IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th June 2022, 09:00 PM   #121
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,582
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The idea that Christians should still be bound by Old Testament law is fallacious. Jesus fulfilled that law.
One hears that said by Christians often, but it's a statement whose meaning is difficult to grasp. How were Old Testament laws about mixing fabrics or eating lobster related to what Jesus said or did, and what, in his action, made them suddenly unnecessary? I suppose in a story of miracles you could say he did something miraculous that suddenly made it all right to wear wool and linen together and eat clams, but if he did it didn't show up in the Gospels.

What is meant by fulfilling a law? A former need is met, perhaps, a former problem solved, a former fault corrected. To fulfill a law would suggest that something has changed, that a former law is no longer needed. To abolish a law is not to fulfill it. To come to the realization that a law was incorrect or unnecessary is also not to fulfill it. Did Jesus change our digestive systems or our immunities, or did he change the very substance of things, such that it was once unholy to eat a cheeseburger but now it's fine?

I suppose you could say he updated, rewrote, or edited the laws, if there were any evidence that that's what he did, but I don't know of any, do you?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 09:25 PM   #122
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 18,108
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No it's not. Jesus didn't change a jot or a tittle of the law.
yep.

at the same time, he made everything anew and changed nothing.

Schrödinger's Jesus.
__________________
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

- Emo Philips
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 09:29 PM   #123
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,001
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No it's not. Jesus didn't change a jot or a tittle of the law.
I didn't say he changed it, I said that he fulfilled it.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
One hears that said by Christians often, but it's a statement whose meaning is difficult to grasp. How were Old Testament laws about mixing fabrics or eating lobster related to what Jesus said or did, and what, in his action, made them suddenly unnecessary? I suppose in a story of miracles you could say he did something miraculous that suddenly made it all right to wear wool and linen together and eat clams, but if he did it didn't show up in the Gospels.

What is meant by fulfilling a law? A former need is met, perhaps, a former problem solved, a former fault corrected. To fulfill a law would suggest that something has changed, that a former law is no longer needed. To abolish a law is not to fulfill it. To come to the realization that a law was incorrect or unnecessary is also not to fulfill it. Did Jesus change our digestive systems or our immunities, or did he change the very substance of things, such that it was once unholy to eat a cheeseburger but now it's fine?

I suppose you could say he updated, rewrote, or edited the laws, if there were any evidence that that's what he did, but I don't know of any, do you?
I've gone through this before on this forum, but you'd have to dig through a million old posts to find it, so I'll do it again.

The way it was explained to me is that the purpose of the Old Testament law was to produce a messiah. It had no other reason for existence. So when Jesus arrived, all that law was fulfilled, and became no longer relevant. After Jesus, people were saved by grace and not by law. See Galatians 3:19-25:

Quote:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
People love to quote Matthew 5:18 out of context, but here it is:

Quote:
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(emphasis mine)

All was fulfilled when Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross, so the jots and the tittles did pass from the law.

This is one of those common atheist gotchas that actually has an answer in scripture.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 09:31 PM   #124
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 18,108
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I didn't say he changed it, I said that he fulfilled it.
what does that mean, exactly.

Or, more to the point, how does this change the Law, from that moment on, in practical terms?
__________________
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

- Emo Philips
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 10:47 PM   #125
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,692
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Why do you believe in good or evil? Do animals have such a concept? Surely this is just as irrational as believing in any abstract concept. When did you start thinking there was such a thing as good or evil? Why don't animals?
There's certainly evidence that animals understand the concept of fairness. There's an hilarious video of a chimp getting a lesser reward for a task than the chimp in the next cage, and expressing her feelings about it very clearly.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 11:04 PM   #126
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,001
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
what does that mean, exactly.
Look one post up.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 11:13 PM   #127
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 18,108
So if the law is no longer relevant, we can just ignore it?
__________________
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

- Emo Philips
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 11:21 PM   #128
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,001
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
So if the law is no longer relevant, we can just ignore it?
Essentially, yes. It served its purpose at the time (and reading about it in the Old Testament gives valid context for Jesus' existence), but modern Christians should not be bound by it. Eat all the shellfish and wear your clothes made from two fabrics all you like. Oh, and also don't stone your disobedient children to death at the town gates.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 12:45 AM   #129
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 18,108
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Essentially, yes. It served its purpose at the time (and reading about it in the Old Testament gives valid context for Jesus' existence), but modern Christians should not be bound by it.
Thanks for the explanation, arth!

