|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 20:27:10 [Permalink]
|
On fire for Christ:
...but nothing he's done seems particularly vindictive to me or a billion other people. |
And:
On fire for Christ:
Also since millions of christians do think God is fair and just then it would suggest many people do think this way. |
This fallacy is known as: An Appeal to Popularity. It really says nothing about how just or fair or really anything at all about God. All it says is that lots of people believe the same thing.
I understand that you believe that God is fair and just. You said yourself that anything God does is good. But again, that requires faith, and if you're intelligent, it seems to me that it would take a whole lot of rationalizing to make that work. Why? Because the concept itself is not rational. What is there to build a good argument on for the existence of God? The believer must fall back on faith, which is circular, self supporting and insulated, and can't be weighed by any logic outside of itself. Simply put, it's magical thinking. Frankly, it's pointless to argue about what is "just" or "loving" with anyone who has accepted on "faith" what those terms mean.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 20:30:14 [Permalink]
|
| When you're talking about what seems fair to people, then appealing to popularity is appropriate. |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2010 : 20:30:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Also since millions of christians do think God is fair and just then it would suggest many people do think this way. |
If millions of people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.| I disagree, many psychopaths/sociopaths are able to participate in society, and a set of rules laid out by a divine creator, and a firm belief in that creator may be the ONLY way to control such people. |
Fear of punishment is not a good motivator for good behavior, as demonstrated by all the people who commit crimes despite being fully aware that they can be punished for doing so. This is another reason why I oppose the death penalty: it doesn't deter the crimes for which it is a punishment.
We've met people here in these forums who say that if it weren't for fear of God, they'd go around happily raping and killing and eating babies, and I used to think that they should keep their religion if it really does keep their psychopathy in check. But what they really need is treatment, and their religion actually prevents treatment because society sees their religion as "normal" or even virtuous. Thus, it's a lose-lose situation, because some of these people are going to suffer a psychotic break despite their fear of God's wrath, while the rest of them are going to be praised for being psychopaths. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 20:32:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
When you're talking about what seems fair to people, then appealing to popularity is appropriate. |
So if billions of people thought that abortion is okay, then you'd be fine with it, too? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 20:32:21 [Permalink]
|
| Ifs fairness a science or is it subjective? Are there any scientific proofs out there for fairness? I'd be interested in reading them. But that is really besides the point. |
Yes, it is. So are your very poorly worded questions. But the science of fairness is coming along quite well without your input, so what's it matter? |
I'm having trouble understanding.
Q. Is fairness a science or is it subjective?
A. Yes, it is. So are your very poorly worded questions.
Firstly, it wasn't a yes/no question. Secondly, My very poorly worded questions are what exactly? A science or subjective? Or are you saying that it's all besides the point, merely responding to the last sentence in the quote, and ignoring the questions. Please clarify your very poorly worded answers.
I'm sorry to hear that people with monotheistic beliefs aren't allowed to think for themselves at all. Gives the lie to that whole "free will" thing, doesn't it?
|
I don't see what free will has to do with it. You are free to disregard God's commandments. You're free to make your own up, doesn't make them true.
| So if billions of people thought that abortion is okay, then you'd be fine with it, too? |
Not fine with it, but I recognise that the natural human response can go either way so the idea of there being a scientific right or wrong is pretty hard to justify. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/18/2010 20:47:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 20:46:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
| Ifs fairness a science or is it subjective? Are there any scientific proofs out there for fairness? I'd be interested in reading them. But that is really besides the point. |
Yes, it is. So are your very poorly worded questions. But the science of fairness is coming along quite well without your input, so what's it matter? |
I'm having trouble understanding.
Q. Is fairness a science or is it subjective?
A. Yes, it is. So are your very poorly worded questions.
Firstly, it wasn't a yes/no question. Secondly, My very poorly worded questions are what exactly? A science or subjective? Or are you saying that it's all besides the point, merely responding to the last sentence in the quote, and ignoring the questions. Please clarify your very poorly worded answers. |
Interesting how you edited your reply from this:| How was it poorly worded? Also if fairness is a scientific thing then please provide the proofs for this, I'd be interested in reading them. |
The science of fairness is the study of fairness in the natural world. What, exactly, do you want "proofs" of? That fairness can be objectively studied? That people have a sense of fairness? What?
