 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with
> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the
> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd
> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something." But when there's no
> difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
>
Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results?
Anyone can find that reference?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> On 5-7-2009 16:19, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> BTW you forgot
> >> to shed doubt on the church part. Now we could read it as a confession
> >> that you are member of a church. ;)
> >
> > In fact, I'm not.
> Oh no, you shouldn't say that either. ;)
It's ok to say it because it doesn't categorize me into anything.
> > That's a command, not a promise. It commands that people should not
> > divorce. It doesn't promise that people won't want to divorce. If you
> > read the next verses you'll see a direct admission of that: People *do*
> > divorce, even if God has put them together, and that's why some laws were
> > put in place for those occasions.
> >
> > If the bible made any kind of promise that people who believe in God
> > won't even divorce, why would there be any need for such laws?
> I can only assume that you contrasting commands and promises relates to
> some theology that I am not familiar with.
No. What I'm talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood from
the "10 questions" video, is that the video presents the question of why
christians divorce even though they have got married before God and people
pray for them. In other words, they are implying that if God existed, he
would not allow believers to get in such bad terms with each other that
they would divorce, and that the fact that christians divorce at the same
rate as non-christians is an indicative that there's no such God.
This is made even clearer at the end of the video where they give their
own "answer" to the question: Christians divorce at the same rate as anyone
else because there is no God who would stop them.
But that's petitio principii: They start with the *false* assumption that
christianity or the bible teaches that God stops believers from divorcing
each other. There is no such promise anywhere in the bible, nor is it the
teaching of any mainstrean christian church.
> > The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> > at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> > assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> > to divorce.
> Actually He wouldn't. He accepts it reluctantly only when one party has
> already broken it's vows.
I think there's a confusion here about the word "allow".
When I say "allow", I'm talking about what the video is talking about:
That God would actively stop believers from getting into such bad situations
where they want to get divorced. That's what the video is implying.
When you say "allow" you are talking about law: It's forbidden in the law
for people to divorce. That's not what I nor the video are talking about.
> > I suppose the correct answer to the question would be: "Because people
> > don't always follow God's will."
> And that is, I think, the point the guy is trying to make.
No it isn't. Watch the video more carefully. They are trying to insinuate
that if there was a christian God, he would stop believers from divorcing,
but since christians divorce at the same rate as non-christians, that's an
indicative that there is no God.
However, that's a false assumption.
> That God forbids it has zero effect on the Christians.
That only tells us that christans are not perfect. It doesn't tell us
that God doesn't exist, which is what the video is trying to say.
> > The answer the video gives to the question
> > is inconsequential.
> What answer? I didn't see one.
Did you even watch the video to the end? It's clearly there.
"Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
Because God is imaginary."
That answer is a complete non-sequitur.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> > at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> > assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> > to divorce.
> I think it's more the "if marriage is a holy gift from God, why don't those
> married in God's eyes have better marriages?"
In other words, it's basically the "why does God allow bad things to
happen?" question.
The answer the video offers to this question is "because God is imaginary",
which is a non-sequitur.
> I.e., it's more along the lines of "if you're not going to follow God's will
> in *your* marriages, what right do you have to impose God's will on the
> marriages of people who don't believe in your God to start with?"
That's not what the video is saying, nor even implying. The video is
purely questioning God's existence.
> > Even if all that is true, how does the "answer" given in the video, ie.
> > "God is imaginary", related to this? It doesn't make God imaginary if people
> > don't follow what the bible says.
> It makes God "imaginary" in the sense that God has no physical effect or
> cause any change in the world.
No, it only tells us that God doesn't affect all (or any) marriages.
No more.
> If nothing God commands comes to pass, why
> believe in God's ability to command things?
If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, does that
mean that your boss doesn't exist?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, let
> no man put asunder." Plus, of course, we have entire wars in Ireland and
> such over Catholic royalty trying to get divorced and such. Better to behead
> the wife than divorce her, because God doesn't like that.
