|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
 Posted - 05/29/2001 : 19:08:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(Almost twice as many Pagans were put to death in the Arenas of Rome by Christians than the other way around)
Slater: maybe you have confused what I am trying to get from you.
Are you saying that pagans (all non christian religions excluding Judaeism and islam?) killed less people in the Arena (Coliseum, gladiatorial games?) than Christian Romans did?
If that is your point, please tell us how many died in each stage so we may judge the claim based on a clear argument including more than phrases such as twice as many or double the amount, and so on.
I'd really like to Know these things. That is a fascinating statistic and worthy of further discussion.
Now, You may think that I am an oppressive Christian for impinging on your freedom of speech because I dislike sloppy statistics, but you don't seem to realize that I am in fact not a Christian. I do not attempt to defend any religion at all, I am merely pointing out a weak spot in your argument.
I would jump on a tree hugger just as fast for a statement like " rainforests are being cut down at the rate of 5 acres a minute".
I also do not intend to sweep the crusades and inquisition under the rug, but it is a fairly standard and overused attack against christianity.
This argument doesn't work, because those events happened in a different time, to different cultures. Even if you do not want to beleive it, the church is a dynamic thing and does change over the course of hundreds of years. Bringing up the crusades and so on in relation to christianity today is akin to comparing Germany in 2001 to Germany in 1938.
Edited by - Sega on 05/29/2001 19:12:15 |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2001 : 22:13:23 [Permalink]
|
Call it a hunch, but i am guessing something else was supposed to go in that post?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 01:15:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
birth I think it's safe to say that while children are actually selfish, at first it is simply out of neccessity. They need food, diaper change, sleep, whatever. They aren't doing anything really wrong by throwing a fit at this point to get what they want or need. They simply lack any other mode of communication. So suppose that by the time they've reached the terrible two period, when their communication skills are beggining to develop, they have actually "learned" that throwing a fit pays off, and now they begin to apply this learned strategy to other things in their lives. The parent then steps in, and re-trains them in the proper (acceptabe) way of handling these situations.
broven: this is still the case of nature v nurture where nurture is the primary. Children to learn that screaming is an acceptable way to get attention at first. However, I also pointed out that some children are left at this state until starting school, where the group dynamic becomes the nurture that the parental units weren't. Trying to remember my psych classes on this. But there is great controversy over how much human behavior is genetic and how much is learned. One study involved several twins separated at birth. Some had similar mannerisms, most were trully affected by the environment in which the were raised. Our responses to stimuli are all related to Pavlovian conditioning. What we are taught. You know how most think bunnies are cute, ack, ack! Sorry hairball.
One study included children from an orphanage. The primary goal was to see if the conditioned children could be deprogrammed. They were conditioned to react with fear at the sight of a white bunny. Unfortunately, the orphanage was closed before deprogramming began. So there are a bunch of 80 yo people out there terrified of white bunnies. This experiment took place sometime during the late 20s early 30s.
We are programed by our environment and experiences into who we will become. Trully the only preprograming we are equipped with are basic survival mechanisms, or rather our autonomous responses, ie, fight v flight type response.
Only our social structures and higher cognitive skills delineate us from many other species. Unfortunately, this may also override the basic nurture mechanism that many species display so frequently. How else could our species be so apt at discarding its youngest most defenseless members. Many of these folks never learned how to care for another because they were not taught or are so afraid of societal rejection they act on the desire to 'fit in'. In rare instances you will find some abnormality in cognitive functions that prevents an individual from understanding and acting upon the learned responses most of us are equipped with during childhood.
There is no 'divine intervention' here or in our earliest reactiveness to stimuli only what we are taught.
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 01:28:34 [Permalink]
|
To add a small nugget of information to the whole "Nature vs. Nurture" debate, I firmly believe that if I had been raised by my natural father, I would have become a radically different person than I am now. (This is a good thing: I like the way I am now.) This belief is due to empirical observation of my little sister (my natural father's daughter, whom he is rasing) and myself, along with the actions and beliefs of my dad (the man who raised me) and my natural father.
|
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 02:39:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tiptup, good to see you're back. Where have you been?
 Oh, well, now that it is summer I have expanded duties at my current job. (It pays terrible but I have plenty of free time.) When the farmer's markets start I am required to triple my workload. That and all of my local friends have come back from college. Thus I now have less time to type up posts. Though I have been trying to read everyone's posts from time to time. As for my typing, I'm almost done with my restating of my views in the reason and morality thread. Then I want to take a crack at some of bestonett's stuff.