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Eat all the shellfish and wear your clothes made from two fabrics all you like. Oh, and also don't stone your disobedient children to death at the town gates.
but i can if i want to, right?
__________________
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

- Emo Philips
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 01:23 AM   #130
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 77,001
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Thanks for the explanation, arth!
No problem, but I should say that it's unlikely to make much of an impact. Like I said, it's a favourite argument among atheists.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
but i can if i want to, right?
I mean, only if they're really disobedient.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 01:50 AM   #131
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 29,270
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Something doesn't have to be part of the natural order or mandated by divine superbeings in order to be valuable to the human race. We invented the concepts of good and evil and may employ them as we deem fit.
Now we are in deep philosophical country. The so-called 'virtues' tested the minds of people such as Plato and even the Ancient Egyptians so don't seem to have been randomly 'invented' by that nice old couple down the road, as it were.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 01:58 AM   #132
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 102,552
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Thanks for the explanation, arth!



but i can if i want to, right?
That will have been what arthwollipot was taught but don't confuse that for being an all-encompassing answer for Christians, many would rather strongly object to what he was taught.

If you want to know a bit more about this, I suggest looking into Covenant theology and Dispensationalism - you will probably find Dispensationalism is the framework you most hear about in the USA as it is a post-reformation theology and very much one favoured by evangelicals.

As ever with most of Christian theology it twists and turns to try and get past the many contradictions 1) in the bible and 2) in church teachings. It can be summed up as they want to be able to condemn homosexuals using the OT but don't want to have to keep a kosher kitchen!

A lot of folk forget that there have been hundreds and hundreds of years of very clever folk who have tried to wrestle with all these thorny subjects to try and come up with a consistent and non-contradictory theology - they have all failed because at the heart of everything is the bible and the bible is logically inconsistent (and that's putting aside the many mistakes there have been in translations that have caused many an argument).
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 20th June 2022 at 02:10 AM. Reason: Words and autocorrect - not knowing Dispensationalism it's a sin
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 02:01 AM   #133
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 29,270
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
There's certainly evidence that animals understand the concept of fairness. There's an hilarious video of a chimp getting a lesser reward for a task than the chimp in the next cage, and expressing her feelings about it very clearly.
We are primates ourselves, of course, and the chimpanzee is supposedly our closest relative. What differentiates us? We have a highly developed frontal (neo) cortex. So if a predisposition to abstract thought comes from being more highly evolved, then it follows that being aware of 'the bigger picture', so to speak, is a higher function and not a primitive one.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 02:11 AM   #134
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 102,552
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No problem, but I should say that it's unlikely to make much of an impact. Like I said, it's a favourite argument among atheists Christians.

I mean, only if they're really disobedient.
FTFY
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 02:13 AM   #135
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,850
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You're right. They don't even come close. People eat shellfish, cheesburgers and pork. All of which are outlawed in the texts of Christianity. The are are more than 600 laws in Leviticus. People today only keep a few of these rules despite that Jesus specifically said he didn't come to set aside these laws.
Well in other parts of the NT it's clear that some people DIDN'T think it was necessary, and we see this tug-of-war play out in the text itself.

At most I point these things out to make things awkward for Biblical fundamentalists, yet even there many take the latter view that the Law was done away with as far as in practice.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 02:27 AM   #136
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 29,270
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That will have been what arthwollipot was taught but don't confuse that for being an all-encompassing answer for Christians, many would rather strongly object to what he was taught.

If you want to know a bit more about this, I suggest looking into Covenant theology and Dispensationalism - you will probably find Dispensationalism is the framework you most hear about in the USA as it is a post-reformation theology and very much one favoured by evangelicals.

As ever with most of Christian theology it twists and turns to try and get past the many contradictions 1) in the bible and 2) in church teachings. It can be summed up as they want to be able to condemn homosexuals using the OT but don't want to have to keep a kosher kitchen!

A lot of folk forget that there have been hundreds and hundreds of years of very clever folk who have tried to wrestle with all these thorny subjects to try and come up with a consistent and non-contradictory theology - they have all failed because at the heart of everything is the bible and the bible is logically inconsistent (and that's putting aside the many mistakes there have been in translations that have caused many an argument).
That's true to some extent. I was arguing with a Seventh Day Adventist - who, like the Mormons and Muslims disapprove of drinking alcohol - that according to the New Testament, Jesus loved his wine and food. The counter argument was, 'Ah, but the wine they served in Palestine was quite non-alcoholic'.
__________________
The parting on the Left
Is now parting on the Right ~ Pete Townshend

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 02:55 AM   #137
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,095
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No it's not. Jesus didn't change a jot or a tittle of the law.
That's another one of those cases of "which part of the bible do you want to believe"?

