- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
But proselytizing is frowned on quite strongly and hasn't been welcomed. This is after all a site for those that are fans of AR's work and AS, and for those that are drawn to the Objectivist philosophy, and those that are already strongly Objectivist in their lives and thinking. Those of us that are in that last group, generally want to discuss and assert the logical reasoning and rationality of a philosophy that provides for man's individual rights to live, to personally improve that life, to work for and earn achievement from the efforts of our minds, and to do that in full knowledge and recognition of the reality and empirical evidence of human life. Not from the beneficence of a supernatural being that can't be seen, heard, or otherwise sensed. Although we know that religions have been and currently are the major cause of hundreds of thousands of murder and suffering of humans throughout history and today, discussions of why that is true are readily accommodated if those discussions are based on logical reasoning and rational thinking.
of our site here.
no proselytizing, no preaching, just explaining
and understanding to the max, we hope!!! -- j
.
After all you would not want to be accused at all of simply propagating something WRONG, because then A does not equal A then.
Since you did not pick one I will.
Esceptico used a set of scriptures to indicate the Bible is evil, and full of "Murders." I will pick the one he used about hating parents Luke 14:26 and logically show you how this is misquoted and totally out of context.
I could go on with more scriptures using parallels and metaphors but I hope the point is made. Every Scripture used below in Esceptico's post is not used IN context and is cited wrongly in order to prove a point that is totally lost because each citation is misapplied.
Webster
Lu 14:26 If any man cometh to me, and hateth not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Basic English
Lu 14:26 And turning round, he said to them, If any man comes to me, and has not hate for his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even for his life, he may not be my disciple.
Jesus often used parables, and stories as well as other forms of metaphor to put into context what was being discussed.
Henry concise discusses this passage.
The Jews, as such, should have no part in it. But those who entered in must count the cost (v. 25-33). All must be forsaken in this world; every link with this world must be broken. The nearer anything was to the heart, the more dangerous, the more it must be abhorred.
IN context Jesus was discussing what it took to become his follower. We see similar things with our military when certain people are being selected for specific roles.
The full passage in context was an evening meal when Jesus was discussing things with the Pharisees who were trying to “trick” him.
Jesus was making a point that in order to gain entrance into the Kingdom of God things of this earth must be abhorrent to you. Those ties that bind you to something prevent you from seeking out something else.
To simply parse out “Everyone should hate their parents, wives and children.” And state the God wants you to hate your family is WRONG and a very incorrect statement when you look at the situation in full context. Following up in the next verses he talks about counting the cost of taking on a task. Parallels following him with counting the cost of building, or of a King going into battle. Remember Jesus said over and over his Kingdom was not of this earth, therefore you would have to “forsake” everything to be part of that Kingdom.
Peoples NT comments this way.
LU 14:26 26, 27. If any man come to me. See notes on Matt. 10:37, 38. Hateth not his own father. In just the same sense that he hates his own life also. That is, these must all be given up, turned away from, if we have to choose between them and Christ.
LU 14:28 28-33. Doth not sit down first and count the cost? This calculation of what any enterprise or step will require before entering upon it is the part of wisdom. So, too, a disciple of Christ should count the cost. It is well to understand that every obstacle to the service of Christ must be given up.
14 On another occasion he went to eat a meal in the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees on the Sabbath, and they were closely watching him. 2 And look! a man who had dropsy was in front of him. 3 So in response Jesus asked those versed in the Law and the Pharisees: “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath or not?” 4 But they kept silent. With that he took hold of the man, healed him, and sent him away. 5 Then he said to them: “Who of you, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” 6 And they were not able to reply to this.
7 He then told the invited men an illustration when he noticed how they were choosing the most prominent places for themselves. He said to them: 8 “When you are invited by someone to a marriage feast, do not recline in the most prominent place. Perhaps someone more distinguished than you may also have been invited. 9 Then the one who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Let this man have your place.’ Then you will proceed with shame to take the lowest place. 10 But when you are invited, go and recline in the lowest place, so that when the man who invited you comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, go on up higher.’ Then you will have honor in front of all your fellow guests. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
12 Next he said also to the man who had invited him: “When you spread a dinner or an evening meal, do not call your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your rich neighbors. Otherwise, they might also invite you in return, and it would become a repayment to you. 13 But when you spread a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; 14 and you will be happy, because they have nothing with which to repay you. For you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous ones.”
15 On hearing these things, one of the fellow guests said to him: “Happy is the one who dines in the Kingdom of God.”
16 Jesus said to him: “A man was spreading a grand evening meal, and he invited many. 17 He sent his slave out at the hour of the evening meal to say to the invited ones, ‘Come, because everything is now ready.’ 18 But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I bought a field and need to go out and see it; I ask you, have me excused.’ 19 And another said, ‘I bought five yoke of cattle and am going to examine them; I ask you, have me excused.’ 20 Still another said, ‘I just got married, and for this reason I cannot come.’ 21 So the slave came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out quickly to the main streets and the alleys of the city, and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ 22 In time the slave said, ‘Master, what you ordered has been done, and still there is room.’ 23 So the master said to the slave, ‘Go out to the roads and the lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. 24 For I say to you, none of those men who were invited will taste my evening meal.’”
25 Now large crowds were traveling with him, and he turned and said to them: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his torture stake and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 For example, who of you wanting to build a tower does not first sit down and calculate the expense to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, he might lay its foundation but not be able to finish it, and all the onlookers would start to ridicule him, 30 saying: ‘This man started to build but was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king marching out against another king in war does not first sit down and take counsel whether he is able with 10,000 troops to stand up to the one who comes against him with 20,000? 32 If, in fact, he cannot do so, then while that one is yet far away, he sends out a body of ambassadors and sues for peace. 33 In the same way, you may be sure that not one of you who does not say good-bye to all his belongings can be my disciple.
34 “Salt, to be sure, is fine. But if the salt loses its strength, with what will it be seasoned? 35 It is not suitable for soil or for manure. People throw it away. Let the one who has ears to listen, listen.”
Until such time as that, your claim on "reason" and your implication that ONLY atheists possess reason is a total fallacy.
Listen up at 1:21! It is incomprehensible to you! lol.
the language is being perverted so that good is bad
and charity is racism. -- j
.
to explain here, Gary. . altruism is anathema to a reasonable person
who wants to have the maximum positive impact on his own life.
charity is fun, self-centered and reasonable. . I take the oath
as a charitable person, not an altruistic one. . and I use
the term "faith" to label the unknown. -- j
.
they are being smart with the dollars. . need does not drive me at all. -- j
.
Don't lump everyone together please.
about the oath. . curious. . who's Greg? -- j
.
.
maintain that the love-oriented view of reality beats
the cold acidic view of loooooong ago. . I have done it;;;
hey -- I do it every day!!! -- j
.
that survival of the fittest is the essence of reality -- the cold view --
is less enlightened, in my estimation, than the more recent view
which asserts that we are brothers and sisters as well as
individuals, and should honor one another without
initiation of force or coercion. . that is the context of my "love-oriented view" comment.
number 2 is a subject which I explored with a PhD shrink extensively,
years ago::: emotions are, in her view, sources of information about
the individual ... rather than, in my view, expressions of
that individual's mind. . I feel love intentionally, as an expression
of my self. . it is real when I think it or act on it. . rationally, I Do Hope!!! -- j
.
The enlightenment you make reference to can be traced to Locke and Smith and the Founders, those that through reason arrived at the opinion that men have individual rights rather than group or individual dispensations from their rulers and hereditary betters. Rand took it further and established the etymology and metaphysics upon which to base such a way of dealing with the realities of the world and the emotions of our 'older' brains amongst many other parts of the philosophy and our rights to self interest.
Loving all humanity as your brothers and sisters is dangerously close to one of the most dangerous and evil concepts of all of mankind's history, altruism, whether you also recognize them as individual or the collective whole. As to a restriction of the initiation of force against others as a form of honor to 'our brothers and sisters', it's not about honor--it's about the recognition that your assertion and defense of the right to life and the products of your mind can only be morally justified if the same is true for all others.
Your approach sounds much like others I've encountered that although learning about Objectivism and sensing the rightness of it, but reluctant to give up their reliance on a life's teachings of christ's love and forgiveness of others' failings and a further reliance that there is more than just this life, then attempt to either modify what they've learned of Objectivism to fit more closely with their religious beliefs or try to modify their way of thinking or internal terminology to fit some of Objectivism's principles. Enough to convince themselves that they can hang on to ingrained teachings and beliefs.
But key to Objectivism is looking at the world of reality as it is, not as one wishes it to be because of beliefs not based on empirical evidence, rationally and logically integrated into the knowledge base from which to make decisions of life in this reality.
you are attempting to reject my explanations because you seem
to sense that there is some evasion in them, I believe.
I am an engineer by nature. . I take evidence and make life better
with it. . if I fake reality, people die. . this would not be good.
honor is the term which I use to identify the respect which one
must have for another because they are human, individual, with the
same rights as yours. . Locke, et al plus Rand have helped us to see
how carefully we must view this principle. . it is so important that
I call it honor. . this term also confused my shrink. . she thought
that my control over my emotions as expressions of my mind,
not my amygdala, was wrong. . she saw emotions as
primary sources of insight into the person whom I am. . OK, doc,
I will play your silly game. . put me into a situation where
I must respond fast and see if I can think quickly. . I can. . OK?
and objectivism is right. . also, it is wise to forgive people,
to show them that you have confidence (if you DO) that they
might improve in the future. . it does not pay to forget, however.
when you assert that I might have a "reliance that there is more
than just this life," I would remind you of Rand's view -- that the world ends
for us when we die. . that's all I contemplate. -- j
.
In the immediate case, your comments are contradictory, ambiguous, confusing, and express a lack of understanding, or a full grasp of what Objectivism is or how it applies in the immediate case. Maybe your attempt at analysis of my down-voting as 'sensing evasion in your explanations' is telling. The inclusion of 'evasion' is of your choice, not mine.
