more complicated. It is to cause thinking. One can conclude one of two things. Adam and Even had belly buttons, or they didn't. 1.) Had- Created in Gods image, as we all are. Well then why does God have a belly button. We have it has an effect of the birthing process. One would deduce that God was born then. Or that we are in his image but with quite a few tweaks. Either way, the answer leads to more and more questions. 2.) Did not have. In this case how to we end up with the belly buttons then. Hmmm. Seems the species needed something and.. uhhh dare I say evolved to acquire it. Again, you end up with more questions. To re-iterate, I was not implying anything from it. Just asking. Because it is a question that causes more questions regardless of the answer. And in my experience, when this occurs there is a root fallacy.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
1.) Had-
Created in Gods image, as we all are. Well then why does God have a belly button. We have it has an effect of the birthing process. One would deduce that God was born then. Or that we are in his image but with quite a few tweaks. Either way, the answer leads to more and more questions.Nope. No more so than the conclusion that because there are blonds and redheads then God must be one or the other.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
2.) Did not have.
In this case how to we end up with the belly buttons then. Hmmm. Seems the species needed something and.. uhhh dare I say evolved to acquire it. Again, you end up with more questions.Nope. By definition if God created people then god created them with the form that they have. One might ask/wonder why God created belly buttons but their existence itself does not invalidate the assumption that God did the creating.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And in my experience, when this occurs there is a root fallacy.
In my experience it is generally because people don't understand any number of things about logic and specifically often don't understand implicit assumptions and/or choose to ignore the very nature of such assumptions.
-
I may plan some future vacations because I estimate the probability that I will live until then is high enough to justify the effort of planning. Even if I was wrong, not much would be lost, just a bit of planning. The things that I say I "believe" will happen, are things that I estimate as having a very high probability of happening. That estimate will be inaccurate, but better than total uncertainty, and I always try to account for the probability that I turn out to be wrong. What I really try to do, is optimize the long term estimated expected gain minus the long term estimated expected loss, estimated to the best of my ability and knowledge. It all takes a lot of thinking, but I think this strategy is optimal, in the sense that you can't do better without having access to more data.
harold aptroot wrote:
I may plan some future vacations because I estimate the probability that I will live until then is high enough to justify the effort of planning. Even if I was wrong, not much would be lost, just a bit of planning.
I agree that you might do that. But if you do so you are in a very small minority.
harold aptroot wrote:
That estimate will be inaccurate, but better than total uncertainty, and I always try to account for the probability that I turn out to be wrong.
Quite possible but no sane person is going to do that for every decision that they make throughout the day.
harold aptroot wrote:
It all takes a lot of thinking, but I think this strategy is optimal, in the sense that you can't do better without having access to more data.
It does however ignore completely that I was presenting an example. Only one example of many real situations that impact everyone every day (not that that example impacts them but rather that there are many different ones for each individual.) And I seriously doubt that it is possible much less sane to evaluate probabilities for every aspect of ones life. I would not however be surprised if there are in fact individuals that attempt to do just that and as such have great difficulty in managing their life.
-
Distind wrote:
Sort of
Huh? You are claiming that centuries worth of philosophical debates on that subject are wrong. Where wrong means that there are logical flaws in the arguments?
When debating something that's based purely on supposition, conjecture and hand waving, it's quite difficult to be correct. This is without even getting into the more philosophical angle often used to excuse this such as redefining what is good, so that you can have a 'good' god who just so happens to kill innocent people by the thousands because someone annoyed him. the line: If God exists, then how come he can let bad things happen? Is a rebuttal of a very specific vision of god, which involves them being all powerful, knowing and somehow good. If you look at the old testament it's clear that god's only as good as he feels like on a given day, and the excuses required to make him 'good' by modern standards are pretty impressive. Now, if you toss any of the three aspects involved out the window, it becomes useless in disproving the existence of that god. Which is the only method of dismissing the argument which doesn't involve excusing crimes which thus far have been beyond the scope of human capability.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I may plan some future vacations because I estimate the probability that I will live until then is high enough to justify the effort of planning. Even if I was wrong, not much would be lost, just a bit of planning.
I agree that you might do that. But if you do so you are in a very small minority.
harold aptroot wrote:
That estimate will be inaccurate, but better than total uncertainty, and I always try to account for the probability that I turn out to be wrong.