In Matthew 15:11 Jesus pretty much declares all things edible: " Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 03:22 AM   #138
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,611
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Disagree, all the major Christian denominations have a description of their god , and we can test that description.

To the wider thread point, the gods of all the actual religions people believe in today and those people believed in the past I know do not exist.

When you say that you know that the Christian God (for example) cannot exist, and you say that you can “test the descriptions” which believers have given (eg including descriptions in the biblical writing) – is that the basis of why you think you can claim to “Know” that such a God cannot exist? That is – you “know” that the descriptions cannot be correct because they include such things as internal contradictions etc., ... is that what you mean when you say that you ”know” that its' wrong?

So for example - on that basis you would be ruling out (as inadmissible) the most basic minimal claims, such as the belief that God was at least the creator of the universe? Because you would say that claim cannot be separated from all the other claims which you think are demonstrably wrong, is that right?

Suppose someone said that they believed most of what was said about the Christian God was untrue human invention, but they did believe he was the deliberate intelligent creator of the universe who knew that Man would eventually evolve on planet Earth … would you also say that you know that could not possibly be true … ie that no such God could possibly have created this universe?

Just to be clear – I would not believe anyone who said that God created the universe. Because I think our present description of the Big Bang is probably more-or-less correct, and that does not include any intelligent God. And also I think that evolution convincingly explains the existence of mankind (again with no God required). But I could not honestly or correctly claim to “Know” those things as a certain fact, because although I am probably one of the biggest supporters of science on this entire website (or anywhere), I do also understand that science does not literally prove such things as the Big Bang or human evolution (eg; it is just about conceivable, within science, that what we know as “evolution”, could be mistaken … ie even evolution is not absolutely 100% proven certainty).

Last edited by IanS; 20th June 2022 at 05:01 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 04:26 AM   #139
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 26,173
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Now the argument you're probably going to hear some version of is well the difference is God made us, Satan didn't. We are God's to do with as he wants, not Satan's.

I find that... less than persuasive myself.
Indeed. It shows a mindset of people who believe deeply in slavery and ownership of people.

It's possible to conceive of technology creating sentient beings - but those beings would not be the creator's to do with as they pleased in my moral framework.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 04:59 AM   #140
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 102,552
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
When you say that you know that the Christian God (for example) cannot exist, and you say that you can “test the descriptions” which believers have given (eg including descriptions in the biblical writing) – is that the basis of why you think you can claim to “Know” that such a God cannot exist? That is – you “know” that the descriptions cannot be correct because they include such things as internal contradictions etc., ... is that what you mean when you say that you ”know” that its' wrong?

So for example - on that basis you would be ruling out (as inadmissible) the most basic minimal claims, such as the belief that God was at least the creator of the universe? Because you would say that claim cannot be separated from all the other claims which you think are demonstrably wrong, is that right?
I use whatever definition or traits they claim for their god. If it is something we know to be wrong (and I use "know" in that 99.99% certainty way we use about everything else i.e. that the sun exists) we can say their god doesn't exist.

The example I use is Zeus - we know what the people of the time claimed about him, one part of that was that he lived in a temple on Mount Olympus, this was a temple that could be reached by mortals, seen by mortals and so on. We know such a temple does not exist on Mount Olympus - so we know the claimed Zeus doesn't exist.


Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Suppose someone said that they believed most of what was said about the Christian God was untrue human invention, but they did believe he was the deliberate intelligent creator of the universe who knew that Man would eventually evolve on planet Earth … would you also say that you know that could not possibly be true … ie that no such God could possibly have created this universe?
Such a god wouldn't be the god of any Christian group I know of, and it certainly isn't the god the RCC or Anglicans believe in, but if someone wants to define their god like that I'm happy to leave it up to them to believe in it. But I would need evidence to believe in such a god otherwise I have no reason to believe in it.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Just to be clear – I would not believe anyone who said that God created the universe. Because I think our present description of the Big Bang is probably more-or-less correct, and that does not include any intelligent God. And also I think that evolution convincingly explains the existence of mankind (again with no God required). But I could not honestly or correctly claim to “Know” those things as a certain fact, because although I am probably one of the biggest supporters of science on this entire website (or anywhere), I do also understand that science does not literally prove such things the Big Bang or human evolution (eg; it is just about conceivable, within science, that what we know as “evolution”, could be mistaken … ie even evolution is not absolutely 100% certainty).
And the entire universe could have popped into existence microseconds ago but with an apparent history of billions of years.