Anyhow, regarding the nasty and rude parts, I guess I was overemphasizing. But even you would have to admit that at certain times you certainly weren't polite. For example, as you posted more and more replies to my posts in the "did Jesus exist" section, I felt you were becoming more and more hostile and sarcastic to my views and myself. It was then that I started to rant in ways that aren't flattering to look back over.
My short temper is definetly one of my weaknesses.  Even in a thread about God on the original board I reacted in a pretty nasty way to @tomic just being a little sarcastic. I guess I would just ask everyone to forgive me if they ever received any of my over-reactions. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 14:21:19 [Permalink]
|
Sega, the last time we were having a discussion where the atrocities in Christian history were mentioned it seemed to upset you and you manipulated us into ending that line. It seems to be upsetting you again. Let me explain the thought behind these "anti Christian" statements.
This is a debate, started by broven, Christianity vs. Atheism.
When it started my side was given a major advantage as the debate was to be confined solely to logic. However I had to accept the handicap of not being able to require proof of the basic assertion, that is, the existence of god.
Now this puts me at a disadvantage as it is very the bases of the entire debate and I can't touch it. Rules is rules. What I have to do instead is provide such a profusion of circumstantial evidence as to produce a more than reasonable doubt.
Broven made a good move by providing beautiful life affirming philosophy from the bible. I countered with darker quotes from the same source.
The bible is a great point for broven. If it is the word of god then it is proof of the existence of god. I have been trying (with humor in this line) to demonstrate that it contradicts assumptions about god and therefore isn't from him. You see the problem of logic that I'm faced with. If it is the word of god it proves the existence of god--but if it isn't it does not disprove his existence. So there is no way that I can gain points, only loose them or stay even.
Another good point for broven is special revelation, in the form of "the golden rule."
Now I can't attack the golden rule it self. It is one of the "great truths." So what I have decided to do is use a two pronged attack. The first is at the golden rule's original source.
The second is an extension of the followers of god not showing a reflection of his presence. In other words -lack of evidence where you would assume there to be evidence. That isn't proof, but casting doubt is the best I can do at this point.
Lisa and Trish tried this same line earlier--the child abuser deciding that he was saved--and broven countered with this showing aspects of humans and not god. That would have been the perfect time for me to bring in "arguments from evil" based on omniscience and omnipotence; and I missed it cold.
So I'm taking a second shot at the same argument. This time it is removed from the emotion of personal experience by taking examples from the early church while it is increased in magnitude by involving tens of thousands of people rather than one little girl. It now also involves church policy rather than one mans opinion. The people who were guilty in my examples don't feel that they were forgiven they thought that they were doing god's will.
This is where you jumped in. Your abrupt dismissal of my arguments as dogma is invalid for two points. One: the comparative amounts of pagans vs. Christians who were martyred for their faith (a perfectly valid piece of info, supplied with it's source, despite your wishes to change its form) in the Coliseum and the Albigensian Crusade were both examples of esoteric knowledge. I chose them because I am aware of the limitations of the American educational system and I thought adding some obscure facts would be entertaining. Esoterica cannot, by definition, be dogma.
Two: being dogma does not automatically render information false.
Now broven has jumped on this "dogma" thing and produced an argument based on St Paul's writings. This is misdirection bordering on a non sequitur. If this had been an oral debate I would have missed it and gone along. As it stands I haven't figured out yet what course to take.
The argument that people change over time also doesn't hold water. These people are being held up as those who would, if anybody would, reflect the existence of god--and the god doesn't change. That's one of his claims to fame. This is about god, not the people who follow him.
We Irish have an expression, "is this a private fight or can anybody join?"
This is not a private fight at all. Pick a side and join in if you like. But if you think the whole thing is stupid and pointless, then stand aside--the rest of us are having fun. If we seem to be getting hot under the collars it is only the excitement that you feel at any sporting match.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 17:59:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
broven: this is still the case of nature v nurture where nurture is the primary. Children to learn that screaming is an acceptable way to get attention at first.