Quite possible but no sane person is going to do that for every decision that they make throughout the day.
harold aptroot wrote:
It all takes a lot of thinking, but I think this strategy is optimal, in the sense that you can't do better without having access to more data.
It does however ignore completely that I was presenting an example. Only one example of many real situations that impact everyone every day (not that that example impacts them but rather that there are many different ones for each individual.) And I seriously doubt that it is possible much less sane to evaluate probabilities for every aspect of ones life. I would not however be surprised if there are in fact individuals that attempt to do just that and as such have great difficulty in managing their life.
Well there's no point in doing this for zero-impact decisions.. the decision whether to apply that strategy to a certain decision is therefore more important to get right, and the decision whether to apply that strategy to the decision whether to apply that strategy to a certain decision is more important yet.
-
Well there's no point in doing this for zero-impact decisions.. the decision whether to apply that strategy to a certain decision is therefore more important to get right, and the decision whether to apply that strategy to the decision whether to apply that strategy to a certain decision is more important yet.
-
When debating something that's based purely on supposition, conjecture and hand waving, it's quite difficult to be correct. This is without even getting into the more philosophical angle often used to excuse this such as redefining what is good, so that you can have a 'good' god who just so happens to kill innocent people by the thousands because someone annoyed him. the line: If God exists, then how come he can let bad things happen? Is a rebuttal of a very specific vision of god, which involves them being all powerful, knowing and somehow good. If you look at the old testament it's clear that god's only as good as he feels like on a given day, and the excuses required to make him 'good' by modern standards are pretty impressive. Now, if you toss any of the three aspects involved out the window, it becomes useless in disproving the existence of that god. Which is the only method of dismissing the argument which doesn't involve excusing crimes which thus far have been beyond the scope of human capability.
Distind wrote:
When debating something that's based purely on supposition, conjecture and hand waving, it's quite difficult to be correct.
Anyone that claims anything is more that what that statement entails doesn't understand the actual basis of logic.
Distind wrote:
This is without even getting into the more philosophical angle often used to excuse this such as redefining what is good, so that you can have a 'good' god who just so happens to kill innocent people by the thousands because someone annoyed him.
That doesn't mean anymore than anything else because AGAIN there are centuries worth of philosophy based on that. You can certainly belief that absolutely everything on the subject is nonsense because it it conflicts with other beliefs that you hold. But your beliefs on the subject are not more correct than any other belief for or against.
Distind wrote:
Is a rebuttal of a very specific vision of god, which involves them being all powerful, knowing and somehow good. If you look at the old testament it's clear that god's only as good as he feels like on a given day, and the excuses required to make him 'good' by modern standards are pretty impressive.
Ridiculous. As I already said there are CENTURIES worth of discourse on this very subject. Attempting to 'prove' something about it while entirely dismissing or ignoring the vast mass of discourse that already exists isn't 'logical'.
Distind wrote:
Now, if you toss any of the three aspects involved out the window, it becomes useless in disproving the existence of that god.
Which too me suggests that you haven't actually tried to do any research at all on the centuries worth of discourse. Or that you are dismissing it entirely without regard to merit because you reject the assumptions in the first place. And rejecting an assumption does not ever invalidate the argument.
-
Distind wrote:
When debating something that's based purely on supposition, conjecture and hand waving, it's quite difficult to be correct.
Anyone that claims anything is more that what that statement entails doesn't understand the actual basis of logic.
Distind wrote:
This is without even getting into the more philosophical angle often used to excuse this such as redefining what is good, so that you can have a 'good' god who just so happens to kill innocent people by the thousands because someone annoyed him.
That doesn't mean anymore than anything else because AGAIN there are centuries worth of philosophy based on that. You can certainly belief that absolutely everything on the subject is nonsense because it it conflicts with other beliefs that you hold. But your beliefs on the subject are not more correct than any other belief for or against.
Distind wrote:
Is a rebuttal of a very specific vision of god, which involves them being all powerful, knowing and somehow good. If you look at the old testament it's clear that god's only as good as he feels like on a given day, and the excuses required to make him 'good' by modern standards are pretty impressive.
Ridiculous. As I already said there are CENTURIES worth of discourse on this very subject. Attempting to 'prove' something about it while entirely dismissing or ignoring the vast mass of discourse that already exists isn't 'logical'.