I would be more tempted to use 'lack of ownership' of the content of a post, or the reason of why you think it worth discussing on a site such as The Gulch. If your interest is just to post a topic and see how many comments or discussion amongst others on the site you can garner, without committing yourself or opening up your rationale and reasoning or personal philosophy to others, I can see how you might think you've exposed some evasion in yourself.
A typical response from that type of poster is 'I just wanted to see what others on the site thought' or some such. In my view that is of little value in trade for the value received from others on the site. In the topic of this post, what do you think and why? What real world facts or data do you include in your reasoning? How did you rationally and logically arrive at your determination? How does your 'love oriented view of reality' and 'wise to forgive' interaction with others and 'we're all brothers and sisters' opinion relate to the topic of your post and how does that mesh with or contradict the philosophy of Objectivism? Why should or should not Objectivists consider inclusion of avowed christians or christian thinking into an actual or virtual Gulch?
I'm not going to get involved in further, lengthy tit-for-tat explanation of each statement anymore than I already have. You're intelligent enough to figure it out.
I firmly believe that I have gone a step past Ayn Rand in my understanding
of some -- not all -- people's religion. . it has two basic steps:::
1 the unknown may be labeled however you wish -- faith is as good
a label as any other;;; just be sure to keep it separate from direct
rational actions in your life.
2 "expect the best" works, in life. . if you interact with others as someone
who approaches them expecting their "good side," you are more likely
to engender positive responses from them. . healthy competition
with a wink and a nod -- honor for the self-interest of everyone else --
is the best way to interact.
now, if you do not think that this is philosophy, please remember
that Atlas Shrugged was written to show philosophy through
interpersonal actions in a possible world.
my life is proof. . at 9, I conformed to social pressure and
joined a church. . at 15, I rejected that idea in favor of Rand.
at about 42, I integrated my view, understanding that "faith"
can identify the "too hard" pile -- the unknown, the "impossible" --
while the entire rest of reality serves for life choices.
I was more successful at work, and more productive.
I became friends with my family for the first time in my life,
before my parents died in a one-two punch. . and gradually,
I found my wife who is a wonderful person with whom to grow old.
I am now 66 and disabled with emphysema. . life is good!!!
and I became more positive in interactions with smart people like you.
I didn't have to join mensa to figure this out, but it helped.
I used the word evasion because you persist in asking me to face
the truth. . Yes, Zen, I can handle the truth. -- john
.
I think your step past Ayn Rand in your understanding is a sadly truthful statement from the perspective of your belief system and clearly identifies you as a non-Objectivist. If your constructed philosophy works for you and makes you happy with your life, I wish you well, but it's not Objectivism.
In response to your comment above, Item 1: Words have meanings and it is critical to the understanding of AR's work as well as the majority of reality. I notice that many that approach these discussions from a religious and faith basis often are either confused (or intentionally appear to be) about the definitions of words they use. And they are generally adept at appearing to be disingenuous in their usages. Faith is a belief in something that is unprovable or an expression of hope that some result will occur with no evidence for that hope, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary--most often with some form of religious and/or superstitious belief behind it. I note that you combine faith with the term unknown, as if there exists things that can't be known. That's an old argument from some 300BC called Pyrrhonism, that was famously adopted and used extensively by Roman Catholics in arguments supporting the church. Both of these are antithetical to Objectivism.
For your Item 2: I received my first copy of "The Power of Positive Thinking" when I was 6 or 7 yrs old. I'm sad to say that my personal experiences in life beginning with my Father's untimely death when I was 51/2 with three younger brothers and the 4th on the way at the time, spending the next several years in a shack with one bedroom for the 6 of us-no running water-enough electricity for a couple of lights and a small fan-and food that we raised or harvested from the wild, and the first man in my life trying to kill me by gutting me with a knife at 14 all taught me a different set of lessons. It's nice to have a positive outlook with the people you meet and events that happen in your life, but in mine-you'd better be prepared to work your ass off, have the skills and knowledge needed, trust people only far enough to not be able to harm you, and be ready and able to defend yourself. This world and life are fantastic, but reality can and will bite you in the butt.
People lie, cheat, steal, and kill. Storms come and earthquakes and volcanoes happen. There are snakes, spiders, mountain lions, and poison mushrooms. I've seen and experienced all those and more and come through them whole. Not because of faith, the unknown, hope, love, and a positive outlook -- but Objectivism.
here in the online gulch. . I intend to stick around and call myself objectivist
regardless of your opinion, though I do honor it as yours, and a legitimate
educated, seasoned and successful opinion at that.
I was luckier than you.
I grew up in a "nuclear family" of 4, with a mom and dad and a
younger sister. . we worked our asses off and did well, maintaining
the perspicacious lives of a family led by a child of the Depression, dad.
I have been through some bad things -- rape, theft, burglary, fire, the
death of a zygote of mine -- yet the assignment of the unknown to
a pile called faith or God has survived. . and the optimism for a slight
positive view of unknown others has survived ... 66 years.
may you, and we, continue for a long time here in the virtual gulch. -- j
.
who approaches them expecting their "good side," you are more likely
to engender positive responses from them. . healthy competition
with a wink and a nod -- honor for the self-interest of everyone else --
is the best way to interact."
Expecting the best has to do with benevolence and the generally positive view of the universe held by Objectivism (ie life affirming or supporting rather than all doom and gloom). Read David Kelley's new book called Unrugged Individualism for a good discussion of the virtue of benevolence and what it implies.
As for the unknown and faith, I would venture that it is one thing to have ideas about the unknown. But different to have faith in what one classifies as the "unknowable". Rationalists tend to have faith that there is nothing that is not unknowable (at least in theory if not in practice). Religious faith requires belief in something that is, by definition, intrinsically unknowable in its being or essence.
time after time.
if "religious faith requires belief in something that is, by definition,
intrinsically unknowable" then that's not my religion. . mine involves
trusting or having confidence in things which are appropriately gathered
into the "too hard pile" as things put off until later. -- j
.
The main problem with many atheists' definitions of faith is that they try to define a God who can not exist, instead of focusing on one that can and looking for it. This is a straw man argument by very definition.
The real problem I have is that they try to paint faith as an exclusively religious concept, when scientists use it all the time when formulating potential concepts to test. They don't know whether or not their test will prove what they desire when they conduct the test - they only know afterwards. They hope that the test confirms what they believe, but until they actually conduct the test, it is merely faith - nothing more and nothing less. I know this will seem blasphemous to many, but look at it and you will see it is true. Knowledge is things of the past. Faith deals with things as they may be.
The real question of God comes down to how you formulate your concept of God and how you go about confirming whether or not that concept is real. There are plenty of formulations of God that are nonsense - Plato did a pretty good job taking apart the Greek Pantheon in his "Republic". However, it is a fallacy to conclude that because one particular view of God is incorrect that another can not exist. This is the fallacy too many fall for when discussing matters of religion.
Sure, God could be the local galactic representative of the green lantern corps. But that's not really what we are talking about here.
I will just respond by saying I do not believe the Nicene Creed nor any religion that adheres to such to be truly Christian. I personally do not believe in a God that is unknowable, nor in one who is "without parts, passions," etc. As you conclude, so do I: that such a notion is preposterous and illogical. I believe that there is a God who exists, is absolutely definable, and who is personable, i.e. relatable and concrete. Anything more should be taken to a private thread so as not to hijack it.
could those sections be::: 1 the "old testament" rules-based view of life,
with the "new-testament" love-based view of life, and 2 the leaps of
mysticism and resurrection which require faith, then:::
the oath agrees with section 1 to a very great extent, accommodating
Jews and Christians who love life, themselves and others in that order. . IMHO.
and among those Christians who retain a faith-based section 2 view of
things which are impossible to touch, personally, are many gentle, positive
folks who care for themselves and others gracefully --
we have several here in the online gulch. . they do not seek to
force themselves on others or change others with any means
other than rationality. . if it doesn't make sense, so be it.
are we doing any good with this explanation, K? -- j
.
There are a couple of quotes I think are appropriate:
“Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces.” -Sigmund Freud
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.” -Albert Einstein
We have his advances because he believed in something that could not be seen and went through the process to prove it to his utmost ability but failed on the universal theory of relativity.
It is also interesting that Einstein had faith in a creator, not any specif religion but in a creator.
Freud recognized the value of religion, specifically aithism (which was his religion) and Judaism which he was born to. While he did not believe in a god he recognized the good that could and did often come from that belief.
entity. . I said that the former view of life was rules-based. . the source
of the rules is another subject. . another thread?
I do not contend that the elite's and the rulers' use of a story-book
character was wise. . I just contend that it existed. . I do not expect
immortality, and the expressions about that are metaphor, IMHO.
you can keep on trying to categorize my view as you wish;;; I will
keep on trying to clarify. . There Is Never An Intention To Insult. -- j
p.s. Thank You for the Freud and Einstein quotes;;; I always love
learning from the insight of intelligent people -- also from you,
for example. . no delusion, no faking. . just truth.
.
And being "personally, are many gentle, positive folks who care for themselves and others gracefully --we have several here in the online gulch", a consideration for inclusion in discussions, to the extent that they might gain a better or fuller understanding of what Objectivism is truly about and its importance to the individual, is a fair enough view. But being invited to or included in the actual Gulch--that's not reality.
and the revisions provided by Jesus improved that societal wisdom.
I do not have to agree that God wrote the ten commandments
in order to hold this view. . I can look at as history and metaphor.
the actual gulch, in which I do wish I could finish my life, should welcome
people who understand that "my life and my love of it" is a wonderful
and mysterious truth deserving respect and honor, as do the lives
of others. . I never live for others, nor ask others to live for me --
it is that simple, and completely true.
Thank You for entering into this discussion;;; your very presence
indicates that you value others' views, and that you understand
our participation in reality. -- john
.
In a way it reminds me of Zen Koans, those short stories conceived and written by fully matured Zen Masters before they can determine their death time (many passed within days of finishing their Koans), meant to help those coming up in their own searches for enlightenment. Boiled down to the essence, stripped of fat, excess, and decoration, and illustrative of the way in which the Master had reached his own enlightenment, yet not to be understood by those that haven't put the work and dedication into gaining their own enlightenment.
