And, right on queue, BR shows up to put his ignorance and prejudice on full display for all to see.
I couldn't have planned that better.
Well, BR, I think I'm done dealing with your religious bigotry, intolerance, hatred, anger, bitterness and prejudice. You can carry on with someone else.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I'm not prejudging anything. I am judging after having weighed the evidence (and lack thereof for the existence of your deity). There's a difference.
There's nothing wrong with spending your life studying fiction--as long as you know that it's fiction. There IS something wrong with spending your life studying fiction believing it is reality, while attempting to convince others of the same.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
There's nothing wrong with spending your life studying fiction--as long as you know that it's fiction. There IS something wrong with spending your life studying fiction believing it is reality, while attempting to convince others of the same.
I see you're back to begging the question. Oh well. It's been "fun."
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Ah right - I see you focussed on his use of that word rather than his original point. Nice.
Actually it appears that word (misogyny) is very tightly related and intertwined with BR's original point. He said cannot understand why women would become Christians. When asked why he (cherry) picked a verse (and then expanded on that verse) claiming misogyny (hatred of women). So that word is at the center of the original point. The claim is that Christian, the bible and, apparently God are misogynistic (hateful of women) and he cannot understand why any woman would become part of something that hates them.
I've spent more than 15 years reading and studying (doing best to understand context, culture, etc.) the Bible in a variety of forms and fashions. Along that way I've also listened to numerous sermons and lectures on various aspects of the Bible. I've even been involved with studies specifically on the subject of the Bible and the women, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no such misogyny in the Bible that BR is claiming or looking for.
But what BR is doing here is begging the question on his point. He's chosen a single passage from the Bible (and I'm sure he could find others that would appear to support his assumptions) and claiming misogyny without proving it. He's failing to look at scripture as a whole. He doesn't look at some of the prominent and heroic women of the Bible. He ignores the cultural and historical context in which these things were written and fails to acknowledge that those things might lend a different interpretation of the text. He simply picks a couple of verses, glues it to his existing prejudices, preconceived ideas, intolerance, anger, bitterness and religious bigotry and makes an assumption.
I have no interest in, or opinion on, whether the bible preaches misogyny, so I won't dispute your opinion, but I would point out that whatever BR was doing, he was not begging the question. That comprises using the assumption to try to prove the assumption. In this case he may or may not have made an assumption, but if he did then he looked for evidence in the bible to support it. His argument, valid or not, was not circular.
Why is the bible true? It's the word of god. Why is it the word of god? The bible says so!
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Why is the bible true? It's the word of god. Why is it the word of god? The bible says so!
I see you're back to intolerance. You simply cannot accept that someone would reach a different conclusion than you do. Such a person must be mocked and derided in perpetuity.
Incorrect assessment, SDW. It's not about coming to a different conclusion. It's about the lack of evidence and attempts to shape society based on a work of fiction and the delusions of men.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Ah right - I see you focussed on his use of that word rather than his original point. Nice. And I would agree that sexual discrimination alone, no matter how extensive or pervasive, does not necessarily constitute misogyny, although discrimination is one of the required indicators by most definitions.
MJ hit and explained this point rather nicely about the linking of the two posts. Discrimination in this case might merely mean different rather than inferior.
I'm not prejudging anything. I am judging after having weighed the evidence (and lack thereof for the existence of your deity). There's a difference.
There's nothing wrong with spending your life studying fiction--as long as you know that it's fiction. There IS something wrong with spending your life studying fiction believing it is reality, while attempting to convince others of the same.
Actually the way you double-down on the hypocrisy is you bemoan a book as fiction but then endorse a utopian solution that amounts to human engineered heaven on earth that is just as delusional a work of fiction. When speaking about human rights, equality, etc. you are talking about concepts that are made up. They aren't natural. They aren't part of nature in any form or fashion and on top of it, you infer a prior perfect state from which we have fallen and blame, things like the Bible from stopping "natural man" from achieving his utopia. Perhaps there is no original sin, but it is a far greater fiction to believe that man was born universally good and had to be taught to act has he does.