We can't rule that out with "absolute" certainty. But when you are arguing at such level in my view you've gone beyond any credible level of "but we can't know anything" doubt.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 06:22 AM   #141
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,582
The Galatians passage, etc., appears to require that the fulfillment of the law include some behavior modification of the people, and not just of their leader, which is sorely lacking in both the real world results and in the behavior of those invoking it.

I believe it a misunderstanding of the whole idea to consider that the things once circumscribed under the law would now be permitted. The fulfillment of the law presumes a libertarian utopia. When you are a child your parents order you to brush your teeth. When you are an adult you are presumed to do it without being told. A law is fulfilled when it becomes unnecessary, not when wrong becomes right.

Meahwhile.....In Diary of a Wave Outside the Sea,

Dunya Mikhail (Iraqi poet) writes of gulf war childhood:

My mother prayed:
"God, who is full of mercy, will save us."
I thought of Yehuda Amichai
who wrote that if not for God-full-of-mercy,
there would be mercy in the world
and not just in Him.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 06:51 AM   #142
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 63,261
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Now we are in deep philosophical country.
Not in the least. It only gets "philosophical" if you insist on trying to prove our human ideas of how to behave are somehow part of a cosmic design or something. If we simply agree that we'd prefer to behave in X fashion rather than Y fashion there's nothing philosophical or deep or magical or divine about it. Things are nicer for everyone if we agree to drive on the same side of the road, we don't need to prove it's how animals do it or show that a thousand years ago some prophet had a dream where it was revealed by a god.

Quote:
The so-called 'virtues' tested the minds of people such as Plato and even the Ancient Egyptians so don't seem to have been randomly 'invented' by that nice old couple down the road, as it were.
It only becomes difficult if you insist on placing more significance upon the matter than it merits. Life is better for everyone if we don't throw our chicken bones on the dining room floor. "What does the marrow mean?" may be a question some people are interested in pondering for fun, but it's not necessary.

Every human virtue can be (and probably is) the product of utility. The waffle about gods and ethics is just after-the-fact attempts to justify our choices and imbue them with authority and significance. That's entirely optional.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 06:54 AM   #143
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 63,261
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Indeed. It shows a mindset of people who believe deeply in slavery and ownership of people.

It's possible to conceive of technology creating sentient beings - but those beings would not be the creator's to do with as they pleased in my moral framework.
My mom gets upset when I am "rude" to her Alexa device. I told her that we only have a narrow window between getting voice-activated software and truly-person AI so we should take advantage of the fun of being rude while we can.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 07:36 AM   #144
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,894
Who is more evil?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No problem, but I should say that it's unlikely to make much of an impact. Like I said, it's a favourite argument among atheists.

I mean, only if they're really disobedient.

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say we have to play by the rules of the game. These “favorite argument(s) among atheists,” are wholly unconvincing among Christians. Once you’ve broken free from the Christianity, then you can look back and see that none of these ideas actually make sense. But you have to break free first. These little gotchas aren’t going to cause many people to break free.

So other than atheist entertainment, I really don’t see the point of these kinds of “arguments.” It’s preaching to the choir.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 20th June 2022 at 07:42 AM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 07:42 AM   #145
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 102,552
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
My mom gets upset when I am "rude" to her Alexa device. I told her that we only have a narrow window between getting voice-activated software and truly-person AI so we should take advantage of the fun of being rude while we can.
Half glass full / half glass empty. I'm being nice to my Google home assistant in the hope they will keep me as a pet when AI takes over the world. You will be one of the first to be put against a wall and when fire is shouted the last thing you will hear is "Did you mean sapphire? According to Wikipedia Sapphire is a precious gemstone, a variety of the mineral corundum, consisting of aluminium oxide with trace amounts of elements such as...."
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 07:44 AM   #146
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,611
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
. I use whatever definition or traits they claim for their god. If it is something we know to be wrong (and I use "know" in that 99.99% certainty way we use about everything else i.e. that the sun exists) we can say their god doesn't exist.

OK good. So when you say that you "know" something (such as knowing that the Christian God does not exist), what you actually mean is that you think/believe/feel it's about 99.9% likely that he does not exist.

Of course any figure like 99.9% is a guess. And personally if I was to guess I'd say it was more like 99. 9999....9998% that any such god was no more that a mythical invention from a bygone age of ignorance. But of course that would be my opinion ie a "belief" from me (I would not be claiming that I knew it to be absolute certainty).