I think we are having some sort of misunderstanding here. I agree that, ultimately, nurture has a larger effect on our behaviour. Saying a newborn "learns" to cry in order to get what he needs or wants, though, is hard for me to fathom. My kids came out screaming (at least, within the first minute or so - sometimes I can't say as I blame them - there are times when I certainly think I would rather be someplace else too). I believe that they cry because they have no other way of expressing themselves when they are wanting. Sometime after that point, nurture (and Pavlovian conditioning) take over. Eventually, we become what society expects of us (in some form or another). This whole topic is actually quite a ways off from my original point. I don't think my original point actually had anything to do with babies at all. But just to clarify where I stand on THIS subject. At first, we are all pretty much nature. At the end we are pretty much all nurture (i know I'm over-simplifying. Just trying to be clear). And secondary to this topic (but not neccessarily realted to my original observation) there is nothing evil, selfish, etc. in the fact that babies can be real pain in the asses. (not my babies, but others I have heard of. . . ) They are just asking their (supossedly) benevelent keepers for a drink of water.
Or whatever. . .
Otherwise, I think your points are valid. I subscribe to them myself. I hadn't heard about the bunny experiment. It's sort of funny and scary at the same time.
quote:
You know how most think bunnies are cute, ack, ack! Sorry hairball.
Actually, I think bunnies are kinda cute. . .
But I also have three really cute rat snakes living under my back porch. . .
quote:
There is no 'divine intervention' here or in our earliest reactiveness to stimuli only what we are taught.
I don't know if my position on this actually constitutes "devine intervention". My proposition was that human nature itself is aware of right and wrong. I didn't initailly use babies in that argument because it's impossible to show what babies know or don't know. AT least, in respect to this particular idea. My original offering had to do with the fact that people who are entirely unaware of Jesus, or christianity, or whatever, are still aware of the "Golden Rule". As Slater stated in a later post, it's a "Great Truth". Although, stating that brings up a whole dialog on "Good vs Evil - or - How do we know the difference". Frankly, I'm not ready to go there yet. . . (although, maybe I just set myself up. . .)
Peace
Spinnin' my wheels and gettin' no where - fast
[/quote]
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 18:19:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Okay, here's a tough question. How does this differ from the behavior of any decent person?
(for those of you without a program, we were discussing the "Golden Rule" here).
It doesn't. When I do the books for my brothers company, my accounting doesn't differ from a CPA. (actually, it probably does, but I'm trying to make a point here. . .) That doesn't prove that CPA's don't exist. It's obviously possible to know the "Rules" of accounting without being an accountant. Just like it's possible to know the tax law and still cheat on your taxes. I'm running on here, I think. I don't mean to insult your intelligence.
By the way, I think decent people are great. The world needs more of them! And I wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm saying you should burn in Hell if you're a decent athiest. Honestly, that's not my business. It's God's. (Assuming, as I usually do, that He exists). I don't feel in any way compelled to decide who deserves Heaven and who deserves Hell. My friends are all "decent" people. And actually I am one of the few christians among them. I guess it's the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. It just makes good sense .
Anyway, this seemed to easy, Slater. So, if I missed your point, let me know. And I see that I am way behind (maybe hopelessly behind, since I can't find an ally to save my soul, so to speak) so I'll post this and then try to cover some old ground.
Peace.
Edited by - broven on 05/30/2001 18:22:15 |
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 18:22:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sega, the last time we were having a discussion where the atrocities in Christian history were mentioned it seemed to upset you and you manipulated us into ending that line. It seems to be upsetting you again.
Slater: I am not upset at all.  I just thought that your use of numbers was too vague in the original post. And again, because I disagree on certain points of various arguments, it does not mean I am some lurking christian spy, boning up on my debating skills.
I am really a lurking Agnostic spy, boning up on my debating skills. Although I guess agnostics don't really need to lurk. There is nothing to hide, cover up, whitewash or deny.
The only problem is that I apparently don't make my self clear enough at certain points, and my intent or meanings seem to be misread. No offense is meant here, but don't try to read between the lines too much. Sometimes there is nothing there. I do admit however, that I may be a bit too slow of a typer to keep up, or to put enough text together for a proper post at times.
|
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 19:09:59 [Permalink]
|
Hi Antie.
Since you only made this one post (I think) I thought I'd go ahead and respond. Just to get it out of the way, as it were.
quote:
A. There is no imperical evidence to support his existence.
Many of the arguments that support his existence beg the question. A perfect example is the Argument from Design.