But your misunderstanding of my answer was simply because you lost the context. I was agreeing that this "is really besides the point." I wish you'd respond to the points you think are more important, instead of spending lots of time (well, any more time, really) on this "fairness" thing which you think is irrelevant. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 20:49:22 [Permalink]
|
| I am interested in how fairness of a concept can be proven one way or the other. You claim something is unfair, I claim it isn't. Who is right. Can it be proven and how? I don't want to fall out over this Dave but you're trying my patience. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 20:59:18 [Permalink]
|
And yet another edit:Originally posted by On fire for Christ
| I'm sorry to hear that people with monotheistic beliefs aren't allowed to think for themselves at all. Gives the lie to that whole "free will" thing, doesn't it? |
I don't see what free will has to do with it. You are free to disregard God's commandments. You're free to make your own up, doesn't make them true. |
According to you, if you're the follower of a monotheistic religion, then you believe that what God says is true and just. That simply isn't compatible with being free to disregard or to make up one's own commandments. Anyone who does so must not be a follower of a monotheistic religion.| So if billions of people thought that abortion is okay, then you'd be fine with it, too? |
Not fine with it, but I recognise that the natural human response can go either way so the idea of there being a scientific right or wrong is pretty hard to justify. |
Nobody's talking about a "scientific right or wrong." You suggested that because you and a billion other people don't think your God is vindictive, that somehow provides evidence that he's not. That's a straight appeal to authority, which you said is appropriate. So if a billion people think abortion is okay, that should have some bearing on your thinking, but you're specifically stating that it won't. You've either got a double-standard, or you're just using logical fallacies as you see fit. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 21:10:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I am interested in how fairness of a concept can be proven one way or the other. You claim something is unfair, I claim it isn't. Who is right. Can it be proven and how? I don't want to fall out over this Dave but you're trying my patience. |
Yet you specifically said this is beside the point? Come on! Make up your mind.
But here's the answer to what you're interested in: so long as you accept a morality based upon a fictional authority, nothing I can say about what's fair or not could even begin to convince you that I might have a point on issues of fairness on which we disagree. Because your moral guidelines are based on a concept completely alien to rationality and logic, we will always talk past one another about whether any particular thing is "fair" or not. That is the real reason this is all beside the point.
In different words: We all have different goals, and thus different sets of morals, and thus different senses about what's fair and what's not. There's no way to "prove" any particular action is "fair." But your goals, OFFC, and thus your morality and sense of fairness are based upon something which is completely immune to rational argument, which is why any discussion of fairness we might engage in will be futile and trying of everyone's patience, which is why I agreed with you that we should drop it.
Let's get back to that which we both agree are more important: why you think that your God is at all trustworthy or benevolent. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 21:12:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Robb
Repent and beleive is what Jesus said and it does not matter what you did previously. |
Ok, Robb, honest question. Do you know where in the bible it says you have to believe in Jesus before you die to be saved? Why is death the cut-off point? What's the biblical support for that rule? I'm curious and would appreciate any insight you could offer on that point.
|
Here are some Bible verses that support this:
Heb 9:27 - And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (NIV) context
Rev 20:11-15 - And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (NIV)
Luke 16:26 And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there. (NIV) context
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him (NIV) context
There are others and if you take them as a whole there is good support for this idea. To be fair some say 1 Pet 3:19 and 1 pet 4:6 indicate different.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 21:14:57 [Permalink]
|
Free will is freedom over your actions. If you believe in God yet still choose not to follow his guidance then that's your decision. There's no overriding mechanism preventing you from doing this.
I would accept logical or scientific reasons why my sense of fairness is wrong. What are they?
|
I'm responding to this. You asked for scientific reasons for disproof of fairness. I'm suggesting it isn't possible, different people have different notions of fairness. You're suggesting I am appealing to popularity, which I wasn't really doing, you misunderstand my motives. I wasn't saying Millions believe in X therefore X is true. I am saying that if millions believe X is a fair concept and millions don't, then it suggests fairness is a subjective thing. Some people agree with God's world view and some don't. Once again if fairness can somehow be proven or disproven categorically then I'd be interested to know how.
For the record, even though I defer to God's morality, I am still interested in Man's. I often place myself in position of Devil's advocate, something I think many people on these boards (not you Dave) would benefit from. Some of you don't even have the basic understanding of the things you ridicule and it hampers your arguments. I think it's important for any strong debater to do this. If you don't know the opposition's view how can you trust your own? (That's rhetorical)
Ok since we're dropping this now, I'll move on.
Why is God trustworthy or Benevolent?
I never said he was. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/18/2010 21:24:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 22:04:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Free will is freedom over your actions. |
Really? You think that if a being has no free will, then that being is just God's robot? Well, then since God gave free will only to humans, and Satan wasn't ever human, then everything Satan did was at God's direction.| If you believe in God yet still choose not to follow his guidance then that's your decision. There's no overriding mechanism preventing you from doing this. |
Except that by your definition, you must think these actions to be wrong. How could it be possible for there to be anything that Christians used to think was right to now be thought of by Christians as wrong, while the Bible hasn't changed? Slavery is but one example. Or are people who disavow slavery today simply acting against God's judgment?| I would accept logical or scientific reasons why my sense of fairness is wrong. What are they? |
I'm responding to this. You asked for scientific reasons for disproof of fairness. |
No, I asked for disproof of my sense of fairness. It's right there in what you quoted.| I'm suggesting it isn't possible, different people have different notions of fairness. |
Yes, different people have different notions of fairness, but that doesn't make them immune to argument over what's fair and what's not. You, on the other hand, have said that if God says something is fair, you believe it and so there can be no discussion.| You're suggesting I am appealing to popularity, which I wasn't really doing, you misunderstand my motives. I wasn't saying Millions believe in X therefore X is true. I am saying that if millions believe X is a fair concept and millions don't, then it suggests fairness is a subjective thing. Some people agree with God's world view and some don't. |
Well, of course. Nobody ever disputed this.| Once again if fairness can somehow be proven or disproven categorically then I'd be interested to know how. |
This is actually a category error. "Fairness" exists. Do you dispute it? Everybody has a "sense of fairness." Do you dispute that? What you're asking for is a scientific proof or disproof that some particular action is "fair" or not, which, thanks to the infinitude of possible scenarios in which such an action might take place, cannot exist.
But even if such scientific proof did exist, if it contradicted God, you would dismiss it as wrong.| For the record, even though I defer to God's morality, I am still interested in Man's. I often place myself in position of Devil's advocate, something I think many people on these boards (not you Dave) would benefit from. |
I can't tell if you're insulting everybody but me, or just me.| Some of you don't even have the basic understanding of the things you ridicule and it hampers your arguments. |
Yet you won't provide any examples, which is less than charitable of you.| I think it's important for any strong debater to do this. If you don't know the opposition's view how can you trust your own? (That's rhetorical) |
Indeed, knowing one's "enemy" is important.Ok since we're dropping this now, I'll move on.
Why is God trustworthy or Benevolent?
I never said he was. |
Except when you did. If God says X, then X must be right, according to you. That's complete trust. And your insistence that we just don't understand God's justice says in no uncertain terms that it is justice, and thus benevolent.
But what I'm much more interested in is your response to my paragraphs about how you're acting like a battered spouse. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 22:13:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Here are some Bible verses that support this:
Heb 9:27 - And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (NIV) context
Rev 20:11-15 - And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (NIV)
Luke 16:26 And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there. (NIV) context
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him (NIV) context
There are others and if you take them as a whole there is good support for this idea. To be fair some say 1 Pet 3:19 and 1 pet 4:6 indicate different. |
Thanks for the time you took to respond, Robb. I know I'm no bible scholar, but the quotes you've offered seem like thin gruel.
The first quote says only that we will be judged after death, but not necessarily immediately after death. There may still reason to presume a loving god would give his children a final chance to repent after they've died.
The second quote offered is interesting because it clearly says the dead will be judged according to their works during their life, not on their faith. Oh, I know the bible is inconsistent on that point, as your last quote indicates. The once-saved-always-saved crowd loves to quote that last verse. But I don't think it offers as much support for the "faith alone" as they'd like to believe.
What does it mean to "reject the Son?" I don't think it can be said that I have rejected Jesus because I've never met him. Certainly I've rejected the religion that presumes to speak for him (or should I say all of them, since each Christian sect seems to have their own ideas about that), but I've never actually met Jesus or Yahweh. Maybe they'd be more persuasive in person. And again that quote says nothing about death being the last chance to accept Christ.
I know you say that this idea that one cannot convert in the afterlife has strong biblical support, but I'm dubious. Many "settled" points of Christian doctrine have changed over the years. Remember when it was taught that all unbaptized infants roast in hell for eternity?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/18/2010 22:13:45 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 22:25:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Thanks for the time you took to respond, Robb. I know I'm no bible scholar, but the quotes you've offered seem like thin gruel.
The first quote says only that we will be judged after death, but not necessarily immediately after death. There may still reason to presume a loving god would give his children a final chance to repent after they've died.
The second quote offered is interesting because it clearly says the dead will be judged according to their works during their life, not on their faith. Oh, I know the bible is inconsistent on that point, as your last quote indicates. The once-saved-always-saved crowd loves to quote that last verse. But I don't think it offers as much support for the "faith alone" as they'd like to believe.
What does it mean to "reject the Son?" I don't think it can be said that I have rejected Jesus because I've never met him. Certainly I've rejected the religion that presumes to speak for him (or should I say all of them, since each Christian sect seems to have their own ideas about that), but I've never actually met Jesus or Yahweh. Maybe they'd be more persuasive in person. And again that quote says nothing about death being the last chance to accept Christ.
I know you say that this idea that one cannot convert in the afterlife has strong biblical support, but I'm dubious. Many "settled" points of Christian doctrine have changed over the years. Remember when it was taught that all unbaptized infants roast in hell for eternity?
|
One point I should make is that Jesus says you must believe or have faith to be saved. If faith is believing in the unseen (Heb 11:1) then how can faith save you after you are dead when you meet God face to face? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 22:29:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
One point I should make is that Jesus says you must believe or have faith to be saved. If faith is believing in the unseen (Heb 11:1) then how can faith save you after you are dead when you meet God face to face?
|
I don't know. How can Jesus' parents, his apostles, or anyone he ever ministered to in his lifetime be saved if they met him face to face? Jesus was god incarnate, after all. People saw him raise the dead and walk on water (allegedly). How much faith would it take to believe Jesus was the true messiah if you saw that with your own eyes? And many old testament figures interacted directly with god. Are Elijah, Abraham and Moses saved?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/18/2010 22:42:27 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Loopholes