I respect and honor both. . my enlightenment comes daily as I
see truth in the words of others, the actions affecting my life, and
the circumstances in which I find myself. . meditation does help in
integration of the new data, and in adjusting my combination of
confidence and humility so that I do not abrogate my responsibility
to recognize and accept the truth here. . with Rand as my foundation,
I seek to build forward constantly. -- j
.
The world would be a pretty wonderful place if everyone did the last 7 of the 10 commandments.
See Ayn Rand's explanations of the source and nature of ethics in The Virtue of Selfishness and her essay "Causality versus Duty".
.
A belief in something that is not known but is true can be described equally by the word faith or confidence.
People can have an unreasonable faith in something, but they can also have an unreasonable confidence in something as well.
So is all belief in something that is unseen equate to A!=A. Or is simply not yet proven?
For a very long time the world was flat, for 200 years the either was what everything was floating in according to science. These things were regarded as fact, but later proven wrong by increased understanding.
The construct that denies A=A is not faith but a blind following of confidence/faith after string theory was proven wrong.
Einstein was likely guilty of this in his confidence in a unified theory of relativity which he spent 30 years on and never found. It may be yet to be discovered, but it looks doubtful. But then who would have thought that the general theory of relativity would have worked so perfectly just 15 years before he published it, which was before his original paper on the idea. Nearly no one.
He had faith in his ability and faith that their was a single formula to determine the relative position and movement of objects. Without faith he would have stopped working on it long before that.
Remove faith and you remove advancement of ideas. If no one believes no one will work towards the thing that cannot be done and finding what A really is would not happen.
to bolster us as we strive to make that discovery!!! -- j
.
Within Faith Truth is Truth Period.
Next to directly answer the title any TRUE Christian accepts that a person has 100% free will to do with their life and their body as they see fit. I will provide an analogy.
If you decide YOU want to stand in the middle of a lane on a super busy freeway maybe wander using a blindfold at night wearing flat black clothing, and tell me that is what you are going to do, I will tell you you are not doing something smart and YOU will receive in yourself full recompense due your error. Romans 1: 24 - 27
It would not be the fault of the bus driver that runs you over you die, it would be YOUR fault.
I also have complete faith you will be dead by morning also cause many other people potential harm. It is of course your choice, and your free will to do such a stupid thing.
Likewise, and I am sure the title of this is referring to Abortion, you will receive in yourself full recompense due what I consider your error for having an abortion, potential physical harm, infections, emotional distress after the fact and so on, however again YOUR choice.
If you are claiming to be christian and have an abortion you will answer for this to God, again YOUR choice on the outcome of YOUR free will.
A=A Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. I have total faith that YOU will without a doubt experience the impact of your decision potentially negative later in life. Again YOUR choice, and my faith does not contradict at all A=A.
Edited for hitting enter at wrong time.
I must say, I have yet to meet a Christian who has actually read the Bible and remained a Christian. It is hard for me to imagine a Christian could read books such as "Drunk With Blood --- God's Killings in the Bible" or the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" and remain a Christion. The 2,821,364 murders by the god or at the god's direction cited by chapter and verse you can look up in your very own Bible at home, would be enough for me question the whole book.
[Wells, Steve (2013-10-31). Drunk with Blood - God's Killings in the Bible . SAB Books. Kindle Edition.]
The following is a mere sample of information one can go check in their favorite Giddeon edition.
Eating your own children for food. 2 Kings 6:29.
Murdering children. Isaiah 13:16'
Giving daughters as sex slaves. Genesis 19:8.
Daughters pregnant from father. Genesis 19:36.
Eating your own excrement. 2 Kings 18:27.
Everyone should hate their parents, wives and children. Luke 14:26.
The sweet smell of burnt offerings. Leviticus 1:1-17 and 2:1-9.
Lord makes bowels fall out. 2 Chronicles 21:18-19.
Where are the siblings of Jesus? Mark 6:3.
God sanctions rape. Judges 19:22-25.
Like all things you have to use your mind and come to your own conclusions. You have to look for that which you think is right and then put it to the test in your own life. That should be true of anything you read or hear.
If a person has a dream or a vision it still requires them to interpret it.
In a world where you wrong me and I kill you and you entire family a vision would be interpreted quite differently than the post law of Moses eye or and eye and tooth for a tooth. A much more civil world the one before it. Or the world of Christ where you are to forgive others and not carry the chip on shoulder over what they did. The interpretations will be different.
If not inerrant, then how does the reader determine which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?
Why would a Christian be any different from anyone else in this regard?
As to your book, I'll read it. And I would ask you to read, "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist".
As to your 10 biblical references, 8 are from the Old Testament, hence not relevant to this discussion.
From the Christian era (the New Testament), Luke was written in Greek. Greek has a number of words that we translate as 'hate'. Honestly I can't cite chapter and verse, but taken in context, it says to me that I should despise or forsake all others if I'm to follow Christ.
The siblings of Christ? I suppose they're all dead by now. Some theologians postulate that Joseph was a widower with six children when he married Mary. Other than that, I don't know. Why do you ask?
I've read the Bible cover to cover, as well as the Qur'an, the Talmud and the books of the Apocrypha. Even leaving theology aside, there are tremendous amounts of wisdom to be gleaned from the pages of ancient sacred writings.
As to the Old Testament, the character Jesus in the New Testament says: “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5: 18). According to the author (Matthew), Jesus was enforcing the Old Testament and that means all my references above do apply.
As to reading the Bible cover to cover. Did you count the murders by god or by its direction? Killing is talked about much more than love in that book. Why is God so violent? If he is so loving, then why does he kill so many people? To be clear, this is not to argue but to perhaps gain an understanding that has eluded me so far.
I am reading every word of this interchange series and find it fascinating!!! -- j
.
I believe in studying reality, which is what Objectivism claims to be. Unlike others, however, I do not claim that religion is a belief in the unknown or unknowable and I decry the definition of faith as such for the straw man it is. I agree with the Objectivist who claims that everything is knowable. I believe that much of what Ayn Rand identified was accurate, but that she incorrectly surmised that since she couldn't find a religion that made sense that none existed. She chose atheism because she could find no faith in which she could reconcile dogma and principle with reality. I do not blame her for such. I just know differently. I know what I believe in. It makes sense. I have empirically tested it. And I stand by my convictions. You are welcome to believe in anything or nothing. All I offer is an alternative viewpoint for consideration and invite logical, rational discussion. If you choose to allow your biases on the matter destroy any objective and thoughtful consideration of the matter, that is for you to decide.
.
the life of Jesus??? -- j
.
I am surprised that any of our colleagues here see a conflict between Christianity and Libertarianism. I wasn't aware they are mutually exclusive views....
and objectivism, the members here will assert. . I bet that would
be another good thread!!! -- j
.
Libertarian is the politial side and the only unifying principle is one may not initiate the use of force. So long as a person agrees to that one principle he can believe anything and still be a Libertarian. However, given the murders and other crimes proudly touted in the Bible (as I mentioned above), the concept of Libertarian and it is okay to murder in the name of some god or other, are dissonant concepts and this dissonance is dealt with by different people in different ways.
You see, you have a right to your opinion...I'd certainly never try to deny that. All I'm asking is that you make it an informed opinion rather than one filled with venom.
which I made in the past. . Salty is attempting to identify that there is
a new era of understanding -- the Christian era. . my "new era"
began most intensely when I decided to settle down with my
current wife -- when I stopped chasing my tail. -- j
.
“Christians tend to ignore the Old Testament, and it’s not hard to see why. But the New Testament God is still a killer; he’s just saving most of his killings for later— for the end of the world. And when the new God kills, he doesn’t just kill his victims; he tortures them forever after they die. Still, there are three New Testament killings: Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, for not giving all their money to the church; Herod Aggripa, for not giving all the glory to God; and Jesus, because God needed someone to kill as a sacrifice to himself.” What a god.
Wells, Steve (2013-10-31). Drunk with Blood - God's Killings in the Bible (p. 267). SAB Books. Kindle Edition.
and agree with it. . all of the killings which you seem to dote on
are incidental to the history recorded -- and for me, they are data
about that history, not an indictment of a deity. . people conducted
those murders. . the question which you claim is still unanswered
is about people's murders. . they did it, not God. . they are responsible.
the accountability will be, or is, theirs.
if I wanted to destroy Christian faith, which seems to be an
interest of yours, I would aim at the supposed wisdom of modeling
one's life after Christ -- WWJD -- and its pitfalls. . if I attempt to lead
others to wisdom by being meek and forgiving, I am more likely to
die at the hands of someone less meek and forgiving -- for instance.
in this twisted way, I am telling the torturer how to fix the torture
machine, like Galt did. . would you think about that for a second? -- j
.
You have not answered the questions I asked about the quotations accuracy, so I assume you agree they are accurate and try to change the subject by saying things are better in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. You are simply selecting what you want and discarding the rest.
According to 2 Timothy, Chapter 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, ...” which means you cannot discard the Old Testament for the New Testament without cherry picking.
I would like to see the end of all faith, not only the Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity. I don’t have any faith, I don’t respect faith, I don’t believe in faith, and I would be very foolish if, after a person has announced he holds his belief by faith, if were to then try to engage in discussion with him because the only means I have are reason, empirical demonstration, rules of evidence, and so forth. None of which are relevant to the grounds for his belief. So I usually don’t involve myself in such pointless interchange. I do so only when I detect a hint of actual intellectual curiosity.
People of faith want intellectual respect for positions not arrived at intellectually. They want the respect they know themselves they are not entitled to. They want others to treat their faith and mystical beliefs with the same respect another would treat a rational or scientific conviction. And when they do not get intellectual respect, they get antagonistic or offended.
I think it is clear in a case such as this, defensiveness is an issue of an intellectual bad conscience more than anything else.