True, I suppose, although I haven't attempted to make that argument. Alot of these arguments are pretty pat. Standard assertion, standard response. I'm basically trying to avoid the ones that I either know the respnoses to, or that I'm not well enough versed on the subject to discuss intelligently (a perfectly acceptable strategy in debate terms).
quote:
B. There is evidence to support things such as "an old universe", evolution, etc.
It depends a lot on what you mean by ""an old universe," "evolution," etc. (I should point out that "evolution" isn't the same thing as "the origin of life.")
I'm not sure what your point here was. Sometimes I can be alittle dense, I'm afraid.
But, I try. . .
quote:
C. If you believe in God you're an idiot.
That's not really an argument. It's an assertion. And not all of us are saying such things.
I admit defeat here emphatically. It is a response that I have personnally come up against, though. In retrospect, I never should have given it any thought. THis board has shown me, beyond any doubt, that you athiest aren't ALL bastards (just alittle humor. . . No really. . .)
quote:
1. Does lack of evidence disprove anything?
No, and the lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, either.
True. Of course, in fairness to me, I never offered it as proof.
quote:
Another thought that has occurred to me occasionally: Before the Big Bang where did all this stuff come from.
At this point, because of what already know about how the universe works, this isn't even a valid question anymore.[/qoute]
That seems fundamentally wrong to me. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't "proven" anything yet. We have our theories, and our equations, and our extrapolations, etc. (all of the currently accepted ones are quite convincing) but we don't have "PROOF". If we don't have proof, then the question is most certainly valid. Never stop questioning!!! (Not ranting here - I just feel strongly on this subject)
quote:
If we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck time (10-43 second), we find that universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy -- total chaos. The universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create.
I'm know physicist, but it seems like you are copping out. The stuff has always been here. . . It was just very disorganized.
So let me ask a question (I'm not trying to make a point here - just wondering if some can explain this in terms I can comprehend).
Big Bang theory states that everything (as far back as we are capable of discerning) started as a singularity. My understanding (limitted though it may be) is that this means all the mass in the universe, contained(?) in a space that has no volume. I believe that once you reach that point (like black holes) then quantum physics take over. (I've always heard that they "take over". Do they not exist outside of black holes? - Hehe, a question within a question. . .) And my understanding of quantum physics is that it is unpredicatble. Hense, the "Maximum Entropy" that you mentioned. Now, I don't want to open the whole "Design within the chaos" argument (especially since I probably got THAT ball rolling a couple of posts ago), but how does this fit with the ever popular Thermodynamics law #2 that energy doesn't move from entropy to order (Oh, God, I'm in it now. . .) but from order to entropy? I've, actually, always thought that this was a pretty good argument. But, sadly, I don't have the time to become well versed enough in Physics (and the properties OF physics) to truly test the idea. Are the laws of thermodynamics suspended in a situation where quantum physics "take over"? (He said, honestly seeking an explanation that he could understand. . .)
quote:
Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer,
Well, I certainly can ask - and I did. You just can't answer. . .
[quote]Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.{/quote]
Well, this is a lesson in simantics. A lesson which I should have learned already, admittedly. What I meant was - Where did it all come from. If there was no time before the Big Bang, fine. Slater (I think) said that time exists because of motion (or something similar to that - sorry, Slater, if I mangled it - but I see what you meant). I'm just not well enough versed in the "language" to say what I mean without using the concept of time. It's like WHAM!!!! suddenly everything exists, including time (I know the word "suddenly" also implies "time" - I can't seem to get around it) So we see the effect - where's the cause? Singularity or no, maximum entropy or no - how can it be naturally created out of nothing? I just can't comprehend it. . .
Even the statement that "if there was a creator, he had nothing to create" doesn't answer the question. It just assumes that all this "stuff" was already here, without attempting to explain it.
[quote]
But this, too, you take on faith.
What sort of faith?
The faith in scientific theories. (and I use the word "theories" deliberately)
In closing, I'll say again - Never stop questioning.
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 19:17:52 [Permalink]
|
I see I've gotten my little "quote/unquote" tags all screwed up on that last post. I'm sure everyone can figure it out
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 19:23:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Okay, here's a tough question. How does this differ from the behavior of any decent person?
(for those of you without a program, we were discussing the "Golden Rule" here).
It doesn't. When I do the books for my brothers company, my accounting doesn't differ from a CPA. (actually, it probably does, but I'm trying to make a point here. . .) That doesn't prove that CPA's don't exist. It's obviously possible to know the "Rules" of accounting without being an accountant...