I have no interest in, or opinion on, whether the bible preaches misogyny, so I won't dispute your opinion, but I would point out that whatever BR was doing, he was not begging the question. That comprises using the assumption to try to prove the assumption. In this case he may or may not have made an assumption, but if he did then he looked for evidence in the bible to support it. His argument, valid or not, was not circular.
His reasoning certainly is non sequitur. I think the disagreement might flow more from how BR addresses those who point this out. That reasoning, which amounts to "because I said so" or "You can't even participate because you are an intolerant ass" does amount to circular reasoning. I'm right because I'm right. I'm right because your wrong and I know you're wrong because I'm right.
Incorrect assessment, SDW. It's not about coming to a different conclusion. It's about the lack of evidence and attempts to shape society based on a work of fiction and the delusions of men.
Here are some real works of fiction that have caused more harm than religion has ever caused.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
I have no interest in, or opinion on, whether the bible preaches misogyny, so I won't dispute your opinion, but I would point out that whatever BR was doing, he was not begging the question. That comprises using the assumption to try to prove the assumption. In this case he may or may not have made an assumption, but if he did then he looked for evidence in the bible to support it. His argument, valid or not, was not circular.
His reasoning certainly is non sequitur. I think the disagreement might flow more from how BR addresses those who point this out. That reasoning, which amounts to "because I said so" or "You can't even participate because you are an intolerant ass" does amount to circular reasoning. I'm right because I'm right. I'm right because your wrong and I know you're wrong because I'm right.
That it may be. But, while not defending his position, I suspect that he might be amused by your "because I said so" accusation, given his observation that the bible's claimed authority stems from the same argument, which is a case of appeal to authority. And just to be clear, not that it really matters, "you can't even participate because you are an intolerant ass" is an ad hominem, not circular reasoning (begging the question). "I'm right because I'm right" is begging the question, in a most trivial form, but he didn't invoke that argument.
Incorrect assessment, SDW. It's not about coming to a different conclusion. It's about the lack of evidence and attempts to shape society based on a work of fiction and the delusions of men.
To what "attempts to shape society" are you referring?
Marriage Equality. Drugs. Alcohol. Prostitution. Obscenity. Blasphemy. Religious tests to enter office. Abortion. Tax exemptions for religious institutions. The idea that religious institutions automatically qualify as charities. Education (or lack thereof).
These are just a few places where the groping fingers of religion attempt to violate America.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Marriage Equality. Drugs. Alcohol. Prostitution. Obscenity. Blasphemy. Religious tests to enter office. Abortion. Tax exemptions for religious institutions. The idea that religious institutions automatically qualify as charities. Education (or lack thereof).
These are just a few places where the groping fingers of religion attempt to violate America.
Wow... I just thought you were an atheist Democrat. I think you're actually a hardcore anarchist. You aren't an Occupy Wall Street kook are you?
I have a feeling that this has come up before, but I'll ask here anyway since we are on the topic of the Bible and religion...
If, as BR believes, there is no God... Where exactly did the universe come from?
Personally, if for no other reason than the inability to answer this question, I think belief in some kind of God is only logical.
I have a feeling that this has come up before, but I'll ask here anyway since we are on the topic of the Bible and religion...
If, as BR believes, there is no God... Where exactly did the universe come from?
Personally, if for no other reason than the inability to answer this question, I think belief in some kind of God is only logical.
At the risk of attracting the ire of some other posters, where, exactly, do you think that God came from?
At the risk of attracting the ire of some other posters, where, exactly, do you think that God came from?
No idea. The very nature of God is by definition beyond the comprehension of man. This may sound like a lame way out, but this is part of the nature of faith. God has to exist outside the scope of physics and time as we understand it. Whereas the physical substance of the universe had to come FROM somewhere, God is eternal.
Assuming that you don't agree with that arguement... How do you explain where all of the matter and energy that comprises the universe came from?
At the risk of attracting the ire of some other posters, where, exactly, do you think that God came from?
No idea. The very nature of God is by definition beyond the comprehension of man. This may sound like a lame way out, but this is part of the nature of faith. God has to exist outside the scope of physics and time as we understand it. Whereas the physical substance of the universe had to come FROM somewhere, God is eternal.
Assuming that you don't agree with that arguement... How do you explain where all of the matter and energy that comprises the universe came from?