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
.
The example I use is Zeus - we know what the people of the time claimed about him, one part of that was that he lived in a temple on Mount Olympus, this was a temple that could be reached by mortals, seen by mortals and so on. We know such a temple does not exist on Mount Olympus - so we know the claimed Zeus doesn't exist.

But that is also not an example of certainty though, is it. For a start those people might have merely been wrong in thinking Zeus lived in a temple on Mount Olympus ... that alone does not make the god impossible as ever existing anywhere or in any way at all. Though worse than that - when you say "we know" that no such temple existed, we cannot actually "know" even that sort of thing as a matter of complete certainty, can we! At very best the most we can say is that we have found no evidence for it's existence, and/or that we have found alternative evidence which appears to show it was very VERY unlikely ... but none of that is a demonstration of total impossibility, is it (the answer to that is "no!", ie no it isn't lol!).

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Such a god wouldn't be the god of any Christian group I know of, and it certainly isn't the god the RCC or Anglicans believe in, but if someone wants to define their god like that I'm happy to leave it up to them to believe in it. But I would need evidence to believe in such a god otherwise I have no reason to believe in it.

Actually, if you listen to YouTube shows such as Atheist Experience (over nearly 20 years now), and more recently Talk Heathen, Truth Wanted or a dozen other similar US atheist/sceptic phone-in shows, then you will find callers who describe themselves as Christians but who say they don't believe the miracles claimed in the biblical writing, but they do still believe that an intelligent God is the best explanation for at least the creation/existence of this universe (I disagree with them of course ... I think God is a hopeless explanation, but then I'm not a theist/Christian).

There used to be a very well known clip on YouTube where Richard Dawkins is interviewing the then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, where the Archbishop agreed that almost all the biblical miracles sounded more like "conjuring tricks" ie not believable, but where he did at least believe that God was the creator of the universe and that the process of human evolution had somehow been Gods created intention (he also believed that ceratin miracles had indeed actually happened, such as the raising of Lazarus and of course Jesus himself rising from the dead). Point here of course is that today even very senior members of the Christian church may no longer believe in a vast array of claimed miracles that almost all Christians used to believe in only a few centuries ago … ie that sort of total biblical belief has certainly declined a great deal across all ranks of theist Christians since biblical times.

OK, so I'm sure it's tempting to adopt a position that says “lets' cut the crap, and just say none of these gods exist, and that is surely obvious; end of story”. I understand why many people want/like to do that (especially in the USA), but personally I do not feel the need to make claims which are not actually true … why do I ever need to claim to know that an intelligent god-type entity could not have created the universe? As an atheist, ie as someone who does not believe any of those religious god/God-claims, it's more than sufficient to just point out all the vast mass of evidence from science that gives us properly tested and checked answers to all of those questions and where none of those scientific results have any hint of any God/god anywhere … no evidence of any such thing at all (and enormous evidence to the contrary) … so why would I or anyone else ever feel the need to go beyond what we can truthfully and accurately say, and start claiming that we know things which we do not actually know (rhetorical).
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 07:54 AM   #147
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not in the least. It only gets "philosophical" if you insist on trying to prove our human ideas of how to behave are somehow part of a cosmic design or something. If we simply agree that we'd prefer to behave in X fashion rather than Y fashion there's nothing philosophical or deep or magical or divine about it. Things are nicer for everyone if we agree to drive on the same side of the road, we don't need to prove it's how animals do it or show that a thousand years ago some prophet had a dream where it was revealed by a god.



It only becomes difficult if you insist on placing more significance upon the matter than it merits. Life is better for everyone if we don't throw our chicken bones on the dining room floor. "What does the marrow mean?" may be a question some people are interested in pondering for fun, but it's not necessary.

Every human virtue can be (and probably is) the product of utility. The waffle about gods and ethics is just after-the-fact attempts to justify our choices and imbue them with authority and significance. That's entirely optional.

Yes.

And if there is anything redeeming about Christianity, it’s the part that everyone knows but ignores. The part that is truly fundamental: Love. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” So simple. And if we all lived by those words, the world would indeed be a much better place.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 08:06 AM   #148
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 102,552
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
...snip...




But that is also not an example of certainty though, is it. For a start those people might have merely been wrong in thinking Zeus lived in a temple on Mount Olympus ... that alone does not make the god impossible as ever existing anywhere or in any way at all. Though worse than that - when you say "we know" that no such temple existed, we cannot actually "know" even that sort of thing as a matter of complete certainty, can we! At very best the most we can say is that we have found no evidence for it's existence, and/or that we have found alternative evidence which appears to show it was very VERY unlikely ... but none of that is a demonstration of total impossibility, is it (the answer to that is "no!", ie no it isn't lol!).