Beyond all this, once a theist asks a person to give up reason and accept a proposition on faith, by what means can anyone determine the correctness of the statement?
of the unknowable or unknown, and I have tried to explain how a
rational person could reasonably use the word "faith" to represent
confidence in a unknown condition or thing, like -- well -- gravity.
there is never any desire to, or attempt to, change your view
of rationality or evidence or proof or truth. . my purpose is simply
to add to the understanding of labeling and thought processes.
the use of a term to describe gravity is smart, since it is with us
constantly. . the use of a term to describe the extraordinary elegance
in the order of the universe might also serve us. . and it should never
be used as an offensive weapon, as many do. -- j
.
by extending her realm of understanding, here. . if Christians are welcome
to the gulch, then we might enjoy simplified labels in our discussions. -- j
.
people don't want to accept. . oh well;;; we try. -- j
.
his tolerance for torture. . tough guy.
if you sense that I am getting antagonistic or offended, you might
be inferring it yourself. . I am just caring for my fellow gulchers in a
creative way which might be positive for us. . or not. . I will never ask
that anyone give up reason. . that is stupid and suicidal. -- j
.
.
A being who is 1)All-powerful, 2)All-knowing, and 3) good.
I don't take credit for that definition, nor do I defend it. But you asked for a definition, I assume sincerely. So there is one.
VG
The omnipotent characteristic is internally impossible, example, can it tie a knot it cannot untie.
The omniscient characteristic contradicts the attribute of omnipotence. In order for god to know everything (which includes the future), everything would have to be predetermined. If everything were predetermined, the future can not be changed. If things cannot be changed, then this is a limit on the god’s power and it is not omnipotent.
The good characteristic means it is incapable of evil. This is not intelligible because, for example, if it is incapable of evil how can it be omnipotent?
All of which means, while these are common characteristics assigned to the definition of a god, then are not intelligible, by which I mean understandable without being in conflict with one or more characteristics assigned.
With respect to omniscience, you are confusing control with choice: placing every single one of our actions at the whim of some benevolent dictator. You are also confusing the very notion of future. May a God exist that can predict with great certainty the results of certain actions? Absolutely. Does that necessarily mean, however, that the choice is already made and incontrovertible? No. What you are proposing is the termination of will. Any parent of a child can watch a child and predict that the child's curiosity to touch that hot pan will overcome the parent's warning to the child. The parent warns the child because they love the child, but the parent knows the child must be allowed to touch the hot pan despite the warnings if it is to learn and grow.
With respect to good, you similarly invent a definition which suits your goal instead of one that actually fits. Good describes either certain actions or the tendency of an agent to act for the "good". But what that really means is that those actions are calculated such as to reach a certain goal, with a "good" action being one which advances the pursuance of the goal and a "bad" or "evil" action as one which hinders it. The only way to evaluate "good" and "evil" is to know the goal. There is no other way.
With respect to this being intelligible, you are correct in that they are not - insofar as you have defined them. In the alternate light I propose, you can see that they are, in fact, quite intelligible.
You are trying to assert definitions from your own understanding which form a straw man argument. I am providing an alternative and very real proposition to consider. Whether or not you choose to do so - even just for the simple act of understanding a different point of view - is completely up to you.
this trap, however. . the unknown. . enough said. -- j
.
First of all, you are completely right that it makes no sense with an atheistic worldview in mind (and not just because it denies the existence of God). Christians, however, do not look at this life as the end of existence, merely a stage such that we will go on to face more decisions and more existence (though in an alternate state than our present) after death. In order to comprehend ANY part of Christian theology, you must consider it under this lens.
Now, let's say that this life is a test to see how we will handle things here and that if we pass the test, there will be opportunities opened up to us in the next life. Let's say for the sake of explanation that death is merely a one-way door we pass through rather than an annihilator of being. Now the second core principle to understand is that Christians view all people everywhere as God's children for whom he is looking out. He is trying to balance our ability to take the test and act on our own without the coercion of His presence to skew the results. In that he has to allow us not only to make decisions that help us pass the test, but decisions that will prevent us from getting a good grade. And some of those decisions are going to negatively affect other people - especially our children.
At some point, God has to weigh the opportunity for success of the children of those peoples who altogether turn away from choices that would help them pass the test. It is evident at some point to Him whether or not someone is going to pass the test, but He is also considering the conditions new participants in the test have to undergo and their potential to successfully navigate it. Can you see that there might be some conditions where to continue to allow those civilizations is also to doom their children to failing the test? Thus in the Bible, those civilizations which were destroyed were those who had already failed the test in such a spectacular way that they not only failed, but were bound and determined to bring down all those they could.
You are also looking at it as a matter of death ending existence. If death is merely a stepping stone to the next phase of existence (as Christians believe), all death does is cut off the test - it doesn't snuff out that individual's existence. Now, I will freely admit that there are many different sects of Christians and not all believe precisely the same with regards to the afterlife. Only one is likely to be the correct view, so lumping all Christians into the same boat there is overly simplistic, but it serves the purpose of this discussion.
The real difference that I can determine between Christians and Objectivists is in the treatment of Death. If existence terminates with death, no, nothing in the Bible will make rational sense at all. If, however, existence does not terminate with Death, then consideration for that next life then weighs very heavily in the discussion. Above any other consideration - including faith - it is the question of the persistence of intellect that defines the discussion.
Atheists are most commonly nihilists who take death as the cessation of consciousness. This is a significant difference from the religionist because it directly determines the scope or long-term view one considers when making decisions and evaluating consequences. That is why I assert that one's standpoint on death absolutely is crucial to one's outlook on life.
If you believed that you would sometime meet anyone and everyone you had ever interacted with in this life in the next, can you honestly tell me that wouldn't affect how you interacted with them? Of course it would! Does that supplant reason? Not in the slightest! It simply extends one's view of consequence substantially.
Again, I'm not trying to tell you how to live, I'm simply offering you another perspective and demonstrating why this is of such monumental consequence. How one views death is of tremendous importance precisely because it affects how one lives life.
Again, you are welcome to believe that death is the end of your being if it makes you happy. I hope you will be pleasantly surprised when you find out it is not.
Some people fail to comprehend that basic premise, that your view on life and how you live life, has a direct bearing on your personal view of death.
Risk vs. Reward or perceived reward.
Your view of reality vs. my personal view of reality.
Your perception is your reality.
as the difference between the Japanese business perspective and
the U.S. perspective. . we in the u.s. had typically thought in terms
of the next quarter, the next year, the next 5 years for planning.
the Japanese were thinking in terms of 25 years, particularly
in terms of market share. . that's how Honda beat Harley. . well, one of
the ways. . the Honda 50 was such an international hit that they
began there, and Harley had nothing, there.
the difference is perspective. . think long-term and win in the long run. -- j
Besides, as Dawkins points out, my guess is you are an atheist as to all gods except one. I just take it one god further.
All of your post assumes a fact not in evidence: a god. You need to establish the existence of a god before you can proceed with all the other allegations you have.
Denying there is a god is meaningless until the term is defined. Most attempts are invalid, meaningless and contradictory and are therefore epistemologically safely denied outright as an impossible hodgepodge of contradictions that cannot exist. A characterization or it's alleged possibility that is imaged but not otherwise self-contradictory, yet still without evidence, is rationally to be dismissed out of hand as unworthy of further discussion as if cognitively it has never been said, not an "agnostic possibility" to be taken seriously. Both kinds of rejection of the belief are atheist, with the second broader.
Atheism is non belief in any god, not a rejection of all but one. It is true that religionists reject belief in gods other than their own, making them "atheists" about other gods (as you describe Dawkin's argument), but not necessarily for the same reasons as a rational rejection. If they understood the rational reasons for atheism (and consistently applied it) they would not believe in any of them. Instead they believe in a favored fantasy on faith and reject the rest as part of the house of cards, not necessarily out of any comprehension. And that kind of "thinking" is "different".
Christians do think the same as rational atheists in the sense of how biologically the brain operates and the senses on which it relies -- all humans do -- but not in how they use it epistemologically so their thinking is not the same. The epistemology and psychology of their thinking is Platonistic as opposed to Aristotelian reason. They add fanasy as a tool of cognition. Their mental constructs of higher level abstractions are fantasies accepted on feeling, confusing abstract knowledge of reality with the mental capacity of projecting cartoons -- re-recombining in the imagination some characteristics found in reality with others that are impossible.
"Denying there is a god is meaningless until the term is defined." Yes, of course we have to define our terms before we can have a decent discussion about them, but do you think that anyone growing up in the US doesn't have a workable concept of god that's close enough to everyone else's to have a serious talk?
Precisely. One must be able to define one's object of worship before worship is possible. I completely agree. Many faiths - even Christian faiths - fail in this basic principle. This leads many such as yourself to conclude that it is therefore impossible. So the real conversation should be to describe what would be possible and then to look for it.
"The epistemology and psychology of their thinking is Platonistic as opposed to Aristotelian reason."
Uh, actually, the philosophy of the Christian isn't Greek in origin - it goes back much further than that. Trying to assign either of those two schools of thought to Christian thinking is to fall into the trap of thinking only those two schools of thought are available. Philosophy and religion both are all about how one thinks and how those thoughts translate into action. I would strongly suggest refraining from attempting to pigeon-hole any philosophy by describing it in terms of another philosophy. Instead, just take the individual beliefs for what they are.
"They add fanasy..."
Pure unsubstantiated conjecture. One unnecessarily limits one's self in the exploration of reality when declaring that anything one can not sense by touch, taste, sight, smell, sound, or feel is irrelevant. To deny that a non-five-senses experience carries weight or exists in reality is to refuse the one tool on which Christian religion is based - intuition or spirit. It is one thing not to use a telescope to see the planets yourself, but quite another to tell someone else that not only have they not done it despite their claims, but that such a thing is impossible.
The mentality of faithful fantasies as opposed to reason based on the physical senses apprehending reality is the fundamental distinction between Plato and Aristotle, which remains the fundamental philosophical distinction in various guises to this day.
We know we have five senses and we know that in addition people have the capacity to fantasize. We also know that thinking is not infallible and that random thoughts and feeling are, to say the least, unreliable means to knowledge. We know that no one has ever been able to describe, let alone validate, any mechanism for claimed special insights by faith.
That is why we rely on reason, logic and the scientific method. That includes devices like telescopes to enhance the power of sight in accordance with known physical principles. Telescopes are not a new form of awareness establishing by analogy a claimed validity of faith.