So it seems like cheating to me to argue that if science cannot explain where it came from then science has failed, and it is more logical to invoke a God that you cannot explain the origin of.
However, to address your question, you misunderstand the nature and consequences of the Big Bang hypothesis. Time exists only within the framework of this universe. Neither time, nor any of the other state variables that we take for granted existed in the singularity that produced the universe, so there was no "before", and nowhere for it to have "come from". In a sense, that is just a mathematically formal equivalent of your "God is Eternal".
So it seems like cheating to me to argue that if science cannot explain where it came from then science has failed, and it is more logical to invoke a God that you cannot explain the origin of.
I don't think it's a question of science "failing" as much as it is a question of whether there are limits to science, its methods and what knowledge can be derived through it. There seems to be an assumption that if science can't answer it, it cannot be answered or isn't worth answering. This seems to be profoundly and deeply wrong. Science absolutely has its place, it also has its limits. I think many people put more weight on the shoulders of science than it is intended to carry.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
So it seems like cheating to me to argue that if science cannot explain where it came from then science has failed, and it is more logical to invoke a God that you cannot explain the origin of.
I don't think it's a question of science "failing" as much as it is a question of whether there are limits to science, its methods and what knowledge can be derived through it. There seems to be an assumption that if science can't answer it, it cannot be answered or isn't worth answering. This seems to be profoundly and deeply wrong. Science absolutely has its place, it also has its limits. I think many people put more weight on the shoulders of science than it is intended to carry.
If you have some evidence that indicates a limit to the utility of the scientific method, then let's discuss it. I have never heard it asserted that if science can't answer something then it is not worth answering; are you, by any chance, conflating "science not yet having explained it" with "science will never be able to explain it"?
In any case, if one chooses to consider the currently unanswered phenomena, arbitrarily declare them unanswerable, and then assign those phenomena to God, that is just fine. But I will continue to characterize that behavior as intellectually lazy.
Marriage Equality. Drugs. Alcohol. Prostitution. Obscenity. Blasphemy. Religious tests to enter office. Abortion. Tax exemptions for religious institutions. The idea that religious institutions automatically qualify as charities. Education (or lack thereof).
These are just a few places where the groping fingers of religion attempt to violate America.
I'll acknowledge there are people who have used religion to craft policy on all those issues. However, I'd ask you to acknowledge that many people differ with you on these issues for other reasons. For example, I am opposed to gay marriage, though my position has nothing to do with my faith. The same applies to any differences we have on drugs, alcohol, prostitution and abortion, not to mention education.
But here is the problem: What you claim is a movement to push a religious agenda is often nothing of the kind. Most people aren't politicians in the sense that their personal beliefs and experiences shape not only who they are, but what they support politically. That means that they push for laws and policies that end up reflecting who they are and what they've experienced. Granted, this is not always the case (the Temperance Movement and subsequent prohibition come to mind), as we've certainly seen religious zealots in the political world. However, stating that our current policies on alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, drugs, pornography et al are all a direct result of imposing religion? I think that's mistaken.
The real issue here is that BR wants to impose his values on people (through the state) but doesn't like when other want to do the same, especially if their basis is in their faith in God.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
If you have some evidence that indicates a limit to the utility of the scientific method, then let's discuss it. I have never heard it asserted that if science can't answer something then it is not worth answering; are you, by any chance, conflating "science not yet having explained it" with "science will never be able to explain it"?
In any case, if one chooses to consider the currently unanswered phenomena, arbitrarily declare them unanswerable, and then assign those phenomena to God, that is just fine. But I will continue to characterize that behavior as intellectually lazy.
Just got done with a fairly brutal workout so I'll see if my arms and hands will cooperate...
There are very, very few questions that come to mind that I assign to God as you put it. Creation is simply one of those few items. I have an enormous amount of faith in science to be able to answer almost any other question that comes to mind. Cold fusion, fast than light travel, cryogenics, and a whole host of other things. However, that the universe simply sprang into being from absolute nothingness? I'm afraid I have to draw the line at that one.