Distind wrote:
Now, if you toss any of the three aspects involved out the window, it becomes useless in disproving the existence of that god.
Which too me suggests that you haven't actually tried to do any research at all on the centuries worth of discourse. Or that you are dismissing it entirely without regard to merit because you reject the assumptions in the first place. And rejecting an assumption does not ever invalidate the argument.
jschell wrote:
As I already said there are CENTURIES worth of discourse on this very subject.
And since people have been bickering about something with no evidence, constraints or impact for a really long time, we should totally believe them? Centuries of discourse mean little to nothing when attempting to hold god to modern standards of good. You'd have about a Century to work off of, which I have looked at to some extent, and saw little more than excuses and abuses to allow the existence of and manipulate the belief in god. At least as far as fits the opening statement, and that's largely the problem people like me see. It doesn't matter what people have said over generations, it matters what people are trying to do with it right now. Here's the rub, good has changed, but god's a constant? Is god still good, are the actions in a given text still perfectly valid to inflict on people for the same reasons today? Pretty much if any of these are true, you can find a fault in the initial assumption, or at least the likely applications of it. You keep branding about this concept of belief, as if it's the end all be all of dismissing those who prefer reality. If your view of the world allows for things of no proof other than a lot of people believing it for a really long time, good for you, don't say bloody Mary in the mirror three times. While I'm sure all the grand philosophers of time past will be totally annoyed with me, but I prefer things with a basis in fact, things I can show true, and repeat. Talking about something for centuries doesn't do it. Working your balls off to understand what's actually going on around you? That's a good start.
-
jschell wrote:
As I already said there are CENTURIES worth of discourse on this very subject.
And since people have been bickering about something with no evidence, constraints or impact for a really long time, we should totally believe them? Centuries of discourse mean little to nothing when attempting to hold god to modern standards of good. You'd have about a Century to work off of, which I have looked at to some extent, and saw little more than excuses and abuses to allow the existence of and manipulate the belief in god. At least as far as fits the opening statement, and that's largely the problem people like me see. It doesn't matter what people have said over generations, it matters what people are trying to do with it right now. Here's the rub, good has changed, but god's a constant? Is god still good, are the actions in a given text still perfectly valid to inflict on people for the same reasons today? Pretty much if any of these are true, you can find a fault in the initial assumption, or at least the likely applications of it. You keep branding about this concept of belief, as if it's the end all be all of dismissing those who prefer reality. If your view of the world allows for things of no proof other than a lot of people believing it for a really long time, good for you, don't say bloody Mary in the mirror three times. While I'm sure all the grand philosophers of time past will be totally annoyed with me, but I prefer things with a basis in fact, things I can show true, and repeat. Talking about something for centuries doesn't do it. Working your balls off to understand what's actually going on around you? That's a good start.
Distind wrote:
And since people have been bickering about something with no evidence, constraints or impact for a really long time, we should totally believe them?
I said nothing like that. Please don't confuse or attempt to interpret my understanding of what belief is to suggest that I am espousing a specific type of belief system. You do in fact understand that logical thought and all of science is based on core assumptions correct? And understand what an assumption is especially how those fundamental ones are treated?
Distind wrote:
Centuries of discourse mean little to nothing when attempting to hold god to modern standards of good.
You are claiming that "modern standards" provide something more in terms of the definition of "good". If so then yes you can refute the other arguments. You however have not presented such information but rather just stated that everything that has gone before does not meet with your approval. And to make it clear I have no problem with you expressing a belief that everything before is useless but you seem to be claiming that it now logically incorrect. And that is wrong.
Distind wrote:
Here's the rub, good has changed, but god's a constant? Is god still good, are the actions in a given text still perfectly valid to inflict on people for the same reasons today? Pretty much if any of these are true, you can find a fault in the initial assumption, or at least the likely applications of it
As I said before there is centuries worth of discourse on the subject. I can only suppose that you do not know that the nature of "good" is also part of vast body of work.
Distind wrote:
You keep branding about this concept of belief, as if it's the end all be all of dismissing those who prefer reality
That statement makes it clear that you don't understand the true basis of 'belief'. It also suggests that you are unaware of or do not understand the discussions about reality that span millenia (not just centuries.)
Distind wrote:
While I'm sure all the grand philosophers of time past will be totally annoyed with me, but I prefer things with a basis in fact,
There are always those within a belief system that are incapable of recognizi