This is why one cannot argue with the arbitrary claims of the faithful asserting their favorite fantasies as superior to reason. There are no standards under that claimed method to establish truth, i.e., correspondence with reality, and no standards by which to resolve disputes.
That is why the destructive religionist mystics are fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and why discussion with their proselytzing here would be futilely impossible, is why they are rationally dismissed out of hand as cognitively worthless, and why such proselytizers don't belong here -- to be summarily removed if they cannot and will not confine themselves to the guidelines of this forum.
.
of agnosticism. . the agnostic believes NOT but is not totally sure;;;
the Christian believes, and is totally sure. . as Heinlein said,
delusion is functional -- without it, mothers would drown
their babies at sight. -- j
.
.
To me, anything that affects how you act is a philosophy - especially if it forms the basis of one's view of the purpose of life. If it is a motivating factor in decision making and value judgments, it falls in the realm of philosophy.
As to the existence of God, it is pointless to prove it. Those who ask for such refuse to acknowledge the proof already in existence such as the creation of this solar system, this world, and it's attributes -which defy the odds. Further, it is the purpose or plan behind life which is central to the matter of God. Being forced to acknowledge His existence does neither you nor I any good with respect to our growth and development.
Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” these words are no less insightful today than they were when he wrote them in 1985.
Despite our best efforts, we are all vulnerable to believing things without using logic or having proper evidence—and it doesn’t matter how educated or well read we are.
Today I want to persuade you that you—yes, you— simultaneously believe many things that are mutually contradictory.
Human brains seem to be divided up into different sections, with different, even mutually exclusive sets of beliefs. This situation— the architecture of human cognition— allows hypocrisy as just one kind of inconsistency.
This explains why everyone else is a hypocrite, but not us.
Our brains seem to be hardwired to have our beliefs come first and explanations for our beliefs second.
Although we are skilled at recognizing the cognitive biases in other people’s thinking, we often have blinders on when it comes to our own.
There are methods for avoiding these pitfalls of human nature. A major one is how we individually handle cognitive dissonance. For most people there are some beliefs are not amendable to change. In fact, most beliefs are not changeable.
The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been
(1) held for a long time,
(2) adopted before age of reason, and
(3) most often repeated.
Which explains why it is almost impossible to have a conversation on the two subjects one should never discuss socially: Religious and political beliefs. Both of these belief sets are indoctrinated by parents, teachers, religious leaders, and other adults, almost from birth, many years before the age of reason, and they are the most often repeatedly “drummed” into them. People will kill based upon their beliefs, but they will not examine whether the belief is true or false.
Please try. You do me a tremendous disservice by not attempting it. I am also more than willing to move this to a private thread if that is more amenable to you.
.
certain murders were committed by some "god," it might indicate
that you are entertaining a view of supernatural power. -- j
.
But, back to my question: Do you agree with the murders by your god or somehow find them acceptable?
committed by people attempting to follow a deity before Christ
came along to clarify. . and we are not talking about defining
a supernatural being. . that is a tautological impossibility.
we -- or I -- are/am talking about accepting that some things
are in the "too hard" pile and fall into the "know by faith" or
"accept" explanation zone. . this is tantamount to agnosticism
with different labeling, in my humble opinion. -- j
.
Is Jesus a god who ushered in a new era?
The Bible says Yes. Mt 9.2-6; Mk 2.3-12; Jn 1.1, 14, 5.18, 8.58, 10.30, 38, 14.9, 20.28; Acts 20.28; Col 1.16, 2.9; 1 Tim 3.16; Tit 2.13; Phil 2.6; Heb 1.8; Rev 1.17, 22.13
And the Bible says No. Mt 19.17; 27.46; Mk 10.18, 15.34, 16.19; Lk 18.19; Jn 8.40, 14.28, 20.17; Acts 17.31; 1 Cor 11.3, 15.28; Col 3.1; 1 Tim 2.5; 1 Pet 3.21-22
Wells, Steve (2014-02-01). The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (Kindle Locations 66835-66843). SAB Books, LLC. Kindle Edition.
I have found no credible proof of the existence of a person named Jesus existed at the time alleged in the Bible. So, I that compounds the “Christian” aspect of a new era to me. But back to the murders. Are the cititations to chapter and verse in the Bible I gave to document the murders by the Great Diety accurate or not?
“Christians tend to ignore the Old Testament, and it’s not hard to see why. But the New Testament God is still a killer; he’s just saving most of his killings for later— for the end of the world. And when the new God kills, he doesn’t just kill his victims; he tortures them forever after they die. Still, there are three New Testament killings: Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, for not giving all their money to the church; Herod Aggripa, for not giving all the glory to God; and Jesus, because God needed someone to kill as a sacrifice to himself.”
Wells, Steve (2013-10-31). Drunk with Blood - God's Killings in the Bible (p. 267). SAB Books. Kindle Edition.
at the hands of people, not God. . I do not care whether the citations
are accurate or not;;; they might as well be, and if so are an account
of deaths by people. . you might instead cite deaths accomplished
by the flood of Noah's time -- God might have caused that flooding.
about the existence of Jesus -- whoever lived back then, and whatever
the name, we can identify this "prophet" as Jesus and go forth with
a better view of human wisdom as a result. . if I did not have the confidence
in that wisdom, I would be cursing at you and making you react more
harshly as a result. . my life is better for that confidence. -- j
.
Before one can assert the words or works of a god, one must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and (2) adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so we never got to (2).
According to the divinely inspired and literal biblical figures, the world was formed in 4,000 B.C. when Adam was created. Methuselah was born 687 years after Adam, which would be the year 3317 B.C., and he lived for 969 years, which brings us to the year 2348 B.C.
The flood, which the bible tells us occurred when Methuselah’s grandson Noah was 600 years old, has been established by biblical scholars as being in the year 2448 B.C. The maths shows us that Methuselah must have lived 100 years after the flood. The question is this: Did Methuselah survive the flood by: (a) trading water; (B) holding his breath; or (C) disguising himself aboard the ark as an old goat?
The bible names two people named Jesus. To which are you referring?
You would curse me? With what? Flying flaming serpents? or something modern like Voodoo?
I doubt your life is better for your deeply held belief in a god, the grudge you carry against non-believers must weigh heavily upon your shoulders.
as well as you might. . and I carry no grudges except for liars
and thieves who steal OUR money and lives and our nation
in the name of compassion (meaning a desire for power.)
I was a professed atheist from age 15 to 42, and have a very
serious appreciation for the views held there. . my life is better
because I appreciate you and IndianaGary and khalling and XenokRoy
and woodlema and everyone who admires Rand, out of my
two-element expansion of Rand's knowledge which I have
already cited. . the 51 percent rule works.
I mentioned the cursing because it is the last vice which I have left.
if I used vile words and tried to elicit emotion instead of rationality,
it would not serve our purpose here -- advancement of knowledge.
I am curious about the second person named Jesus -- that's
an interesting thing which I have not heard. -- j
.
.
want to "require people to live at the wants of another?"
I have known several in each category who are very fine people indeed!!! -- j
.
an accomplished marksman. . he's a good example. . Sam,
let's call him, has an IQ of about 90 and does not follow the news
or current events in the neighborhood much, so he is relatively ignorant.
he did graduate from high school. . he is also a religious fellow who
never curses and attends church when he can. . I love him. . good example. -- j
.
My favorite one you have listed is the completely WRONG usage of what you say God sanctioning rape.
The owner of the house was trying to protect the guests as it was a custom to NOT ever let harm come to a guest in your home.
If you read a bit further:
Then the men of Israel said: “Tell us, how did this terrible thing happen?” 4 At this the Levite man, the husband of the murdered woman, said in answer: “I came to Gibʹe·ah of Benjamin with my concubine to stay overnight. 5 And the inhabitants of Gibʹe·ah rose up against me and surrounded the house by night. They meant to kill me, but they raped my concubine instead, and she died. 6 So I took my concubine’s body and cut it up and sent the pieces into every part of Israel’s inheritance, because they had committed a shameful and disgraceful act in Israel. 7 Now all you people of Israel, give your advice and counsel here.”
8 Then all the people rose up in unison and said: “Not one of us will go to his tent or return to his house. 9 Now this is what we will do to Gibʹe·ah: We will go up against it by lot. 10 We will take 10 men out of 100 from all the tribes of Israel, and 100 out of 1,000 and 1,000 out of 10,000 to collect provisions for the army, so that they may take action against Gibʹe·ah of Benjamin, in view of the disgraceful act that they committed in Israel.” 11 Thus all the men of Israel were gathered against the city united as allies.
Context is very important...but then again it is normal that liberals tend to only cherry pick things and ignore full context...
Hey, do not call me a liberal. I have no idea how how you came to that conclusion. Tell me, upon what basis did you form the conclusion I am a Liberal?
I am an Objectivist. Besides, ad hominem argument is never productive. My goodness, but you theists get your amygdalas in a knot easily.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy, Ch 3:16.
However, before one can assert the words or works of a god, one must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and (2) adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so we never got to (2). Can you?
Faith is essentially the destruction of knowledge because no amount of reason can be exerted to penetrate the shield of faith to reach a religious person's mind. A religious mind is impervious to reason which is why I rarely bother to engage in fruitless efforts such as this Gulch post. I merely decided to amuse myself today.
One could rephrase that to say "Faith springs eternal." Since both Hope and Faith draw on the same basis.
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for and the evident demonstration of reality though not beheld.
THAT is the definition of faith as written before English and Websters.
"Every faith in the world is based upon fabrication. That is the definition of faith — acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove. Every religion describes God through metaphor, allegory and exaggeration, from the early Egyptians through modern Sunday schoo. Metaphors are a way to help our minds process the unprocessible. The problems arise when we begin to believe literally in our own metaphors.
The Da Vinci Code, page 451.
My definition of faith as written specifically in the Bible is the only definition that matters, since it was the first definition of Faith as written by those who preached faith for those who practice Faith.
Merriam-Webster is an atheist tainted definition that is not applicable to anyone but atheists.
You refer to a definition of fath, but you do not provide it. Please do so. Without knowing what you are trying to say, I am at a loss to agree or disagree or take some position in between.
