| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2007 03:43:23 PM · #626 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You stated the term "devout believers" when I think you really "followers"? Do you deny that is what you really meant? My clarification for accuracy was wrong? |
I meant devout believers- exactly what I wrote. You may have confused my post with some religious text that requires proper interpretation.
Originally posted by Flash:
You want to use a single example of "a man sacrificing his son" when the truth is that it was Abraham and his son representing God and Jesus for the purpose of illustration and teaching within the sacrificial context of the Israelites. Abraham/Isaac/death survived = God/Jesus/resurection. |
More interpretation? Rather than answer the question, you go off on a tangent about eggs and dismiss that part of the bible as a fictional story meant to foretell a coming event to the Israelites. I'm not sure what the purpose would be ("something like this will happen in the future to save all your Israelite souls... meanwhile you're screwed"), but I've certainly grown accustomed to such dodgeball posts. PS- who's to say that the latter story isn't also fiction for the purpose of illustrating a still later event? |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 03:47:45 PM · #627 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It wasn't people who came up with it as sinning. It was God's word. |
Correction: unless God was sitting at a golden desk, quill in hand, it was still people who claimed it was God's word. Using major religions that trace their origins back to the the same Old Testament stories is a fallacy of numbers. I could point out that most sex abuse committed by members of the clergy is same-sex, but it would be a similarly meaningless statistic in this context.
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 15:53:01. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 03:50:06 PM · #628 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It wasn't people who came up with it as sinning. It was God's word. |
No, it was people, who also happened to have invented God. See, I can talk in absolutes to no purpose too.
Originally posted by Flash:
The same word aparently spoken to Mohamed, as Islam is much more strict with the interpretation that modern day Christianity. I doubt that it is a condoned practice in Judiasm, or other world religions. |
So? Leaving aside that for all intents and purposes, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all derive from the same historical source, what difference does it make? Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post regarding moral code and majority view. A majority view does not mean the corresponding moral code is a good way to live. Sometimes, it is an abominable way to live, and antithetical to the basic premise of eschewing suffering for oneself and everyone else.
Originally posted by Flash:
Therefore, unless you specifically mean that man wrote down the word of God, thus man was the one who defined homosexuality as a sin. |
Obviously that's what I'm saying. People also define this extremely loose notion of "sin" as well.
Originally posted by Flash:
But to ask believers to not believe, based upon your specific example, is akin to asking them to ignore what is written. |
I'm not asking anything of anybody. I don't care what you believe. You can believe in leprechauns for all I care, so long as it stays inside your head and doesn't begin impinging itself on my life or the lives of others. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:01:38 PM · #629 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
You stated the term "devout believers" when I think you really "followers"? Do you deny that is what you really meant? My clarification for accuracy was wrong? |
I meant devout believers- exactly what I wrote. You may have confused my post with some religious text that requires proper interpretation.
Originally posted by Flash:
You want to use a single example of "a man sacrificing his son" when the truth is that it was Abraham and his son representing God and Jesus for the purpose of illustration and teaching within the sacrificial context of the Israelites. Abraham/Isaac/death survived = God/Jesus/resurection. |
More interpretation? Rather than answer the question, you go off on a tangent about eggs and dismiss that part of the bible as a fictional story meant to foretell a coming event to the Israelites. I'm not sure what the purpose would be ("something like this will happen in the future to save all your Israelite souls... meanwhile you're screwed"), but I've certainly grown accustomed to such dodgeball posts. PS- who's to say that the latter story isn't also fiction for the purpose of illustrating a still later event? |
Highly unlikely I would confuse your relpys with replicating religious text. However, interpretation of your writing is much needed. Its hard to wade through the slime and muck to get to the clear water.
