A challenge: debate the issue of religion with yours truly

Page 5 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

16 Apr 2012, 10:04 am

Lukecash12 wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
And what makes you so special? Bull stubborn Christians who plant their feet and take on an attitude of, "you can't change my faith" and think that constitutes "winning a debate" are a dime-a-dozen. You would be worth having a discussion with if you could provide us with an interesting and refreshing perspective on Christianity. However, if all you intend to do is see how far you can go in playing rhetorical dodgeball, you are a waste of everybody's time. Present us with some evidence that you deserve to be taken seriously.

Also, I'm not your ordinary atheist. In fact, ordinary atheists find me appalling.


1. Nothing makes me all that special, but I do happen to be an expert in biblical scholarship and apologetics (making a rational case for Christian faith). I don't mean to boast.

2. I don't think that not having my faith changed constitutes having won a debate. When I have presented better arguments than my interlocutor, and only then, will I have won a debate.

3. Evidence that I deserve to be taken seriously? Well, I can list a few things that might peak your interest:

I have a working knowledge of the classical languages, being able to read and explain texts written in Koine Greek, biblical Hebrew, biblical Aramaic, classical Latin, and Arabic. I regularly read doctoral dissertations on the subject of history. I am up to date on philosophy, including natural philosophy (better known as science), all the way from the earliest Greek philosophers up to today, from Aristotle's Posterior Analytics to Arvin, Guth, and Borde's recent physics paper on inflationary models of the universe. I am capable of, and would enjoy, presenting arguments in the form of propositional equations. I have been classically trained in all other academic respects.

But those claims are empty until I demonstrate my knowledge, aren't they?
Alright. However, before we get into the discussion, I need to establish a few things, and some of these ideas might be new to you.

1) I consider the Bereishit and the Enuma Elish to be different versions of the same story. Furthermore, Eve and Ishtar/Inanna are the same person.

2) I not only consider the flood story to be perfectly feasible, but I actually think that it coincides with the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis.

3) I am working on a hypothesis for an antediluvian religion, and I think that we might be able to piece some of it together based on careful study of the remnants of it remaining in cultures to which elements of it may have been transmitted.

4) I think it's a credible hypothesis that Paul the Apostle may have introduced elements of Tengriism into Christianity. What gives rise to this belief is not only his Turkish origin but his belief that being stricken with what, from his description, sounds like it might have been a severe migraine attack meant that he had been called upon to become a spiritual leader. The migraine hypothesis is supported by later complaints by Paul of being tormented by a "thorn." In fact, the idea that migraines and related illnesses have some spiritual significance is referred to in the Hippocratic Writings, specifically in "On the Sacred Disease," in which the writer attempts to debunk the idea.

5) I regard the primary books of the Old Testament as peripheral to historical events in the primary cultures of the time period. For example, I think that it is far more important that Babylon threw off the yoke of Assyrian rule than anything that might have been happening in Israel, and I think that Israel is more important for its role in the rise of Cyrus the Great than unto itself. Israel was just another chip in the great game.

6) I consider the Book of Leviticus, the Book of Numbers and the Book of Deuteronomy to be treasure troves of ancient medical know-how. If you take it on faith that the priesthood endeavored to produce serious medicine and sensible hygienic standards, it quickly becomes self-evident that these ancient thinkers really had a lot more on the ball than they are given credit for...especially by Christians, who are trigger-happy about trying to reduce their teachings to mystical symbolic balderdash.

7) Overall, I consider the Bible to actually be a highly interesting book.

Now, I establish the above ideas because it ought to give you an insight as to my view of the Bible, not necessarily because I have a strong desire to discuss those issues here. I believe that the above suggests that I have a fairly comprehensive view of the wider subject of the roots and nature of human spiritual culture. Therefore, since I don't know where you would like to begin with our discussion, allow me to pick a starting point for our discussion.

I will start out by addressing your belief that Jesus or anyone else actually "rose from the dead." You might find my views on this to be surprising.