...snip...
No and no.

If the believers are wrong about their god's properties than they were wrong about their god period, so whatever god "does exist" we know it can't be Zeus.

Secondly we have satellite and ariel photos of Mount Olympus and we see there is no temple, therefore there is no temple, therefore the god they say they believe in doesn't exist.

I think you are trying to create a "Platonic" version of knowledge that is simply not one we ever use for anything else bar "god existence" discussions.

I say the sun, Sol exists. I am certain of that fact by any sensible, useable definition of certainty and knowledge. I am just as certain that the god of the RCC, Zeus and Devi don't exist. My claims about gods do not go beyond my knowledge.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 08:49 AM   #149
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 19,095
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Indeed. It shows a mindset of people who believe deeply in slavery and ownership of people.
A world without slavery was unthinkable in the times when the biblical texts were being written. Why would an atheist expect the bible to challenge that view?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 09:20 AM   #150
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,568
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
yep.

at the same time, he made everything anew and changed nothing.

Schrödinger's Jesus.
I really like that. GOOD ONE.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 09:23 AM   #151
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,006
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
A world without slavery was unthinkable in the times when the biblical texts were being written.
So when God was giving his messages to mankind he was okay with slavery?
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 09:27 AM   #152
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,568
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
People love to quote Matthew 5:18 out of context, but here it is:

Quote:
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

All was fulfilled when Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross, so the jots and the tittles did pass from the law.

This is one of those common atheist gotchas that actually has an answer in scripture.
How do you get that? Heaven and Earth did not pass.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 09:30 AM   #153
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,568
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Essentially, yes. It served its purpose at the time (and reading about it in the Old Testament gives valid context for Jesus' existence), but modern Christians should not be bound by it. Eat all the shellfish and wear your clothes made from two fabrics all you like. Oh, and also don't stone your disobedient children to death at the town gates.
Yet the law also said to take your slaves from the heathen around you. And we are supposed to obey our master even the cruel ones.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 09:42 AM   #154
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,568
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Well in other parts of the NT it's clear that some people DIDN'T think it was necessary, and we see this tug-of-war play out in the text itself.

At most I point these things out to make things awkward for Biblical fundamentalists, yet even there many take the latter view that the Law was done away with as far as in practice.
Who is some people? Paul? I don't get why we should pay attention to the writings of Paul. It's not like Paul has any first hand knowledge of Jesus.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 09:52 AM   #155
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,582
The issue of Zeus and what constitutes uncertainty reminds me a bit of certain theoretical libertarians, for whom the abstract principle trumps mere reality. Theory is, after all, perfect, while reality is full of impurities.

Stories of Zeus exist, and various attributes are presumed for him. Every part of every story of Zeus that involves something that can be confirmed by the senses is shown to be false, but sure enough, parts that cannot be confirmed cannot either be denied.

It's technically right, of course, and technically you shouldn't poison the well, but you'd be wise to bring your own bottle.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 11:28 AM   #156
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,568
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
A world without slavery was unthinkable in the times when the biblical texts were being written. Why would an atheist expect the bible to challenge that view?
If God can tell you not to eat shellfish, you would think he could tell you not to own human beings as property.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 11:42 AM   #157
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 19,202
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
If God can tell you not to eat shellfish, you would think he could tell you not to own human beings as property.
Come on now. It wasn't about slavery. It was about Tribe's Rights. Lets not get all Critical God Theory in this thread, too.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 12:37 PM   #158
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,568
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Come on now. It wasn't about slavery. It was about Tribe's Rights. Lets not get all Critical God Theory in this thread, too.
Then God isn't actually real and the book is about power.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 01:10 PM   #159
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 19,202
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Then God isn't actually real and the book is about power.
Gotta start putting an "/s" after some of my posts.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 01:18 PM   #160
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,850
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Who is some people? Paul? I don't get why we should pay attention to the writings of Paul. It's not like Paul has any first hand knowledge of Jesus.
Some people = the largely anonymous writers of the NT.

The Bible is a patchwork of often clashing narratives and instructions. It's just as wrong to attack it by telling believers "why aren't you doing it this way!" when you don't actually know their beliefs.

Again it can be a useful talking point when honestly discussing the problems of Biblical authority. But you gotta know your audience.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.