Again you ignore a request for a crucial definition. Murder must be defined completely. Victims must be defined completely. Your dismisal by refrencing my points as tangents is representative of your argument style. Selective.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:11:21 PM · #630 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
The same word aparently spoken to Mohamed, as Islam is much more strict with the interpretation that modern day Christianity. I doubt that it is a condoned practice in Judiasm, or other world religions. |
So? Leaving aside that for all intents and purposes, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all derive from the same historical source, what difference does it make? Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post regarding moral code and majority view. A majority view does not mean the corresponding moral code is a good way to live. Sometimes, it is an abominable way to live, and antithetical to the basic premise of eschewing suffering for oneself and everyone else. |
I agree with you that a majorities view is not necessarily the correct view. Lots of majority opinions have been proven wrong throughout history. I would have to ask myself in this instant case though, why does every major religion, see some actions in the same light. A) could be because that are all wrong. B) could be that they are right. Hmmm, if I look at the world around me and see what "normal" is, I see opposite sexes, procreating. I do see "some" examples of same sex cohabitation. For me it becomes a philosophical question not a religious one. What is man's purpose? If procreation is contained in the answer, then the "natural" order would require opposite sex partners. Unless you are an ameoba.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:15:32 PM · #631 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'm trying to avoid this thread but it's like a soap opera...
What the heck is a materialist? I make quilts... does that count? |
I think I see why Louis objects. We have different ideas about what materialism represents.
I am using materialism to define a belief that "the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter." (that's from the Wiki). It is in contrast to dualism (I won't link the wiki because it's less helpful getting into all sorts of ways the term "dualism" is applied) which would allow for a separate reality where things like free will, the soul, and God can exist apart from matter.
As I see it, an atheist would reject all such concepts such as the soul on the same grounds they reject God (their unprovable nature). Therefore I see atheists as subscribing to materialism. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:22:14 PM · #632 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Again you ignore a request for a crucial definition. |
Ignore? No, I gave you the opportunity to provide your own definition. Go for it. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:23:41 PM · #633 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
What the heck is a materialist? I make quilts... does that count? |
It means that only matter exists and it's various forms and nothing else. Basically, what science has backed up. The imaginationists or science fictionists (i.e. theists) imagine that there is more than just matter. Sorry the atheists seem to get all the labels so just trying to even things out a bit. :P
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:40:13 PM · #634 |
Originally posted by Flash:
why does every major religion, see some actions in the same light. A) could be because that are all wrong. B) could be that they are right. Hmmm, if I look at the world around me and see what "normal" is... |
Like slavery, and if you looked at the world around you in the 18th century to see what was normal, you would see a lot of slaves. Could be C) that their source material all derived from the same stories several thousand years ago and have been continually reinterpreted to fit new human-defined social norms ever since. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:43:51 PM · #635 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'm trying to avoid this thread but it's like a soap opera...
What the heck is a materialist? I make quilts... does that count? |
I think I see why Louis objects. We have different ideas about what materialism represents.
I am using materialism to define a belief that "the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter." (that's from the Wiki). It is in contrast to dualism (I won't link the wiki because it's less helpful getting into all sorts of ways the term "dualism" is applied) which would allow for a separate reality where things like free will, the soul, and God can exist apart from matter.
As I see it, an atheist would reject all such concepts such as the soul on the same grounds they reject God (their unprovable nature). Therefore I see atheists as subscribing to materialism. |
I think you have it wrong or haven't spent enough time with atheists. The atheists I know reject such things because they are man made concepts, pull out of thin air with no evidence to back it up, much like how you would react if I told you about the flying spagetti monster and it's noodly abilities. Does that make you a materialist when you reject thousands of other types of gods?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:48:07 PM · #636 |
Materialism definitions:
n.
1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.
\From the American Heritage Dictionary
Brief discussion of materialism:
materialism
Generally: belief that all that matters is material welfare, as opposed to spiritual or other ideals. Specifically: Marx and Engels developed what they called ‘historical materialism’ and ‘dialectical materialism’ in reaction to the idealism of earlier nineteenth-century thinkers, especially Hegel. Since the seventeenth century, thinkers had been divided between those who insisted that, put crudely, physical matter is all there is, and those who gave an independent role to mind. A clear example of the first is Hobbes, whose mechanical conception of nature (so labelled in an important study by F. Brandt, 1928) led him to claim, for instance, that our sensations of colour derived wholly from the coloured object we saw and not from anything in our minds. A clear example of the second was Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753), famous for his scepticism that we could prove that anything existed outside our mental images of it. Hegel sided with Berkeley, and Marx and Engels with Hobbes.