In fact, it is far more remarkable to consider death to be a true, final and thorough extinction of a person's consciousness than to believe that our consciousness either remains intact within our bodies or departs from our bodies, intact. Because we regard our consciousness as an object or substance, the most natural and reflexive question to occur to our minds is simply, "where does it go?" Therefore, the core of the conceptual issue is the treatment of thought as something that has a substance of some sort.

I am going to make a bold claim, then: my consciousness does not actually exist at all. The reason that I can get away with saying this is that consciousness is a property of something, not a thing unto itself. A conscious body, a round hole, a square structure, a succulent steak, et al.. To say that "consciousness" survives after a body has been rendered incapable of being conscious is like saying that the "squareness" of a structure continues to exist after it has been destroyed. This is a philosophical issue that we have been arguing over for centuries, actually.

The reason that this is important to the subject of "resurrection" is that, if the above be accepted, the thing that supposedly happened to Jesus was that he was rendered dead, and then he was restored to being alive. Consider this akin to knocking down a building and then rebuilding it as it was previously. A building is not just the obvious, visible structure, but it has myriad joists, supports and so-on that go into its making. Therefore, to rebuild a structure as it was before, one would have to have the plans that went into building it in the first place, and one would also have to restore any changes that had occurred since its completion. One would have to somehow restore the patina of the wood to what it was prior to the building's destruction.

Now, what actually happens during death is really quite catastrophic. Your brain cells explode, and internal hemorrhaging wrecks the important connections between them. Your body is altered in a very drastic way. All of your memories from your childhood are simply gone. In order to restore your consciousness to what it once was, the restoration architect doing the work on your mind would have to know every connection within your central nervous system at the time of your death, right down to the last neuron.

Therefore, for us to accept the idea of a resurrection, we would have to invent a new entity that would have had to be involved in doing this work. The reason that this creates a difficulty is that we cannot simply assume that there was any such entity, but it needs to be validated independently of what it supposedly was involved in doing. You can't just say, "God would have been needed for Jesus to have been resurrected from the dead, therefore Jesus was resurrected from the dead." That just doesn't work. On the other hand, I do take it on faith that your own argument is much more sophisticated, and I am quite anxious to hear it.

On the other hand, we can explain the story of the resurrection of Jesus thusly, without having to introduce any new entities at all: the story is false. It is very well possible for a large number of people to have believed that this event actually occurred without it ever having actually happened.

What is your explanation, then?



Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 16 Apr 2012, 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

16 Apr 2012, 10:50 am

I am back. Not everyone is online 24/7.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Define 'creator'. Do you have a scientific theory of creation? Otherwise your 'creator' is just nonsense gibberish.

A scientific theory of creation really isn't necessary at all.

Why not? If 'god created the universe' were true, then we don't need to think about multi-universe, Hartle-Hawking model, etc. - God did it replaces all of them. Why shouldn't 'God did it' subject to the same level of analysis?

Fundamentally, the origin of the universe is a scientific problem. Saying 'god did it' is philosophical is just special pleading.

Quote:
And given that many details are made-up whole cloth in a theological system, it's pretty fine.

Quote:
and precision and formalism simply arise in response to the need for precision and formalism. This whole "You can't define something well analytically, therefore your position fails" technique is just mind-numbingly bad, and doesn't really address the problems with a theory, but rather the inherent difficulties in analytical definitions.

His uses of the terms are absolutely fine UNTIL you bring up a real philosophical issue that causes a problem.

You are defeating yourself. If these theological utterances are made-up whole cloth, then they are not common language.

Quote:
Not only that, but his use of "creator" is going to go very much in line with pre-existing definitions.

That is the problem. How is the condition of the universe 13.7 billions years ago supposed to be like? Is is really true that the condition of the universe is 13.7 billions years ago sufficiently comparable to the universe around us that word 'creation' make common sense? Do you really think we can understand these with just 'sloppy common language'? The bundle of proof lies in the one proposing the theory.

Quote:
Binary, the long-story-short is that your very approach fundamentally misunderstands how language works. Human language and human cognition simply don't work in clear-cut analytical frameworks, but rather human beings are naturally sloppy in their uses,

That is why many 'philosophical arguments' fail once the definitions are clarified. You have seen my refutation of the Kalam and Ontological arguments (and the OP seems to be using Kalam).



