If you think Mormonism is retarded, why you think the Bible is any different?

Started by Tamas, October 24, 2012, 03:46:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

garbon

I was talking about the core text. After all, all religious collect commentary over the ages.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:02:26 PM
I was talking about the core text. After all, all religious collect commentary over the ages.

The "core text" we know today as the NT was at the time one of many. 
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

garbon

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 26, 2012, 12:02:26 PM
I was talking about the core text. After all, all religious collect commentary over the ages.

The "core text" we know today as the NT was at the time one of many. 

Sure but I already spoke to that. The key books weren't written thousands of years apart.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Viking

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 09:09:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 04:46:07 AM
By effect I mean a relevance to conscious creatures. We can study that effect by examining it's relevance to conscious creatures. The Deist or Panentheist God are not personal and do not act per se, they merely are. I'll grant that these two God ideas are virtually impossible to test (though the Deist god can be tested in examining the start of the universe), however, neither of these Gods are personal or relevant to believers.

How can one determine personal relevance other than what particular people find to be relevant to them?  God clearly was relevant to Aristotleans like Aquinas, to Maimonides, to ibn Rushd; God was also relevant to the American Deists (e.g.) of the Revolutionary era who invoked God's name in founding documents.

Yahwe, Allah, Chronos, Odin and Quetzcoatle are distintcly lacking. They refer to a creator, it does not invoke the name of god. It does not ask gods permission, nor ask his blessing, it just observes that the rights are innate and not granted by nor revokable by men. Aristotle used logic and reason to determine that there are 48 (iirc) gods. Arstotles Metaphysics is precisely an attempt to study the nature and being of the prime mover. In aristotle's view the nature of the world tells you about the nature of the creator.

These men agree with me that the existence and nature and attributes of god (maybe not maimonedes, I haven't read him, so I don't know) is observable in the world around us. One of those attributes, as one gathers from Aquinas' moronic ontological argument, is existence.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 09:09:24 AM
QuoteThe god that gets you a mortgage, helps uncle danny quit drinking and helps Tebow throw that TD pass is testable precisely because he does these things.

This god isn't testable either because its motivations are unknown.


Al Gazali burned Ibn Rushd's books. Now you channel him. I'm merely going to assert that Occasionalism is wrong and it is the only case where, if true, false belief is better than true belief.

If this were the case then we would see miracles happening all the time rather than a world made of of understandable material causes.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 09:09:24 AM
QuoteYour argument that we cannot understand God because he is not limited by the laws of nature if applied to lightning, the movement of the planets or biological diversity would have left us without an understanding of electricity, gravity and evolution.

Clearly not so as the experiemental method is competent for achieving that understanding.

Yet you would assert that study of issues that you assume are within the purview of god are not worth studying. Once lighting, planets and life were just that.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Viking

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 09:38:44 AM

Viking - I think you have already said as much above but my criticism is that you have confused the argument with a Dawkins-influenced scientific argument.  It's a fundamentally flawed approach.  One cannot address theological questions scientifically without pulling science beyond its own inherent limitations - and it is those very limitations that give science its effectiveness and power.

The existence of god isn't some kind of magical fact that we can not know or understand or comprehend (insert more gobbeltygook). It is a fact like any other. The god you propose is one without attributes or effect (or is hiding the answer to the great multiple choice test in the sky to see if you get into heaven). If god has an effect he can be tested and these effects can be observed. If god has no effect he is irrelevant or functionally equivalent with a non-god.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Razgovory

Hey, Viking.  I have a question for you.  Do you believe it's possible that there are concepts the human mind can't understand?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Viking

Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:38:09 PM
Hey, Viking.  I have a question for you.  Do you believe it's possible that there are concepts the human mind can't understand?

I'm a philosophical modernist and believe* that all that can be known and understood can only be so through examining the material universe. So I do not believe that there are concepts that a material mind** cannot understand.


* My other belief is materalism, which is the belief that all things that exist are material.

** I am open for a non-human material mind (alien or AI or something else material) having ideas which we simply do not have the brainpower to comprehend. The factor preventing us from any understanding is always a material one, never the nature of the concept.


now, hit me with your pre-packaged apologetics.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Razgovory

Pre-packaged. :lol:  Your the one he trolls rational wiki for your arguments.  Why do you believe the human mind can understand all phenomenon?  Is there any evidence of this?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Viking

Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:56:01 PM
Pre-packaged. :lol:  Your the one he trolls rational wiki for your arguments.  Why do you believe the human mind can understand all phenomenon?  Is there any evidence of this?

I'm pretty sure that I pointed out that this is a belief, which in my book is an assertion which is held as true despite a lack of evidence. Modernism and Materialism are my two beliefs, I wish I could prove them but I cannot.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Razgovory

I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Viking

Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?

Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Razgovory

Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?

Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.

Why do you need them at all?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Viking

Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?

Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.

Why do you need them at all?

Because only knowing that I exist is not sufficient for living.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Valmy

Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?

Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.

How does that make sense of anything?  It sounds like a good philosophy for observing the world but it says little about the sense behind why things are the way they are it only says how they are.  I mean I am not saying there even is a way to make sense of the world...but maybe you meant something different than that by 'make sense'.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

The Brain

Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:08:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2012, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 26, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Why do you hold them?

Lex Parsimony. They are the fewest and least significant needed beliefs to make sense of the world.

Why do you need them at all?

Because only knowing that I exist is not sufficient for living.

:yeahright:
Women want me. Men want to be with me.