Obama..... not religious?

@joefromchicago,

I meant that as long as someone is quiet about their religion, I have no way to judge them as to whether they are hypocritical.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

I think that if religion has been removed, the arts and music and altruism would still have happened by virtue of the emotions that drive humanity. The human desire to express would have been the same, only the channel and form of the expression would be changed.

I think so too.

And I think all the helpful, kind, caring, compassionate, decent religious people would be just as kind, caring, compassionate, and decent!

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Well, Wendel...in the subject discussion...silence is not one of the options.

There are people who claim they are good Christian...and who think there is nothing abominable about homosexual conduct. I have been claiming that an argument can be made that such a stance is hypocritical...given the information we have about what a Christian is.

Here is the complete post where this discussion arose:

Quote:

Actually, JPB...

...an argument can be made that any “Christian” who condones homosexual behavior, is a hypocrite...which is equivalent to saying that the person is not really a Christian.

The Bible is unambiguous about how the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped...feels about homosexual conduct. It is, in the opinion of that god...an abomination...an insult to the god.

And the opinion of the god of the Bible should matter to Christians...should it not?

So from that perspective, he is not a Christian...and quite honestly, it sounds as though you are not either.

Can we discuss this?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you think that is a logical argument for the kind of "faith" that supposes there is a god who kills babies to get his way...and suggests murdering people who don't kiss its ass?

Really???

Nice strawman. Gonna stuff it?

1 Reply

Oh, i understand perfectly well what it means to beg a question. But, Joe, you should read the "Introduction to Logic" link which you provided, so that you can understand why you can justifiably be described as begging the question.

In your post #3559700 . . .

You wrote:

As I see it, the sine qua non of Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ. I really can't imagine how one can be Christian yet deny that Christ was, in some way, divine.

It was to this that i objected, both in this thread, and in an earlier thread to which you referred, and linked. Therefore, the question i have been disputing is whether or not it is necessary for someone to believe in the divinity of the putative Christ in order to be described as being Christian. If i provide an example of Christians who do not or have not believed that the putative Christ is divine, and you object that they cannot be Christians precisely because they do not so believe, you are begging the question because you do so on the basis of a premise which is identical with the conclusion at which you would wish to arrive in debating the matter.

You're not a stupid man, Joe, give it a little thought, and you'll see that this is so. As your linked material says, ". . . the fallacy [assumes] as a premiss a statement which has the same meaning as the conclusion." (By the way, your source has misspelled "premise.")

Using a dictionary definition is only an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy if one accepts that the only basis for determining if someone is a Christian is theological in nature. This is identical with your ipse dixit claim about the divinity of the putative Christ and being Christian. It assumes a theological position without demonstrating it. Your claim of a fallacy here assumes that the only means of determining if someone is a Christian will be a theological investigation, in essence, to determine if the alleged Christian is orthodox or heretical. From previous experience, one can hardly be blamed for assuming that the only authority to which you would wish us to appeal would be your own opinion. So, my use of the dictionary definitions of who is or isn't a Christian, while showing no respect for your opinion, is not to be automatically considered fallacious, and therefore, is no problem for me at all.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

You quoted me saying:

Quote:

And you think that is a logical argument for the kind of "faith" that supposes there is a god who kills babies to get his way...and suggests murdering people who don't kiss its ass?

Really???

And you wrote;

Quote:

Nice strawman. Gonna stuff it?

My compliments.

Evasion.

That makes a lot more sense than making a fool of yourself trying to defend the nonsense to which I referred.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

JPB wrote:
To give you a non-religious example of true vs fact, consider three representations of a tree. One rendition is a photograph, the second is a painting done in fine detail, and the third is an impressionist print. Which of these is true?

None of them is 100% true, but there are degrees of similarity to the truth. The photograph is most similar to the truth (assuming its a sharp photograph), the realistic painting somewhat less similar, the impressionist painting least similar. Do you consider that a fundamentalist way of judging it?

None of them are factual but all of them are 100% true. The tree itself is Truth (capital T) or fact. The tree IS (if we can't agree on that then we might as well stop here). All of the other renditions are representations of the tree. Each true in their own perspective, none of them factual.