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Apr 2012, 11:25 am

01001011 wrote:
Why not? If 'god created the universe' were true, then we don't need to think about multi-universe, Hartle-Hawking model, etc. - God did it replaces all of them. Why shouldn't 'God did it' subject to the same level of analysis?

Maybe, but it wouldn't really be a scientific analysis given that science is in practice naturalistic.

Quote:
You are defeating yourself. If these theological utterances are made-up whole cloth, then they are not common language.

Fiction is made-up whole cloth. Fiction uses common language. Frankly, I am not saying EVERY TERM is made up, I'm simply admitting that theological systems don't have pre-known limitations in what they can express.

Quote:
That is the problem. How is the condition of the universe 13.7 billions years ago supposed to be like? Is is really true that the condition of the universe is 13.7 billions years ago sufficiently comparable to the universe around us that word 'creation' make common sense? Do you really think we can understand these with just 'sloppy common language'? The bundle of proof lies in the one proposing the theory.

The burden of proof only requires that the other side proves things contested with good reason, not literally EVERY DEFINITION. I agree with you on your point of 13.7 billion years ago, but "define creator" is pretty much just foolishness without context. There has to be a reason given why a more common sensical definition won't work. In this case, it is the problems regarding the nature of time, which should be better expressed with a directed question. (Even then, it's arguable to the extent this impacts the term "creator" beyond how it impacts the nature of causation given the situation, but that's a matter currently debated.)

Quote:
That is why many 'philosophical arguments' fail once the definitions are clarified. You have seen my refutation of the Kalam and Ontological arguments (and the OP seems to be using Kalam).

I've seen your confusions, yes.

Frankly, the philosophers are sufficiently clear, even analytical, in both arguments you mentioned. They can even express their points in symbolic logic.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

16 Apr 2012, 12:41 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I've seen your confusions, yes.

Frankly, the philosophers are sufficiently clear, even analytical, in both arguments you mentioned. They can even express their points in symbolic logic.


You are the one who is confusing clear, 'analytical' definitions and long definitions with lots of technical terms and / or symbols. Once the defintions are clarified, their premises are clearly false or baseless assertions.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Apr 2012, 12:47 pm

01001011 wrote:
You are the one who is confusing clear, 'analytical' definitions and long definitions with lots of technical terms and / or symbols. Once the defintions are clarified, their premises are clearly false or baseless assertions.

No, I am confusing nothing.

I agree, that the premises are not very compelling once one examines them, but your efforts don't clear everything away very well. You'd do a lot better with more common sense in interpretation, and asking questions just to clarify the problems as you see them.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Apr 2012, 3:57 pm

Luke, a global flood and a black sea deluge are two different things. Please specify exactly what you mean: a bad local flood, along the lines of what Pakistan recently experienced or even what happened in the Pacific Northwest of North America in geologically recent times with the breaking of the ice dam, or a global flood that was survived by one extended human family and 2-6 specimens of every type of animal on the planet.

here's a hint: if it's the latter, I will destroy you. I'm a biologist, so not great at the esoteric philosophical debates like AG, but I am well-enough versed in geology, genetics, physiology, and species distribution to shred every global-flood theorist I've ever encountered.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

16 Apr 2012, 4:03 pm

Can someone explain to me how creation evolved?


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

16 Apr 2012, 4:48 pm

snapcap wrote:
Can someone explain to me how creation evolved?
That is a good question. We could postulate for decades about how human beings developed the idea that the world was created by some guy, but it would be very speculative.

The only postulation that I could arrive at would be that it's more memory efficient for us to employ metaphor and personification. Take the Enuma Elish, for example: Tiamat and Apsu are obviously not actual gods or monstrosities, but Tiamat refers to salty water from the ocean while Apsu refers to fresh water that rises out of springs or can be found in some places by digging. The Enuma Elish says:

"When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,..."


Look, this story probably was told in a more dry, factual format, and it was promptly forgotten. Why? Because the way that Enuma Elish is told makes it easier to remember. Comprehending the doings of inanimate objects and inanimate matter is a secondary mental function. Comprehending the doings of people and of beasts takes greater precedence. Not only does this form of transmission make a lot of sense, but any other form of transmission would have been idiotic.