Marx wrote: ‘My investigation led to the result that legal relations as well as forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the so-called general development of the human mind, but rather have their roots in the material conditions of human life . . . . It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness’ (Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859). This is Marx's historical materialism. It states that ideology, aesthetics, ideas about ethics and religion, and so on, are all parts of the superstructure, while economic relations are the base (see also base/superstructure). This idea has been widely criticized as self-refuting—if ideas are superstructural, how could the middle-class intellectual Marx and the capitalist Engels have developed Marxism?—but has been ably defended in G. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1979).
Dialectical materialism is more associated with Engels. Briefly, this is historical materialism made dynamic. It includes the idea that each stage of society except the last contains the seeds of its own destruction, so that capitalism emerged out of feudalism and socialism will emerge out of capitalism.
/from the Oxford University Press
For starters...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 05:03:12 PM · #637 |
| Blurgh. Do theists equate atheists with materialists because of writers like Karl Marx then? |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 05:15:58 PM · #638 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Blurgh. Do theists equate atheists with materialists because of writers like Karl Marx then? |
Not this one at least. I equate an atheist with a materialist because of Bear's #1 definition above: "1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." I would guess that you would agree with that statement. At least that's what I'd guess an atheist would think. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 05:28:11 PM · #639 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Blurgh. Do theists equate atheists with materialists because of writers like Karl Marx then? |
Not this one at least. I equate an atheist with a materialist because of Bear's #1 definition above: "1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." I would guess that you would agree with that statement. At least that's what I'd guess an atheist would think. |
Yeah, I'd agree with that. It's important for me to add "ultimately explained" since I acknowledge that we don't know everything. I don't believe in resorting to what amounts to supernatural assumptions when empirical data isn't available. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 05:31:38 PM · #640 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Blurgh. Do theists equate atheists with materialists because of writers like Karl Marx then? |
Not this one at least. I equate an atheist with a materialist because of Bear's #1 definition above: "1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." I would guess that you would agree with that statement. At least that's what I'd guess an atheist would think. |
Why do you come to the conclusion that is how an atheist would think? Atheist don't have a bible so what are you basing this on? Did you see my post earlier? What makes you any different from an atheist when you reject the flying spagetti monster? Or am I wrong and you think one might exist?
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 17:32:49.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 05:42:05 PM · #641 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Blurgh. Do theists equate atheists with materialists because of writers like Karl Marx then? |
Not this one at least. I equate an atheist with a materialist because of Bear's #1 definition above: "1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." I would guess that you would agree with that statement. At least that's what I'd guess an atheist would think. |
Why do you come to the conclusion that is how an atheist would think? Atheist don't have a bible so what are you basing this on? Did you see my post earlier? What makes you any different from an atheist when you reject the flying spagetti monster? Or am I wrong and you think one might exist? |
No, I don't think the flying spagetti monster exists, but I do believe in a worldview that could allow for a flying spagetti monster (assuming she isn't made up of matter). An atheist, I think, not only rejects the FSM, but also rejects the logical possibility of such an entity. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 06:01:02 PM · #642 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An atheist, I think, not only rejects the FSM, but also rejects the logical possibility of such an entity. |
So where does the materialism come in? I say an atheist rejects it because the concept is illogical and there's not an ounce of evidence to prove otherwise so they don't believe. You seem to be saying they reject it because of their philosophy that only matter exists and therefore since god isn't made of matter (or so say man) god doesn't exist. I don't know of one atheist who says that.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, I don't think the flying spagetti monster exists, but I do believe in a worldview that could allow for a flying spagetti monster (assuming she isn't made up of matter). |
I'm not sure I follow you.
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 18:02:57.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 06:32:56 PM · #643 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An atheist, I think, not only rejects the FSM, but also rejects the logical possibility of such an entity. |
So where does the materialism come in? I say an atheist rejects it because the concept is illogical and there's not an ounce of evidence to prove otherwise so they don't believe. You seem to be saying they reject it because of their philosophy that only matter exists and therefore since god isn't made of matter (or so say man) god doesn't exist. I don't know of one atheist who says that.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, I don't think the flying spagetti monster exists, but I do believe in a worldview that could allow for a flying spagetti monster (assuming she isn't made up of matter). |
I'm not sure I follow you. |
I'm not sure I follow you either. Atheists may reject God for many reasons, but if they thought about it, one would be that he is not part of the physical world. Take a different example, a materialist (I'm switching over to that term) would reject a lucky person because there isn't any logical way to explain it through physical processes. It's easier to dismiss luck by this means than by "lack of evidence" since lots of people will be willing to provide anecdotal evidence as to "lucky" people.