> In this country, Christians fight hard to keep gay people from marrying
> because God doesn't like it. However, God apparently does nothing to help
> the Christians follow God's law either. It's the hypocracy being pointed out.
> Now, if you live in a country where Christians don't stick their fingers
> into the private lives on non-Christians, then sure.
I completely fail to see the relation between what you wrote above, and
the video being discussed here. That's certainly not the point the video
is presenting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined,
> > let no man put asunder."
> """
> Petitio principii. You assume that:
> * All christian marriages are caused by God.
> * God never allows two people to divorce.
> """
> You're also pulling a straw man here, btw. It's not necessary that *no*
> Christians get divorced. Only that a statistically valid deviance exists
> between those married in the eyes of a God who doesn't want divorces and
> those married in sin.
Congratulations: You just proved that God doesn't actively force people to
stay married. Of course you haven't proven anything about God's existence.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 21:49, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, let
>> no man put asunder." Plus, of course, we have entire wars in Ireland and
>> such over Catholic royalty trying to get divorced and such. Better to behead
>> the wife than divorce her, because God doesn't like that.
>
>> In this country, Christians fight hard to keep gay people from marrying
>> because God doesn't like it. However, God apparently does nothing to help
>> the Christians follow God's law either. It's the hypocracy being pointed out.
>
>> Now, if you live in a country where Christians don't stick their fingers
>> into the private lives on non-Christians, then sure.
>
> I completely fail to see the relation between what you wrote above, and
> the video being discussed here. That's certainly not the point the video
> is presenting.
It is background information. Why the video was made in the first place,
who it is addressing and why someone does not want to make an hour long
video with a balanced point of view that appeals to every person on this
earth. But you knew that already, so why am I even answering. Perhaps to
point out that you are taking this video literally and disregard it's
historical context? Nah, I wouldn't do such a thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> """
> Let me repeat: There's no such a thing as a "universal moral code".
> """
> I think that right there distinguishes you from the Christians at whom this
> video is aimed. You don't think Jesus' message is universal? You don't think
> the ten commandments apply to everyone? OK, then most folks who agree with
> that don't have a problem with your beliefs.
What I'm talking about is that whenever atheists attack the bible, they
seem to assume there exists an universal moral code accepted by the
majority, and then they proceed to show how the bible breaks this universal
moral code.
That's a shaky premise because there is no such a thing as a universal
moral code accepted by the majority.
For example, some people think that abortion is genocide, while other
people think it's acceptable. Whose moral code is the correct one here?
Whichever you choose, are you going to tell the others that their moral
code is wrong?
What about age of consent? Canada had until recently an age of consent
of 14. There are some countries which go as low as 12. On the other extreme,
there are some countries where it's 21. If one of the latter countries comes
and tells you that your country is depraved because they allow sex with
minors, are you going to tell them that their moral code is wrong? Why is
your moral code right?
Americans who advocate the death penalty have their own moral code about
that subject. Is their moral code wrong? Why?
There is no such thing as a "universal moral code". You can't argue that
something in the bible is universally "wrong" because there is no such
universal measure of what is right or wrong.
> """
> While some christians believe that, that doesn't automatically mean that
> christianity, as a religion, teaches that, or that (assuming God indeed
> exists) it's true.
> """
> And yet, that's exactly what Jesus tells people in the Bible, and that's the
> excuse some crazy people use for killing their children.
Jesus also tells people that their prayers don't get answered because
they don't have faith. The message seems clear to me: God does not answer
all prayers.
> """
> In internet parlance this is called trolling.
> """
> That's pretty insightful.
Well, they clearly don't want to discuss, they clearly don't want to
listen nor hear any answers. Their attitude is "whatever you say, you are
just rationalizing". In other words, they are simply and purely being
provocative.
In other words, they are trolling.
> The Bible has God promoting genocide, slavery, mass slaughter of
> infants, rape, etc.
That's a pure straw man.
If a history book tells us that the president of the US ordered a nuclear
bomb to be dropped in Japan, does that imply that this history book is
promoting genocide? Of course not. It's simply stating what happened. It's
not promoting anything.
If the bible says that God told some people to get rid of some nation,
is it promoting genocide? No, it's only stating that God told those people
to get rid of that nation. It's not giving permission for the readers to
go and murder someone. You might completely disagree with the *reasons*
stated in that passage why God gave this order, but that's not related to
whether the passage *promotes* doing it again and again.
Nobody has the right to say "hey, this passage tells about killing
people, thus I can go there and kill those people" because that's not
what the passage is telling. It's not giving permission to anybody to
do any such thing.
Of course some people will interpret such passages as they please, but
the bible is not the only text being abused like that, nor does being abused
tell anything about the veracity of the text.
You can ask "but *why* did God order killing those people?" That's a
different, theologically interesting question. You can disagree with any
answers if you want, but it still doesn't say anything about the existence
of God or the veracity of the text.
> Why is that good? Is it good because God does it? If
> not, isn't God doing bad? Or are you in agreement that slavery and genocide
> *can* be good?
> That last seems to be what you're arguing with your ice cream analogy.
You are now misinterpreting *my* writing. I didn't say that it's good.
I said that perhaps it's that we don't understand now what's going on
because we don't have all the info nor the necessary intellect and
experience. Just like the child may be unable to understand why he is
being denied things.
> > My point is that the *way* they are saying it is wrong because
> > they present a bunch of fallacious distorted arguments and outright straw
> > men, and then present questions and conclusions based directly on them.
> I think it's more like they're summarizing a whole bunch of well-known and
> extended arguments and presenting them as a monologue, so it comes across as
> a straw-man argument.
Those well-known arguments have their answers, which atheists simply refuse
to listen to, or consider in any way acceptable. They just dismiss anything
as "rationalizations", whatever it may be.
Some of the questions are truely complex and difficult. However, most of
the questions are trivial and have completely simple answers to them.
However, a bit like conspiracy theorists, they refuse to let go even of
the most ridiculous questions. Maybe the reasons are the same as with the
conspiracy theorists (ie. shotgun argumentation).
(Often they also choose the most ridiculous and misguided answers out
there, just to make fun of them and ridicule them. That is, to make straw
men out of them.)
> > Some christians understand that the bible uses a lot of metaphors and
> > similes, but they believe that the *message* these metaphors and similes
> > are expressing is true.
> But then they argue over which are literal, which are metaphors, and what
> those metaphors mean. And then they punish you for disagreeing with their
> evaluation.
Still doesn't say anything about the existence of God (which is the core
point of the video).
> > Of course you have to understand that it *is* a
> > metaphor, and what it is trying to say. (Naturally different people may
> > have different interpretations, which is why we have a myriad of different
> > churches, branches, sects and whatnot.)
> A myriad of different churches, branches, sects, explosions of airplanes,
> murders of abortion doctors, and beheadings of apostates.
Still not the point of the video.
> Then you're not the type of person this video is addressed to. :-)
Its straw men about what the bible is saying just bother me a lot.
That's why I wrote them that open letter. (And in fact, I got a polite
response from the website admin.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Many religious people are very tolerant. Problem is that you mainly hear
> the others.
I'm sorry, but I live in California, where they just passed an amendment to
the constitution to strip the right to marry from gay people. Now, *maybe*
it wasn't religious, and perhaps you can offer me an actual rational secular
reason why this happened.
Many religious people are tolerant. A majority of them around here are *not*.
>> When it's still the death penalty to change which prophet you believe
>> in large parts of the world, there's still good reason to argue it,
>> methinks.
>
> With China a nice example that a government can be atheist and still put
> people to death for having a religion with one or more gods.
From everything I've heard from people actually *in* China, one doesn't get
punished for being religious. One gets punished for using religion as an
excuse to advocate overthrow of the current government.
YMMV, but I have religious relatives in China, so maybe one of us is hearing
propaganda.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 21:41, Warp wrote:
> No. What I'm talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood from
> the "10 questions" video, is that the video presents the question of why
> christians divorce even though they have got married before God and people
> pray for them.
That is your interpretation. Although I might understand why you would
prefer that interpretation, I see no reason to change mine. Your and
mine sensitivities are very different, let's leave it at that.
> "Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
> Because God is imaginary."
>
> That answer is a complete non-sequitur.
Sorry, but you can not judge a video by what you decide is it's main
point. Nor is it your prerogative to decide for me what I should
consider the most important points.
About that quote: It *is* a non-sequitur and therefore I dismissed it as
of being of no value and I won't discuss any such nonsense that is not
defended by anyone here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> """
> Just because the same word, "slave", is used, doesn't automatically mean the
> situations were comparable.
> """
> OK, so you're of the feeling that slavery *can* be good and moral.
Assuming you understand what "slavery" means in the bible. It has little
to do with the slavery that happened eg. in the US in the past.
> Now, how
> about the genocide, rape and pillage attacks, and murder of thousands of
> innocent babies? :-)
How about death penalty in the US? Is it good and moral?
I don't know your stance on that subject (and you don't have to answer),
but moral codes are different for different people. If we assume that God
did indeed exist, then it may be plausible that *his* moral code may be
slightly different than ours. If God indeed created us, then he basically
owns us, and can do whatever he wants with us. You might not agree with it,
in the same way as the child doesn't agree with his father about what he
wants.
Also, just because God has the right to do whatever he pleases, that
doesn't mean *we* also have the right, without his express permission.
The "murder of innocent babies" might sound horrible to you, but consider
these two completely hypothetical situations (assuming God did indeed exist):
1) These babies are born to a depraved society where they may be raised
to hate, rape and kill people. (Usually when the bible tells about the
eradication of some people, it gives an indication of *why*.)
2) These babies go to heaven before seeing or learning anything bad, and
are happy everafter.
Maybe from your point of view situation #1 is preferable, but it might be
plausible that God considers situation #2 even more preferable, or at least
not that bad of an alternative.
And no, this still doesn't give anybody permission to murder anybody.
No person can be the judge of who deserves to live.
> """
> And what kind of evidence do you want?
> """
> So, Jesus brings people back from the dead, cures illness, has a lecture
> with thousands of people in attendance, and then comes back from the dead
> himself. Yet none of the scholars and historians of the day mention him, the
> head priest of the town where he overturns the tables of the money lenders
> mentions the event, and in the whole of historical documents, there's maybe
> one sentence that could be interpreted as a reference to Jesus, maybe.
Do you have any estimate of how much of humanity's history has been lost
forever? Written history is very fragile and gets destroyed very easily
(by accidents, by deterioration and by vandalism).
It's not completely implausible that only few records have survived.
> """
> Question #9: Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
> I can't believe how fast these "questions" are degrading in quality.
> What do you not understand about symbolism? Do you have some kind of
> difficulty in understanding metaphors?
> """
> Maybe you missed this story, wherein a student takes a piece of bread, and
> the priest is as upset as if Jesus himself was kidnapped:
I don't want to badmouth the Catholic church here, but suffice to say
that I don't agree with them, nor consider their intepretations of the
bible completely correct. (Which shouldn't be too surprising, as I'm from
a protestant country. Not that I consider myself "protestant" per se.)
> Just be glad you don't live in the religious nuthouse that's America these
> days. When the religious leaders don't understand the metaphor, and are
> ready to shoot at you for kidnapping Jesus himself, then this question makes
> complete sense.
It doesn't make any sense when it's presented as an argument that God is
imaginary (rather than that some christians are crazy).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