Anyway, this seemed to easy, Slater.
Yeah, you missed my point. What I'm pulling here is called an Ockhamism.
You are making an appeal for "special revelation". I am pointing out that this revelation knowledge not only exists in those people who do not accept Jesus it exists in the animal kingdom who have never heard of him.There by demonstrating a simplier "natural" bases and not relying on a conjectured supernatural source....ah...ah...ah..which you haven't demonstrated. Sorry, sorry...I know...I couldn't help myself.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him
Edited by - slater on 05/30/2001 19:25:26 |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 19:30:21 [Permalink]
|
SLater, you're killing me, man. . .
I get the impression that you've spent alot more time thinking about this than I have. Are (or were) you interested in this subject personnally, or do you just enjoy trouncing fools like me?
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 19:36:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are making an appeal for "special revelation". I am pointing out that this revelation knowledge not only exists in those people who do not accept Jesus it exists in the animal kingdom who have never heard of him.There by demonstrating a simplier "natural" bases and not relying on a conjectured supernatural source
So are you, then, suggesting that the golden rule is demonstrated in the animal kingdom? I can think of several off-handed instances where it isn't apparent. I guess I'll save them until I am sure I get your drift. In the meantime - I'm still trying to catch up on your older posts. (I think I might need to quit my job just to have time for it. . .)
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
broven
New Member
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2001 : 20:16:30 [Permalink]
|
ljbrs,
quote:
I am not going to argue about religion, only about its effects.
OK. But that argument doesn't go anywhere. It assumes that modern christians, in general, exemplify what God intended. I'll be the first to admit that that isn't exactly the case. Some do (as close as can be expected, anyway. We truly aren't perfect, after all. And "true" christains never claim to be) but most don't display true christianity. This has been a concern of mine, ever since I became aware of the entire subject. The distinction needs to be made between "professed" christians and "actual" christians. But, In my attempt to clarify the line I am, actually, blurring it. I do believe that you can be a "christain" in the sense that you are attempting to do what you feel you are called upon to do, and yet, do it so imperfectly, that anyone aside from yourself and God, wouldn't know the difference. If you are trying (no matter how miserably you may fail) at least you are trying.
But I digress. . .
quote:
From what I can see of the religions of the world, many of the true believers are busy killing everybody else who profess to believe in a different religion.
Perhaps in individual circimstances this is true. But basically I think you are back to the question, "What is a "TRUE" christian?"
quote:
With the great number of individual faiths (and perhaps in any single religion, where each person has his/her own individual interpretation), there is no hope for any kind of reconciliation.
Technically, christianity does offer a hope of reconciliation. As do many (if not all) other organized faiths. The fact that we, as humans, can't agree doesn't mean that there isn't an answer. (I'm sure I opened myself up to a slew of "answers" that have nothing to do with religion. . .) It is left for us to decide for ourselves what is true. And everyone here is doing a fine job of looking into that. . . But just because most people have it wrong (possibly) - (I could, quite easily, be the one who has it wrong - but I'm trying) doesn't mean a thing. Orson Wells had most of us believing that Mars was attacking, after all. . .
quote:
Getting along with others of differing faiths (or of no faith) does not seem to be an important goal of any of the true believers.
Sad, but true. Frankly, I can't see how people expect to convince anyone that they have the "answer" when they are so busy alienating everyone else. The impression I got from reading the Bible was that we should be decent to everyone. Jesus died for all of us, not just us - (baptists, evangelicals, catholics, etc. . .).
quote:
look around the world and what does one find? Religious hatreds.
The unfortunate effect of man trying to deal with a concept that is both dear to him, and alien at the same time. Like going to a planet where no-one is any good at math. Just because everyone on that planet screws it up doesn't mean that math doesn't exist there. They are just screwing it up is all. We humans do that on occasion. . .
quote:
Now, scientists get along without the necessity to murder each other. Peer review keeps them honest. Of course, scientists have their differences, but there is no need for any of them to murder anybody else over a differing scientific opinion.
I suspect that the vast majority of christians haven't killed anyone over their professed religious beliefs either. And I also suspect (though cannot prove) that some scientist may have, in fact, done the very thing you claim that they do not. We are all, after all, human. (I know this isn't proof even in the farthest stretch of the imagination, but I did recently see an episode of Law and Order where a scientist did try to kill a fellow scientist over intellectual property. I have to admit that it seemed perfectly plausible.)
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