Another possible way to see my point is to ask why you think the FSM to be "illogical". Were you using that term in its real sense, or did you just mean "silly". If you meant the first, explain why the FSM is not a logical possibility. You will likely invoke materialism to do so.
As far as my second statement, it would be akin to a materialist and bigfoot. While a materialist can reject bigfoot because there is no evidence for him, his worldview would allow for the possibility (assuming bigfoot would be a real biological organism we just haven't captured). The FSM is the same for a dualist. I don't have to believe in her, but my worldview allows for the possibility.
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 18:35:06. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 07:44:54 PM · #644 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Atheists may reject God for many reasons, but if they thought about it, one would be that he is not part of the physical world. Take a different example, a materialist (I'm switching over to that term) would reject a lucky person because there isn't any logical way to explain it through physical processes. It's easier to dismiss luck by this means than by "lack of evidence" since lots of people will be willing to provide anecdotal evidence as to "lucky" people. |
I would say luck is easily explained in the physical sense. Our world is a very complex machine made up of so many parts both large and small most of which we cannot see easily (air, atoms, gravity, etc). Luck can be described as an event that occurs and we notice as having either a benefit or non-benefit to us and is the result of our interactions with the world around us. For example, say you're hiking and out of the blue a very large rock falls and just misses you. That event is very easily explained in physical terms. The rock fell because of the effects of gravity and it missed you because you weren't in the path of it. I would say you are lucky even if I was a materalist. Perhaps you meant luck in the sense of a "divine gift", luck with purpose? That I'm sure both atheist and materialists would take exception to and so would the agnostic since again there is no evidence for it.
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 22:33:39.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 09:59:19 PM · #645 |
| Appreciate the definitions, though I think the spelling should be changed to "matterialism" to prevent confusion. I do believe in luck, of the bad variety. Some people get more than their fair share of it. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 10:24:57 PM · #646 |
Luck, good or bad, simply depends on which side of the curve your outcome lies.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 10:40:50 PM · #647 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Luck, good or bad, simply depends on which side of the curve your outcome lies. |
I always wonder about sports announcers who wish both coaches good luck before the game. Isn't one's good fortune the other's unlucky break? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:11:12 AM · #648 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Luck, good or bad, simply depends on which side of the curve your outcome lies. |
I always wonder about sports announcers who wish both coaches good luck before the game. Isn't one's good fortune the other's unlucky break? |
Hmmm. Perhaps it's a backhanded way of demonstrating neutrality.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:43:09 AM · #649 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An atheist, I think, not only rejects the FSM, but also rejects the logical possibility of such an entity. |
So where does the materialism come in? I say an atheist rejects it because the concept is illogical and there's not an ounce of evidence to prove otherwise so they don't believe. You seem to be saying they reject it because of their philosophy that only matter exists and therefore since god isn't made of matter (or so say man) god doesn't exist. I don't know of one atheist who says that. |
An atheist generall lives his/her life like everyone else, minus all the religious stuff like going temples, churches and things of that nature. they generally do not hate religion, but they merely do not have interest or belief in the gods that religions promote. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:11:13 AM · #650 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
why does every major religion, see some actions in the same light. A) could be because that are all wrong. B) could be that they are right. Hmmm, if I look at the world around me and see what "normal" is... |
Like slavery, and if you looked at the world around you in the 18th century to see what was normal, you would see a lot of slaves. Could be C) that their source material all derived from the same stories several thousand years ago and have been continually reinterpreted to fit new human-defined social norms ever since. |
You think slavery was an 18th century "normalcy"? 800,000 persons each year are enslaved today. Every country is impacted, either by selling or buying. Many do both.
Please see attached links - offered by a multitide of sources so if you don't like Bush's State Department report, perhaps you'll read NPR's, or CBS's or CBC's or...
Slave trade
Slave trade
Slave trade
Slave trade
Slave trade
Slave trade
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 09:24:50.
|
|