As for your argument regarding the Laws of Physics existing only within the framework of this universe, I couldn't agree more. However, your statement about mathematically formal equivalent of your "God is Eternal", is not an answer so much as an admission of the limitations of science. God IS an answer to creation whereas the scientific answer is the Big Bang is where the universe began. Do you admit that science has limits in what it can explain? If not, then you too have a god and that would be science. If you agree with the premise that there are limits to what science can explain, then why should it be so hard to accept that God is beyond the ability of the human mind to fully comprehend?
If you have some evidence that indicates a limit to the utility of the scientific method, then let's discuss it. I have never heard it asserted that if science can't answer something then it is not worth answering; are you, by any chance, conflating "science not yet having explained it" with "science will never be able to explain it"?
In any case, if one chooses to consider the currently unanswered phenomena, arbitrarily declare them unanswerable, and then assign those phenomena to God, that is just fine. But I will continue to characterize that behavior as intellectually lazy.
Just got done with a fairly brutal workout so I'll see if my arms and hands will cooperate...
There are very, very few questions that come to mind that I assign to God as you put it. Creation is simply one of those few items. I have an enormous amount of faith in science to be able to answer almost any other question that comes to mind. Cold fusion, fast than light travel, cryogenics, and a whole host of other things. However, that the universe simply sprang into being from absolute nothingness? I'm afraid I have to draw the line at that one.
As for your argument regarding the Laws of Physics existing only within the framework of this universe, I couldn't agree more. However, your statement about mathematically formal equivalent of your "God is Eternal", is not an answer so much as an admission of the limitations of science. God IS an answer to creation whereas the scientific answer is the Big Bang is where the universe began. Do you admit that science has limits in what it can explain? If not, then you too have a god and that would be science. If you agree with the premise that there are limits to what science can explain, then why should it be so hard to accept that God is beyond the ability of the human mind to fully comprehend?
We are not going to resolve this if you are unwilling to see science simply as a logical deductive process rather than as some mysterious discipline that magically produces explanations for the universe that we experience. To say that science has its limits is not just to say that we cannot understand everything, but implies that some things are intrinsically not observable, not logical and not understandable by anyone or anything. So if you are asking me if I believe that is the case, then no, of course not. That would be a bizarre and unnecessary assumption and itself fails immediately as a testable hypothesis by virtue of being unfalsifiable.
To suggest that a mathematical framework that describes a singularity is an admission of the limitation of science is as foolish as suggesting that general relativity is a similar admission. You may not find it satisfying, perhaps because you don't understand it, but I would guess there are plenty of theories that you do not understand but are willing to accept. Why is that?
As for God, or anything else, being beyond the comprehension of the human mind, don't fall into the trap of thinking that science was invented by humans any more than mathematics was invented by humans. It is simply the formal application of logic. Our own capability to understand is in no way a limitation on the scientific method.
I am left with the impression that your God is just a bin into which you place that set of things you don't understand and believe (for whatever reason) that no one else will ever understand, and as has been pointed out before, that is an ever-shrinking set. Which brings us back to the observation that the hypothesis that there is a God is also unfalsifiable. And so I can't deny that your God might exist, any more than I can deny any other proposed deity might exist, but as a necessary, or even vaguely plausible component of a complete explanation of our universe, he currently doesn't make the cut because, without any supporting evidence, he is just an ill-defined excuse for ignorance. But bring me some actual evidence and we can discuss further.
Muppetry explained things quite well. I would just like to add a few more things.
First, "I don't know" is the correct response to a question for which you lack an answer. "I don't know, let's find out" is an even better response. "I don't know, so Jesus" is what one calls an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.
Svnipp, you are right in that god is an answer to creation--it's just a shitty, intellectually bankrupt one. That answer is not different from saying "I don't understand thunder, so Thor" or "I don't understand the tides, so Poseidon". We still don't fully understand lightning. There's actually one small gap in our complete knowledge of the process. Should we say that Adad, the Babylonian god of Storms initiates the formation of the first filament of plasma and then physics takes care of the rest? Is that reasonable? Or should it be Zeus? Or Thor? Or Chaac? Or Set? Or Thunderbird? Or Haikili? Or Mamaragan? Or Tlaloc? Or Perun? Or Perkele? Or Shango? Or Oya?
**** it. I don't know. Let's find out.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