Now, comprehend this idea: the story of Adam and Eve refers to the use of contraceptives. The same applies to Inanna. The fruit in question was probably the pomegranate, the wild form of which had high levels of phytoestrogen that would have been more than sufficient to induce menstruation in large doses. Therefore, consider Eve to be a representation of women taking control over their reproduction, enabling them to engage in the act of sex purely for carnal gratification. Woman had lost her special status as a sacred bearer of children, but she could also be seen as something that was fun to use for selfish, short-sighted reasons, no strings attached.

But it doesn't make sense to transmit the knowledge in a purely factual format. It would have been futile and stupid. The only way that the story would ever make it through a multitude of generations would have been to fabricate a story that portrays the idea in a way that makes it interesting to hear and interesting to tell. To do otherwise would be simply stupid.

Therefore, creationism does have value. It just doesn't have the kind of value that a fundamentalist Christian believes it has. Mainline Christians and moderate/conservative Christians in general ought to regard themselves as guardians of our cultural heritage. They are transmitters of ancient knowledge. They are carriers of the long-term memory of Man. It just makes them really mad when someone points out that it's actually metaphorical poppycock, and this is only fun to do when one of them individually becomes annoying.



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

16 Apr 2012, 11:53 pm

I'll be back in this thread shortly. Tomorrow I'll probably pick apart the AG post on Christian ethics and various doctrinal problems, then I'll get to the issues of the flood, the KCA, Paul's influences, back to the idea of a resurrection, etc.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

17 Apr 2012, 12:31 am

Lukecash12 wrote:
Consider this an invitation, to criticize theism and Christianity in particular. Give me everything you've got. Ready to step into the big leagues? I anticipate your arguments; why don't we see if you can teach me a thing or two? People with Asperger's syndrome tend to be intelligent folk, right?

But let's go one step further: go ahead and roast theism and Christianity. Roast them and roast me. Care to take the dare?


I would be happy to. Prove that Christianity is correct. Scrap that. Just prove that a deity with all of the major characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God exists. Then I will show you where you are going wrong. I'm assuming you would assert that the Christian God exists. If so, you have to prove it.

My argument is that the Christian God is not logically necessarily or possible and thus doesn't exist. If you except the rules of logic, namely indirect proofs, then I can actually prove that the Christian God cannot exist. Of course, I don't have to because it's up to you to prove that the Christian God does, in fact, exist.

Basically, the existence of the Christian God necessarily results in numerous contradictions. Therefore, according to the rules of logic, I can rightly assert the opposite "The Judeo-Christian God does not exist." I don't know what everyone has been writing for all of these pages but its not all that complicated.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

17 Apr 2012, 5:22 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
You'd do a lot better with more common sense in interpretation, and asking questions just to clarify the problems as you see them.


That is the case for other problems but not theology. Really the whole business of apologetic since some 300 CE is about constructing 'arguments' with more and more convoluted jargon and then make them look reasonable to the intuition. It is doubtful if the theist parroting them or even the apologist posing them understand what they are talking about. In any case to properly assess their premises and arguments, one has to clarify essential all terms involved.

In the example of creation, when we say ordinary creation, say 'The Romans created a city', we can compare that with people building houses and moving to a place. These are all natural processes within the universe and it is clear how people, which are physical objects are involved. On the hand the universe as a whole is very different form our daily objects, and the theists are talking about some 'non-natural' 'processes', which is 'outside time'. Really, nothing about this 'creation' can be compared with our common sense. The problem of time is just a small illustration of how wrong our intuition is.



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

18 Apr 2012, 10:43 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
snapcap wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Now for my more serious beliefs....humanity is an experiment


Know thyself.

A mantra the governments learned that was wise to consider.


The governments of the world aren't the ones doing the experimenting...they aren't the ones that have been playing with genetics since the beginning of time on this planet. But yes humanity is an experiment, will humanity bring about it's own doom or not? what happens will effect the state of the universe.

But yeah I still have more to learn about these things, so forgive me if this is vague......if it sounds insane well, it can't sound anymore insane than most theological beliefs.