I do not understand your ad hominem attacks on me or Merriam-Webster, etc. Please explain those, too. From my point of view you seem to be in cognitive quagmire, unable to remain focused on the topic and intellectually floppoing about. I'd like to see a little more precision in your communication so I may understand what you are saying.
Hebrews 11:1,2
Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen. 2 For by means of it, the men of ancient times had witness borne to them.
Oxford English:
[uncountable] faith (in somebody/something) trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised
Faith in the "religious" definition, is just like the Sun rising. There is no way you can PROVE the sun will rise in the morning. The only thing you can do is reference that the sun has in FACT risen every morning since the beginning of recorded history, and based on that previous "beheld" evidence, have "Faith" the sun will rise tomorrow, even though you have not seen it rise "tomorrow" and cannot PROVE it will rise tomorrow.
THAT is the definition of faith. Faith is not blind at all, and when people do not use "reason" in their argument, then it is blind and not representative of Biblical Faith.
Next Mirriam-Webster is secular, and I said tainted with an atheist slant, since Mirriam-Webster is using terminology that specifically does not represent the meaning of what "Faith is and how it is used and defined. If you go back to the original Greek and Hebrew words for Faith, there is nothing about "no proof" but as the analogy of the Sun is how the Hebrew and Greek used the word Faith, hence the "Atheist slant and incorrect version of that definition.
“Hebrews 11:1,2. Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for” says nothing other than it is a hope. One cannot base anything upon hope.
Your second definition, from the OED, you selected the wrong definition of those offered “[uncountable] faith (in somebody/something) trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised” is really nothing more than saying you have confidence in something.
At http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/... it says: noun, 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something, (which does not apply here) and 2. “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” This does apply here. You are certainly claiming a “Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” Exactly out of the dictionary.
You refer to the sun. An interesting analogy since the folks who wrote the Bible did not know where the sun went at night. They were quite ignorant of the earth (also believing it to be flat), not to mention the universe. But, all of this is not relevant to the topic of this thread.
To get back on topic, state a definition of god that is intelligible. If you want to discuss some particular aspect, such as omnipotence, then say so. In the course of the discussion you will have to use words in the standard meanings, not with some spin you may wish to add to them. Otherwise no discussion is possible because neither of us will understand the other.
the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen
But I am guessing you have not read in its entirety what I wrote because you have successfully taken bits and pieces again out of context and knittted together something that suits your fancy.
Isn't that paramount to asking a Muslim to Define Christianity, or a Communist to define Capitalism?
To define a specific "religious term" I would think you would use a source that understands the term.
The Oxford Dictionary uses a definition much closer to that which is in the Bible.
"[uncountable] faith (in somebody/something) trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised"
If you go straight to the Hebrew or Greek word "Faith" which is the context in the Bible the below is the definition:
Strong's Encyclopedia on Faith referencing the actual word used IN context and during that time.
pivstiß Pistis (pis'-tis);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4102
conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
relating to God
the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
relating to Christ
a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
the religious beliefs of Christians
belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
fidelity, faithfulness
the character of one who can be relied on
.
I can provide massive amounts of mathematical "evidence" that this Universe could never have "popped" into existence out of nothing especially considering the extreme precision with which everything operates. Even our Atomic Clock has to be adjusted due to its inaccuracy as compared to everything else in the universe. The Atomic Clock did not just pop into existence "because it needed to."
I accept that in your view there is no God, thus no Morality except what each individual deems is their personal morality which also by default means there should be no laws either. Without God and or an acceptance of a higher power, morality does not and cannot exist.
Also I did not call you a liberal, only expressed a similarity in how the arguments are presented. I do agree with Timothy and what you quoted completely and that was in context. I could go into great detail on the scriptures you quotes and show you logically and reasonably why my I say they are mis-quoted and out of context but that would take months because each of those scriptures you quoted is surrounded by hundreds of years of history and context you must also understand.
I would encourage you to watch an excellent movie, "God's Not Dead" stars Kevin Sorbo "Hercules."
God much like Gravity and Wind is not proven, nor can be proven since you cannot see it or touch it or capture it, however, you can see empirical evidence of its existence and the effects of it.
I am sure you have never seen or touched your brain, but I am sure it exists.
LaBossiere, Michael (2012-07-17). 76 Fallacies. Kindle Edition; Bennett, Bo (2013-11-20). Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (Academic Edition or Kindle);
Robert Carroll present a good example: “Don’t accept something as true just because you can’t prove it’s false. And don’t think something is false just because it hasn’t been proven true. The expression argumentum ad ignorantiam (usually translated from the Latin as argument to ignorance) was apparently first used by the philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) to describe a debater’s tactic:”
Carroll, Robert (2013-11-08). The Critical Thinker's Dictionary: Biases, Fallacies, and Illusions and What You Can Do About Them (Kindle Locations 1074-1078). . Kindle Edition.
Lack of evidence is proof of nothing.
Or, as Branden put it: “The absence of knowledge in any subject does not constitute a basis for inventing arbitrary theories and groundless explanations. An absence cannot be a basis for anything. The fact that something is unknown does not give you license to substitute invention for inquiry and will not transform the products of your invention into knowledge. Nor can you invert logic to the point of claiming that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. One must be able to prove that something is possible.”
I have not said "there is no god." I have said I do not believe in god. The reason I do not believe in god is simple: (1) and (2) above.
When looking at everything from a purely mathematical perspective, knowing order does not come from chaos (Big Bang).
Here are some well known and widely accepted scientists and their comments on God.
The quotes
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
I just happen to agree with these BRILLIANT people...
The Gulch is filled with atheists---Including you. As Dawkins famously said: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed. Some of us just go one God further.”
The reverse can also be true, meaning that you claim there is no God, but you offer no proof the backup that claim since you have no proof.
II clearly state that my belief in God is based on observance of the things around me and the logic that they exist and that there is order to everything and a precision that cannot be matched by any devices CREATED by man.
Since Man must CREATE, or build, there is intelligent design in building any timepiece even the atomic clock that uses laws of physics that are proven, logically the universe with its precision that far exceeds anything created by man implied that the universe must have also been designed and created.
One cannot achieve order through chaos.
While this is not proof, using the powers of observation, I see the effects of this design.
While science cannot "prove" gravity, we can observe the effects of gravity, and even though we have no proof of gravity we know it does exist.
Just because I cannot offer you physical being you can touch and speak to, does not mean that being does not exist either.
I have never seen or spoken to people in Africa, but I know they exist. I have never seen by nephews and nieces because my brother is an asshole, but I know they exist.
I have never seen or touched my brain, but I think therefore I am, and that implies my brain exists regardless of the diminished capacity you might think it operates at.
To say it is a fallacy because I cannot prove something works also to your disadvantage in your argument as well.
You cannot prove the Big Bang, you have no "evidence", only theory and supposition therefore it is fallacy I say your theory is a fallacy as well then.
Now Logically since you have NO empirical proof of your position, you also are demonstrating that little thing we call "Faith."
I am saying unless you can define what you believe in, even you do not know what the god is that you claim to believe in.
As Branden put it: The man who claims to have faith that he will win at cards, can at least define what it is in which he has faith in the sense that he knows what he means by winning at cards. But if he claims that he has faith in god, he cannot, in any like sense, specify what he means. He can identify god, in effect, only as a feeling, he has faith in a feeling. But since faith itself is only the worship of feelings, the man who declares to have faith in god is declaring that he has a feeling about a feeling. A feeling that his feeling is true. Thus, faith is god is mysticism two times over. It is an act of faith twice compounded.
if we divide reality into two parts -- the known and the unknown,
and we choose to name the latter, what might we call it? . your choice. -- j
.
God is in that grouping. . faith is, too. . it is a fun group, since everything
which we learn contributes to its dissolution, yet it seems never to diminish!!! -- j
.
and my only dishonesty is engaged in keeping personal facts personal. -- j
.
my life according to bets which I take about the unknown, calling
the actions faithful. . it's a set-aside pile of notions which I find
quite intriguing, since we are often treated to new knowledge there. -- j
.
.
Well, I will again repeat, the same thing I mentioned above. "I have exactly as much proof of God as you have there is none. This is and has always been the basis for the major disagreement, and extreme dogmatism on both sides of the discussion."
And since you also have NO proof, that there is no God or Intelligent Creator, then you also intern are offering simple fallacy to deny the possibility of a superior authority, i.e. God which places you and I exactly on the same level of reason. Regardless of whether you like it or not.
Unless you grasp the cognitive principle that lack of evidence is proof of nothing, you miss the point.
Would you agree your alive? I would presume you will say yes.
Being alive you have what is called "Life." I will also assume you would agree with this.
Now Define Life...
You can define all the the things life is not, you can define the things you do in life, you can define the limitation of life, .but try to define life,
Life itself cannot be "defined" other than to simply say "Life ..."is""
Biblically God is defined as "Love." i.e. God Is Love. 1 John 4:16; 1 John 4:8
If I asked you to define Hitler how would you do it?
People are the sum of their character and experiences. Your name is defined by your reputation. How do you define Obama? Only with traits, like Liar, Deceiver, Crook, Tyrant.
When you Think of General Patton, Hero, Arrogant, Tough, Driven, all traits which are and can be partly emotion.
If I asked you to "define" yourself how would you do it?
1
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2
a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
Capacity for metabolism? Reaction to Stimuli?
By using ambiguity for not "define" something.
2a is kinda of the closest I would think, but now your getting into what defines "YOU" which are very ambiguous terms. Many inanimate objects react to stimuli, are they alive? Dead tissue can react to stimuli.
These are negative "proofs", which you all say is no proof.
Using the scientific method, we do not propose a theory and then ask everyone to prove us wrong. The baseline where we begin is nothing. We move on from there. The existence of God is not a baseline needs to be disproven, it is a theory that requires evidence to prove its validity.
"Using the scientific method, we do not propose a theory and then ask everyone to prove us wrong."
You're sort of wrong on that one. A very important part of supporting a theory involves trying to prove that it's wrong. Each failed attempt increases our confidence in the theory.
This process of discovery and understanding could not be more different than the mystics' decrees of faith.
Objectivists are fond of A=A. This I totally agree with.
0 + 0 = 0 or nothing + nothing or times Nothing or nobody still = 0 or nothing.
In order for anything other than God to exists, 0 + 0 must = something other than zero at least once.
We know that things exist, even if we don't know where they came from. It's possible they always have. It's a much smaller leap to assume that than it was created by a being with no physical existence.
Don't think so...
Unless you think you can take raw materials, toss them in a bin with explosives and get a 21 jewel perfect Swiss watch set to perfect time at the other end, no matter how many times you blow it up.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wo...
The long and short is simple. and NOT proselytizing, but people who REALLY have read the bible know WHY things happen.
Ecclesiastes 9:11
I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.
In other words. SHIT HAPPENS!!!
Because God our Creator placed them there, created the laws and rules of physics and yes gravity to hold them in their positions.
Isaiah 40:22 refers to the "Circle of the Earth"
Isaiah btw was written in the 8th century BCE.referring to the earth being round. So about 2,200 years BEFORE science those all powerful most brilliant people "discovered" this fact, it was written in the Bible. Hrm...
Sciense however...
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithaba...
“When Columbus lived, people thought that the earth was flat. They believed the Atlantic Ocean to be filled with monsters large enough to devour their ships, and with fearful waterfalls over which their frail vessels would plunge to destruction. Columbus had to fight these foolish beliefs in order to get men to sail with him. He felt sure the earth was round.”
–Emma Miler Bolenius, American Schoolbook Author, 1919
Answering your query is NOT proselytizing either.
Your contempt for science (not "sciense") is astounding. Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason has enormous respect for science as achievement of the human mind. The laws of physics are conceptual knowledge that must by formulated by man based on empirical discovery of facts properly categorized. Things do what they do because of what they are, i.e., in accordance with their nature, not because of obedience to the supernatural. "God did it" is no explanation of anything and never led to any understanding, it's insistence as church dogma only held up and prevented scientific exploration for centuries.
Now about your creator god, that is interesting. Now all you have to do is define what it is and adduce some proof of its existence and I will happily change my mind.
Eventually one of us will be PROVEN right, and one of will be very surprised by the answer.
Having said that I am totally in shocked you would use the Egyptians who were one of the most prolific poly-theists, believing in gods for everything to explain everything as a source of authority for anything.
So are you thumping on the poly-deitsts known as the Egyptians? I really wish you would all pick a position and remain somewhat consistent, if my sources are to be ignored and laughed at then so also are the Egyptians whom you just referred to. Or is Amen Ra, ISIS, Hotep, or other of their Gods real and they are really intelligent?.
By a negative, in this context, I mean a negative for which no positive exists, such as the attempt to prove that one is not guilty, when no positive proof of one’s guilt has been offered, or the attempt to negate something for which there is no positive evidence. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant to, or be applied to, the nonexistent. The nonexistent is nothing. In short, that which is asserted without proof may be dismissed without proof. (That is a quote from somebody, I forget whom, that just came to mind.)
I do not assert there is no god. I assert I do not believe in a god and the reason I do not believe in a god is the proposer must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and (2) adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so I never got to (2). You are proposing there is a god. All I ask you to do is start with (1) and advance to (2).
if we divide reality into two parts -- the known and the unknown,
and we choose to name the latter, what might we call it? . Herman? -- j
.
and my confidence in the speculated contents of the unknown. . reality is constantly
being explored, and the wonderful, exquisite new knowledge is precious.
the sense of wonder and intrigue which a youngster experiences
when looking up at the night sky -- in my opinion -- needs to be sustained
throughout life, and this labeling of unknown reality works for me in that regard. -- j
.
there is no mysticism in my life. . I do not deal with murky thought --
the unknown section of reality is specifically that. . it works well
for me in my life. -- j
.
I hope all two dozen of them are not as purposefully dishonest as #15, from Steven Hawking. Professor Hawking is an outspoken atheist. You have committed the grievous sin that you accused another writer of committing. You took his quote out of context.
As far as Steven Hawking, He has flip flopped a couple times, so he was for it before he was against it.
The problem here ewv, if you have not been able to maintain any consistent line of thinking you have waffled back and forth which is not reason.
You seem to set yourself up as an authority of reason, but then say there is no authority, making everything you say invalid.
Please pick a view and maintain some kind of consistency.
Gravity and Wind were "proven" a long, long time ago. We now understand gravity so well that we can predict the path of celestial bodies in our galactic neighborhood. We can use our knowledge of gravity to help detect planets in other solar systems. We can use knowledge of it to show that a distant star is actually a binary star even though the telescope can't see the fact.
We can't touch the wind? It's only because we do touch it that we know it's there. The air pushing against your body, as sensed by your nerves, is wind.
Most people have not seen their own brains. I have seen an MRI of mine so that's direct evidence that it's there. But your argument is basically flawed. We don't need to see something with our eyes, via the visible light spectrum, or touch it with our skin to know it's there. I don't need faith to believe in x-rays or quarks because there is irrefutable scientific evidence.
There is no measurement you can make or scientific instrument you can build that will provide any evidence at all that god exists.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”
Apparently Science cannot get a REAL measurement of what is believed to be a "constant" of Gravity either.
So you were saying proven a long time ago?
Also I have never said I had contempt for science, and again you are making unfounded accusations just like the liberals who attack anyone who disagrees with them..
I recognize Science at its core is a "search for truth."
I also recognize Science is in no way infallible, and is often very wrong even with what are considered "proven" theories, which then become adjusted in astounding ways because of initial errors in the initial theory and premises.
Recognizing fallibility is not contempt.
Edited for missing word.
The Scientific Method:
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Perhaps it is YOU who does not understand science. Please take note, that scientific theories can NEVER be proved, only disproved. That would be a negative proof which you claim is no proof.
Science broken down is really one thing. Trying to figure out how things work. First you have to ask the right question to get the right answer. The problem is you and many scientists do not want to ask the right question making the theories impossible to validate.
I do understand science, and enjoy science and discovering new things. I do modify my personal view when PROOF is offered to change that view.
You seem to hold on to your "belief system" with a dogmatism that far exceed even the most fierce religious zealot.
From my personal view, you exhibit the contempt for reason, by using shallow justifications and insinuations in your responses.
civilization would include "wonderful" things like that -- we keep
hearing awful things about the Koran which run somewhat
parallel. . we can do better, now, don't you think??? -- j
.
sought to truncate this set of discussions. . there must be some
interest in the welcoming question on their part. . don't you think? -- j
.
and that you are willing to point out places where others can learn
what you have, from Rand's writings. . Thank You! -- j
.
To a point John. But ewv is absolutely correct when he says this isn't a place for "Bible thumbing." Inquiring about faith vs. reason is fine in the Gulch. Advocating faith over reason is not and could potentially lead to banning if not kept in check. See the Gulch CoC: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#f...
Thanks.
I too am Christian and with the exception of the atheist aspect of Objectivism find it rather a good compliment to my Christianity.
of genuine, sincere people who all admire Rand. . my view is this:::
you can be objectivist in this world and use some common
delusional terms as social grace notes, for the sake of harmony,
while knowing in your heart that What You Know is limited. -- j
.
One thing is for sure and is a 100% certainty. Eventually we will all find out one way or another as to the nature of God, and one of us will be very surprised at the true answer.
Edited for Grammar.
appear to allow more inventiveness in thought, don't you think??? -- j
.
Anyone who "agrees that a woman's body is her own [or a man's his own], and a person's social choices are his or her own" has already rejected Christianity's dogmas of duty to God and is so secularized that he would have been branded a heretic in earlier times. An actual, full-fledged Christian would have no support for Atlas Shrugged beyond the most superficial misunderstandings. Most Americans are not in that religious category.
and accept others' social choices as their own. . and I'm a
heretic, back then, but an objectivist, now. -- j
.
others to change to match them -- can use the "faith" label to
identify empirical results which are not understood, or
questions which are not answered, with no evil intent nor desire
to circumvent rationality. . it's like putting those things off
until later.
IF anyone takes things from this category and uses them to justify evil --
force or compulsion applied to others who are good -- THEN
I would contend that their actions are immoral.
many use religion this way, IMHO. -- j
.
Religion throughout the ages has been a source of conflict since the start of man's history. At first it was idols. When one tribe conquered another tribe they smashed the loser's idols and made them worship theirs. Ah, but the Jews were cleverer. "You can't smash our God because he's (wait for it) INVISIBLE!" There's more to the history of Moses, but I've blasphemed enough for now.
.
.
a very fine chiseler. . like hammer and chisel. . or not. -- j
.
There were many prophets before Moses and they delivered god's message to the descendants of Abraham, the Jews. There are hundreds of rules that observant Jews must follow, and in spite of the truly crazy set of rules set forth in the bible, and particularly Leviticus, most of the rules don't appear in the bible itself. I was told that either in the old Hebrew or in the oral tradition that when god handed down a set of instructions, and when what the Jews practice goes way, way beyond what's written in the bible, it's because god said, or implied, "do this thing in the way I have already made known to you." That would have been made known through other prophets and passed down through the oral tradition, not in writing. Eventually that tradition made it into the Talmud in some form.
No doubt I got details wrong, I'm not Jewish, but I think it's close enough. Moses didn't need a basis for a religion, they were already Jews, the religion was there, the law was there, but the people were straying badly.
But I strayed. When you wrote that Judaism came from a conglomeration of Yaweh and ..., what did you mean by Yaweh?
I propose that your casting of the religion prior to being written down as "lore" is not meaningful. Lore is lore whether it's written or not, and the oral tradition is just as valid as a written bible.
I'm going to send this conversation to my friend so he can enlighten me with the correct Jewish viewpoint (rather than my recollections) and also respond to what you wrote. It will be educational for both of us.
.
the stories which I have been taught. . more to come;;; film at eleven!!! -- j
.
.
I do not speak for anyone else in the Gulch but I note that there are a number of Christians and deists here. You will decide how you live your own life, but as long as how you interact with me is fairly and rationally, what you believe inside your own head is as much my business as how you behave in bed.
Jan, agnosto
honor one another's choices. . Thank You for your gentleness!!! -- j
.
Kind of with Khalling on this though. I get agnostic or even spiritual, but how can a reasonable person buy into the stories, actions of the church and dogma, when so much that it canon was clearly wrong and/or made up?
.
.
associated with religion. . Rand came along and helped me to
see rationality. . I followed. . Yes, there are many, many Sunday-only
Christians. . absolution comes to mind. . if rationality is used
all the time, groupthink can be avoided -- but it sure does
piss off the group organizers!!! -- j
.
Just playing devil's advocate here ;) Wait a minute... =D
.
are we? . or do we consider that all Christians are missionaries? -- j
.
I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate on this one...if the Gultch is only for people of a single ideology, I certainly would want no part of it. Would you?
and "association" statements were intended to spark conversation
about tenets which some religious people find puzzling.
I am certain that we do not want to exclude people because
they differ from Rand. . everyone does, to some extent.
again, the title of the post is intended to be two separate questions,
not a qualifier saying that people should only be allowed if they
are pro-choice and pro-free-association. -- j
.
I didn't take it the way that you meant...No harm, no foul.
.
This is an example of a contradictory assertion properly rejected as impossible to exist in addition to rejection of belief in an arbitrary theist assertion as unseriously cognitively worthless.
For those interested in Ayn Rand's philosophical position on this -- which is after all the purpose of this forum -- see the Appendix on the Epistemology workshops in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd ed, p.148:
Q: what common features of particulars are retained in order to get the concept "God"—
AR: "I would have to refer you to a brief passage about invalid concepts [page 49]. This is precisely one, if not the essential one, of the epistemological objections to the concept "God." It is not a concept. At best, one could say it is a concept in the sense in which a dramatist uses concepts to create a character. It is an isolation of actual characteristics of man combined with the projection of impossible, irrational characteristics which do not arise from reality—such as omnipotence and omniscience.
"Besides, God isn't even supposed to be a concept: he is sui generis, so that nothing relevant to man or the rest of nature is supposed, by the proponents of that viewpoint, to apply to God. A concept has to involve two or more similar concretes, and there is nothing like God. He is supposed to be unique. Therefore, by their own terms of setting up the problem, they have taken God out of the conceptual realm. And quite properly, because he is out of reality."
parts in order to have friends. . it's as good a definition as I need. -- j
.
the online gulch. . yet there is an alternate view. . make the jump
to a place where man's rationality is sovereign in his or her life,
and the unknowable is set aside for later, called -- as you wish --
the faith zone or confident optimism zone. -- j
.
.
p.s. most days, it feels like I have unicorns in my shoes --
peripheral neuropathy.
.
about welcoming Christians to the gulch. . are you implying that
there are no Christians who are also objectivists? -- j
.
Obj.ists cannot benefit from discussion of religion; but all can benefit from rational communications.
some slack. . well, at least I try to be both objectivist and Christian.
with my foundation from Rand at age 15, and then 27 years of atheism,
I learned to integrate the wisdom of Christianity into my view of life.
there is no room for altruism. . there is room for a healthy dose of
charity, a strong seam of humility, an intense desire for knowledge
from any reasonable source, and there is room for optimism. . I am
now 66 and hope to keep on for awhile longer.
most of the interactions on this forum are rational and respectful.
I intend that mine are always so. -- j
.
Humility is not a virtue, religion provides absolutely no source of knowledge, and optimism has nothing to do with philosophy. Maybe you can call yourself "accepting of some Obj.ist ideas."
humility modifies pride, since I made a mistake once. . religion is a
source of experience from others' lives, providing some guidance
in cause-and-effect factual relationships. . optimism is a part of
my estimation of the wisest way to approach life among
other people. . I accept all objectivist ideas. -- j
.
Any value assigned to religion is in one's "head", not in reality.
You obviously don't accept Rand's Metaphysics and Epistemology sufficiently enough to be an Obj.ist.
.
As far as a woman's body that is for her to answer. In my reading of Rands writing states to harm on one unless in self defense. Now if life scientifically starts at conception then no harm should come to that being in my mind right or wrong. Also in my mind there is no good answer to the question only an opinion.
.
.
kind of behavior. . was it misunderstood, someone? -- j
.
take 'em to another room, let 'em die. -- j
.
If no force is initiated against it, it will grow to term and be delivered and surely the fetus can't be said to have initiated force against its mother justifying its potential termination since it was a totally passive participant in its conception. If the test of personhood is some level of mental development or economic self-sufficiency the logical fallout might include infanticide through neglect.
Am I missing something?
A fetus or a previous collection of human cells that has human DNA does not have the characteristics of a person until it is born. We have rights because of what we are, not because what we are was encoded in DNA. Being born is the essential difference.
This has nothing to do with a fetus "initiating force". The woman has the right to control her own body. Once the baby is born it is a biologically independent entity, no longer literally parasitical on a biological host, and begins to exercise its five senses and its reasoning capacity to differentiate and understand things in the world. The parents then have the responsibility to care for the person they have created. That person's rights continue to grow in accordance with its capacity to exercise them.
You seem to be basing everything on a the idea of "initiation of force" without regard to force against what and why, where the principle comes from, and what else is required in ethics. That is an a-philosophical libertarian approach that is not Ayn Rand's philosophy.
The fetus is a potential, not yet independent and actual being; rights cannot apply to it.
AR: "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered."
under which I deluded that any being which finds itself fully dependent
on another -- not because of force or coercion -- must accept the host's
decisions about its life. . I was reading a lot of science fiction then.
yet it fueled my ferociously strong desire for INdependence -- to
the maximum extent that I could create it. . maybe the fact that
a zygote or fetus is a human, subordinate to the host mom, is pertinent. -- j
.
.
as an objectivist, I converse to inform, explain, learn, and
sometimes to persuade. . if my persuasion is successful,
it might be called "converting." . could help someone
live better and enjoy their life more, don't you think? -- j
.
.
It's great to have a place to hang out among the like minded, but is that enough? Sadly, those who are able and willing to think logically seem to be in the minority, if polls and elections are to be believed. I think the world would be a better place if there were a lot more rational, logical people in it, but how do we get there without becoming the kind of annoying proselytizers we disdain?
of us who contribute the most. . I joined immediately after finding
this virtual gulch, but many do not, and perhaps many more are just
watching. . it is an open forum;;; yes? . . Hi, NSA!!!
and I edit books. . and I interact with others. . all good interactions
can serve -- like watching someone working efficiently in a diner! -- j
.
My manners are too old-fashioned to bite a woman though. I do have the option of snapping my teeth at her.
Good manners also forbid I discuss things I can do with my theropod teeter-totter tail.
.
where you could cook your own 3 inch steak over charcoal, along with
texas toast and baked potatoes ... from the '82 world's fair.
ooooohhhh, we do miss that place!!! -- j
.
Jan, a lady but not a wuz
.
You can bite me first.
there are many who prefer a gentler touch!!! -- j
.
known people who Did Not Seek to Impose Their Views on Others
who were absolutely beautiful, creative, glorious people. -- j
.
It's interesting that even among those who are most interested in individual freedoms there comes the dilemma of at what point these take place.
Rand was utterly convinced that the first trimester didn't count but after that things get less certain. At some point the parents have assumed an obligation to care for the child until it has attained reason and the ability to become a productive member of society.
The Church does not regard a person's life as his own but as a gift from God and a duty to obey church dogma in the name of God.
the woman's body until separation. . and there is nothing
immoral about severing an appendage. . but this is a dangerous
train of thought, because it is also obvious that there is a new
human when egg and sperm unite. . isn't it true, though, that
it is a human totally dependent on the mercy of the host? -- j
.
of a man, allowing him to carry the child. . interesting wrinkle
on the beginning of life as a zygote. -- j
.
into the future, if I remember right. -- j
.
Once the fetus is viable it's not her body it's a second body totally dependent on the mercy of the first body. The provision for medical emergency to save the life of one or the other are still intact and do not include fitting ini prom dresses. The amounts of those tragedies have drastically dropped however. All sides got part of their loaf - no one got the whole loaf except the child which is as it should be in any civilized country. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.
slope there. . others can project responsibilities onto you because
of your rights -- dangerously. . I have had fun, as most of us have,
in using tax preparation software to try to defend myself from the
tentacles of others who want my dollars because -- in their view --
they have given me the right to life in the u.s. . and there also are
those who use my tax money to buy opposition votes, because
they gave me the right to vote. . many other examples are
available. . interesting and dangerous duality, imho. -- j
.
Even in utero there is a point where the developing creature COULD exist outside of the mother. Roe v Wade recognized that this was a technical threshold.
Indeed, future technology might be able to capture the results of conception at any point in the process and preserve it independently.
a high-tech child for us. . but, no. -- j
.
exciting results. . having confidence that this will continue is not
a kind of duality -- it's just life. . we can "know" God and have
"faith" at will, as long as we observe rationality with the information
at hand. . it is the prerogative of a being with a "soul" -- the essence
which we name that because of this confidence. -- j
.
27 years. . when I "broke out" of the loop, I felt much more human. -- j
.
"church" is the woods. . No intervening crap -- straight truth. -- j
.
involve belief in untestable things. . it did, however, involve the use
of the word "faith" to categorize the unknown about which you
might have confidence based on partial knowledge.
I have faith, for example, that guiding my personal actions
positively in relation to others, what I call the 51 percent rule,
is wise. . I do not know that, in the long run, it is wise to grant
the next Joe I meet that small benefit of the doubt, but I bet
that it is. -- j
.
are constantly striving to explore. . reality is more complex than I thought. -- j
.
.
is a direct factual explanation. . these are both common views
and I respect both. -- j
.
If you are concerned about association, you need to decide 'whose side you are on'.
You are aware, I am sure, that today's advocates for abortion are philosophical descendants of Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, Adolph Hitler and other eugenicist Progressives who advocated abortion as a means for ridding the world of 'undesirables'.
Ms. Sanger was closely associated with the KKK. One suspects today's high rate of abortion among blacks would certainly meet her approval.
.
Load more comments...