Thomas wrote:

JPB wrote:
This is where we are looking at the discussion from different perspectives -- the net value of religion for humankind. If you remove religion from humankind, you have lost more than half (guess) of the art world, the world of music, and most importantly, the social outreach provided by the religious community.

Quote:
If you really think this is a good argument, try suggesting the following proposition to Mr. JPB: "If you remove Microsoft from the world of computing, you lose the operating system and Office software on more than 90% of all computers. And most importantly, you lose all the charitable work of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation." He will swiftly point out your error to you.

Bad choice -- Mr B would be thrilled, Thrilled, THRILLED if there had never been a Microsoft. We're a unix/linux/openware kinda household wherever possible. That aside -- I have no idea if either Bill or Melinda have a faith-based upbringing. Nor do I think Mr Gate's ends are justified by his means. My guess (admitted) is that the love of a good woman gave him a moral compass. I'm willing to recant that if someone can convince me that he's a hell of a good guy by nature -- but that's a different thread.

Quote:

But even if your argument did wash, it would merely be a restatement of the third key joke in Woody Allen's Annie Hall:

Woody Allen alias Alvy Singer wrote:
this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he's a chicken." And, uh, the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?" The guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs." Well, I guess that's pretty much now how I feel about relationships; y'know, they're totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd, and... but, uh, I guess we keep goin' through it because, uh, most of us... need the eggs.

Is that what you're saying (about religion, not relationships)?

This is a fantastic segue to the work of Ken Wilber and alternative evidences of knowing. I don't have time to get into now and first we have to agree that the tree is a tree and there are as many ways to interpret the tree as there are eyes to see it.

Frank -- yes, I'd like to continue the discussion when I can. I agree that it's interesting.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I have no problem with the aesthetics of religion, and have said so repeatedly. JPB, however, introduced her analogy specifically as a point about facts, not aesthetics. I responded to her on that understanding. You should know, because you quoted me quoting her on that.

JPB, as quoted by Thomas, as quoted by DrewDad, wrote:

To give you a non-religious example of true vs fact, consider three representations of a tree. One rendition is a photograph, the second is a painting done in fine detail, and the third is an impressionist print. Which of these is true?

(emphasis added, T.)

An impressionistic painting of a tree is beautiful; it may tell us a lot about the impressionistic painter. But no, it does not tell us anything valuable about the tree.

2 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

None of them are factual but all of them are 100% true.

I disagree 100%.

JPB wrote:

Bad choice -- Mr B would be thrilled, Thrilled, THRILLED if there had never been a Microsoft.

I know. That's why he would have so swiftly pointed out the error in the thesis that I suggested you put to him. Without Microsoft, Microsoft's programmers would have written software for some other company, and Microsoft's customers would have bought their software from some other company. But software would still have been written and used.

Likewise with music, sculpture, and religion.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Oh, i understand perfectly well what it means to beg a question.

No, I'm pretty sure you don't.

Setanta wrote:

Therefore, the question i have been disputing is whether or not it is necessary for someone to believe in the divinity of the putative Christ in order to be described as being Christian. If i provide an example of Christians who do not or have not believed that the putative Christ is divine, and you object that they cannot be Christians precisely because they do not so believe, you are begging the question because you do so on the basis of a premise which is identical with the conclusion at which you would wish to arrive in debating the matter.

Look, this is really very simple. If I provide a definition, then it is not begging the question to say that some things fall within that definition and some things don't. For instance, if I say "all widgets have eleven legs," then I can say, with complete confidence, that some X that has twelve legs is not a widget. That's not assuming something which needs to be proved: the proof is provided by the definition itself.

Now, if I wanted to construct an argument that begs the question, I'd say something like: "Arians don't believe in the divinity of Christ, and I know that because the Catholic Encyclopedia says that Arianism is a heresy." That, however, assumes that the Catholic church is right about Arian doctrine, which assumes a fact that has not been established.

Setanta wrote:

You're not a stupid man, Joe, give it a little thought, and you'll see that this is so. As your linked material says, ". . . the fallacy [assumes] as a premiss a statement which has the same meaning as the conclusion." (By the way, your source has misspelled "premise.")

"Premiss" is an acceptable alternate spelling, especially in the area of philosophy.

Setanta wrote:

Using a dictionary definition is only an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy if one accepts that the only basis for determining if someone is a Christian is theological in nature.

That is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Setanta wrote:

This is identical with your ipse dixit claim about the divinity of the putative Christ and being Christian. It assumes a theological position without demonstrating it. Your claim of a fallacy here assumes that the only means of determining if someone is a Christian will be a theological investigation, in essence, to determine if the alleged Christian is orthodox or heretical.

No, my claim assumes that "Christian" is, or should be, a meaningful category, as opposed to a meaningless one, which is your position.

Setanta wrote:

From previous experience, one can hardly be blamed for assuming that the only authority to which you would wish us to appeal would be your own opinion.

That, to be quite blunt, is utter bullshit.

Setanta wrote:

So, my use of the dictionary definitions of who is or isn't a Christian, while showing no respect for your opinion, is not to be automatically considered fallacious, and therefore, is no problem for me at all.

Well, it's no problem for you, that's for sure. Of course, you've pretty much demonstrated that you have no grasp of logic, so that's no surprise.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

An impressionistic painting of a tree is beautiful; it may tell us a lot about the impressionistic painter. But no, it does not tell us anything valuable about the tree.

I'm not sure you and I have enough common ground to continue a conversation, then.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

"Premiss" is an acceptable alternate spelling, especially in the area of philosophy.

Oh Noes!! Somebody Has Written Something Wrong on the Internets!!!!

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2923/20090204fpyt3dga17qef2tny6.png

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/20090204fpyt3dga17qef2tny6.png/1/w515.png

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

No problem. Let's agree to disagree.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Hey, I'm not the spelling Nazi here!

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

And why should this keep me from cutting and pasting a blog post I enjoyed?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Then we're stuck. The analogy of Bill as God, Melinda as Jesus, and life 5000 years from now would make an interesting South Park episode, but it still wouldn't represent Truth.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

If I provide a definition, then it is not begging the question to say that some things fall within that definition and some things don't.

Here's your logical failing here, Joe. It is your definition which i am disputing. In a debate about whether or not your definition is valid, to use that definition to attempt to demonstrate that examples i offer in contradiction are incorrect most certainly is an example of begging the question.

My position is not that Christian is a meaningless category. I have provided the definitions of Christian that i consider reasonable. That they are not your definition is not evidence that they are meaningless.

My grasp of logic is certainly sufficient to see that you are attempting to establish the validity of your definition by using it as a premise to deny examples which i provide in contradiction of your definition. My grasp of logic is certainly sufficient to note that you have offered no other basis for your definition than bald assertion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

The notion that the people I call hypocrites are somehow “looking at the Bible as a whole” is bunk as far as I can see.

Right, I know you see it as bunk. My point is that there are lots and lots of folks who don't see it as bunk and they get to be as self-righteous about it as you do. The difference is I don't see liberal Christians running around calling you (the representative you, not the individual you) a hypocrite, dilusional, or dishonest. Fundies might call you misguided (or worse), but I don't know of too many liberal christians who are on a mission to save you from yourself or to denigrate you for your beliefs.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The most fundamental item that has to be considered is the notion that the a GOD exists...and that the Bible reveals ANYTHING about that GOD.

I agree.

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is absolutely no way the Bible is useful whatsoever in answering the question: Is there a GOD?

well... this brings up Robert's point about scripture from all religions referencing the same god as presented by each religion's wise men, but I agree -- to a Christian, the Bible does not ask the question, Is there a God?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Unless one is willing to unequivocally assert that the men who actually wrote the words contained in the Bible ACTUALLY KNEW that a GOD exists...and that the GOD actually gave them information about what IT expects of humans...and what pleases IT or offends IT...

...it is of no use whatsoever in that department!

The people using the Bible HAVE GOT TO be asserting that these writers KNEW a GOD exists...and were in communication with that GOD. Short of that, it makes absolutely no sense to claim it has any more moral authority than, as Thomas suggested, The Sopranos...or Gulliver's Travels.

You realize this when you wrote:

Quote:
the liberal christian sees a story of a tribal people who were given guidance by god

That is not a throw away line, JPB. That is monumental in this discussion we are having.

Think of the implications of it on the arguments you are making...and the ones several others of us are making. (i.e. There is a GOD...the GOD was communicating with the people doing the writing, and the GOD was "guiding" them as to what the GOD expected of humans...and what pleased or offended the GOD.)

Yes and no. Yes, it is monumental in the discussion we are having. No, it doesn't mean the God was communicating with the people doing the writing. It's a story, a myth, that is generally believe to be "inspired" by the Judeo-Christian god. It's not a stenographic accounting of a dictation. And yet it is true. It's not a tree, it's a representation of the tree. It's a blurry, impressionistic, colorful representation of a tree. The tree IS Truth. The painting is true.

Frank Apisa wrote:

JPB wrote:
]Religious journalist Ron Harper wrote, "The Bible is true and some of it happened" as a way to highlight the problem that christianity and other religions run into when they tries to equate "true" and "fact".

For certain parts of the Bible are true. I am as sure of the fact that there actually was a place called Rome (as stated in the Bible) as of anything else I can think of. Yes...there was a place called Judea...and the Romans did occupy it...and Egypt existed...and a Pharaoh ruled it.

But so what?

None of us are questioning that...although some of the stuff that is supposedly historical has been deemed by some scholars to be self-serving nonsense. (The Egyptians may well have expelled the Hebrews from Egypt...rather than, as the Bible teaches, escaping by having their god kill a bunch of Egyptian babies.)

Well, the so what is we aren't talking about the historical/geographical Truth points of the bible. We're talking about the mythical truth.

2 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

Fundies might call you misguided (or worse),

I hope you do understand that for the most part, I do not consider fundies (your term) to be hypocrites. Mostly, they are the Christians I consider NOT to be hypocrites"at least, from the perspective we are discussing here.

Quote:

...but I agree -- to a Christian, the Bible does not ask the question, Is there a God?

My comment on this went to the question of whether the Bible ANSWERS the question"not ASKS it. Allow me to restate what I said: “There is absolutely no way the Bible is useful whatsoever in answering the question: Is there a GOD?”

Quote:

Yes and no. Yes, it is monumental in the discussion we are having. No, it doesn't mean the God was communicating with the people doing the writing. It's a story, a myth, that is generally believe to be "inspired" by the Judeo-Christian god.

You have lost me here. How would the god “inspire” anybody to do anything without communicating (in some sense of that word) with people???

Quote:

It's not a stenographic accounting of a dictation. And yet it still true.

How can you assert that “it” is true? How do you know "it" to be true? Or were you meaning to say, “It is my guess that it is true?”

Quote:

Well, the so what is we aren't talking about the historical/geographical Truth points of the bible. We're talking about the mythical truth.

Back to square one!

One: As regards the mythology...how do you know any of it is TRUTH?

And if you are suggesting that only SOME OF IT is TRUTH...how do you determine what is TRUTH and what is suspect or not-TRUTH?

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
There is absolutely no way the Bible is useful whatsoever in answering the question: Is there a GOD?

well... this brings up Robert's point about scripture from all religions referencing the same god as presented by each religion's wise men, but I agree -- to a Christian, the Bible does not ask the question, Is there a God?

Just to clarify, that wasn't my point. In fact, I think that is stronger evidence against a god, and toward the tendency of man to construct anthropomorphic gods.

Take aliens for example, various cultures tend to depict them very similarly, but I don't think that's because this is independent confirmation, I think this is because we make things in our own image.

We don't make as many amoeba alien stories as humanoid alien stories for a reason, and I don't think that reason is because that's what aliens really look like, but because we like to use our imagination that way, and anthropomorphize things.

So independent cultures coming up with the same god, might be an indication of it coming from the same sources (fundamentally human characteristics) and not necessarily indicative of the veracity of the beliefs.

1 Reply

Obama..... not religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know