So where did you happen upon these beliefs? Nordic are they?



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

18 Apr 2012, 10:53 pm

Sorry Luke, but you're god doesn't exist. Wake up! He is just a conspiracy that is being used against you and you are propagating the same conspiracy unto others. For as long as you do this, the conspiracy will continue. Because others will do to you as you are doing to them. What you really must do is set others free and stop this sillyness and self deprecation. You have been tricked into it by people who don't even believe. You have been susceptible to it b/c you are probably a loner and have some social problems that people are afraid of. So it's time to give it up and grow out of your problems. I suggest reading:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf195976-0-75.html

I've done a pretty good job of disillusioning people I think.



webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

18 Apr 2012, 11:08 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
snapcap wrote:
Can someone explain to me how creation evolved?
That is a good question. We could postulate for decades about how human beings developed the idea that the world was created by some guy, but it would be very speculative.

The only postulation that I could arrive at would be that it's more memory efficient for us to employ metaphor and personification. Take the Enuma Elish, for example: Tiamat and Apsu are obviously not actual gods or monstrosities, but Tiamat refers to salty water from the ocean while Apsu refers to fresh water that rises out of springs or can be found in some places by digging. The Enuma Elish says:

"When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,..."




A woman's "water" breaks when she has a kid. When waters mingle it is talking about sex. So Tiamat and Apsu mated and Lahmu and Lahamu were born. These were the children of Tiamat and Apsu. This religion is no different than what we have today, if anything, this was just the alpha release and we are now on either 2.0 or 3.0.

Quote:

Look, this story probably was told in a more dry, factual format, and it was promptly forgotten. Why? Because the way that Enuma Elish is told makes it easier to remember. Comprehending the doings of inanimate objects and inanimate matter is a secondary mental function. Comprehending the doings of people and of beasts takes greater precedence. Not only does this form of transmission make a lot of sense, but any other form of transmission would have been idiotic.


The Enuma Elish is written the way it was to see who would believe it. Back then there were people who weren't educated and this is how they were identified. Essentially, religion of this period allowed people to know who was from the city and who was from a tribe. If you believed that Tiamat was a chaos serpent, then you lacked the culture of the city. It was a way of keeping track of people in large populations. People who knew then that it was a BS story wouldn't get it confused with all the other important things they were doing like developing agriculture and building methods.

Quote:
Now, comprehend this idea: the story of Adam and Eve refers to the use of contraceptives. The same applies to Inanna. The fruit in question was probably the pomegranate, the wild form of which had high levels of phytoestrogen that would have been more than sufficient to induce menstruation in large doses. Therefore, consider Eve to be a representation of women taking control over their reproduction, enabling them to engage in the act of sex purely for carnal gratification. Woman had lost her special status as a sacred bearer of children, but she could also be seen as something that was fun to use for selfish, short-sighted reasons, no strings attached.

But it doesn't make sense to transmit the knowledge in a purely factual format. It would have been futile and stupid. The only way that the story would ever make it through a multitude of generations would have been to fabricate a story that portrays the idea in a way that makes it interesting to hear and interesting to tell. To do otherwise would be simply stupid.

Therefore, creationism does have value. It just doesn't have the kind of value that a fundamentalist Christian believes it has. Mainline Christians and moderate/conservative Christians in general ought to regard themselves as guardians of our cultural heritage. They are transmitters of ancient knowledge. They are carriers of the long-term memory of Man. It just makes them really mad when someone points out that it's actually metaphorical poppycock, and this is only fun to do when one of them individually becomes annoying.


This pomegranate theory is interesting. I'll have to see about that. Though someone told me that sex during menstration could permanently prevent children due to the presence of immune cells in the blood. I still have to look this one up.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Apr 2012, 1:02 am

^'no sex during mensturation making women infertile' is absolutely BS. Some women can even get pregnant from having sex while they're menstruating, if their cycles are very irregular.



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

26 Apr 2012, 1:56 am

It seems that I don't have the time and energy I need lately to do what I'd like to do in this thread. Sorry about that. I'm not sure when I'll be back with more material here, but I certainly will at some point.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib