I invite you to pick apart Christianity

[Qre:us]

Yeah, I don't think there's any way for you to know that. It seems rather unlikely to be true to me.

Give me one example of an idea born in complete isolation.

 

[Jeffster]

Give me one example of an idea born in complete isolation.

How am I supposed to do that?

 

[Qre:us]

Things that we already know? Without learning them? Do you mean in terms of genetic predisposition toward learning language, etc.? I don't think that we're born "knowing" things. We have biological drives and genetic predispositions, but we don't know anything inherently. Because of our biological make-up we may sense that some things feel more natural than others, but...

Yeah, you picked up on the points of why what I'm talking about is not what one considers to be the classical philosophical discussion of tabula rasa. It sits on the nature side of the nature, nurture debate, whereas I think that there's both...nature AND nurture.

Also, tabula rasa would assume that we ALL start with a clean slate, and thus, X and Y if given exactly the same 'learning' will learn and understand in exactly the same depth/way. This is not true as we have pre-programmed (differently so, in terms of strength) brain processing capability and capacity. So, what you're describing above is not in the strictest definition, tabula rasa, as you acknowledge biological predispositions.

 

[Qre:us]

How am I supposed to do that?

Ask yourself why you CAN'T do that, and you'll understand my argument.

 

[thisGuy]

Back up even further to basics. And you'll understand my argument (as your response didn't really understand my argument in the first place)

How did you know what self is? You must have had to understand yourself as a separate entity from OTHERS. I.e., you cannot know from inside your brain ONLY, you needed the external stimuli of your surroundings/environment to understand what SELF is RELATIVE to others...much less know/understand what you know about self.

using the outside as a reference is not a stimulus for introspection. it is comparing the measure of outside development with the measure of inside development.

stimulus is be the seed of such developments.

and yes, i am saying it IS possible to have the seed thats not external.

i would normally use my dominant hand to run my hand throuhg my hair. 2 hours ago, i used my left. what insipred me to use my left? raising this question of myself qualifies as being self-aware. using left instead of dominant right is the internal seed to the action that resulted in ruffling through my hair

Um...okay?

what? personal experience and i get a blank look?

 

[Qre:us]

using the outside as a reference is not a stimulus for introspection. it is comparing the measure of outside development with the measure of inside development.

stimulus is be the seed of such developments.

and yes, i am saying it IS possible to have the seed thats not external.

i would normally use my dominant hand to run my hand throuhg my hair. 2 hours ago, i used my left. what insipred me to use my left? raising this question of myself qualifies as being self-aware. using left instead of dominant right is the internal seed to the action that resulted in ruffling through my hair



what? personal experience and i get a blank look?

I can't understand your counter. Can you explain what you understand my argument to be? Maybe we can go from there.

 

[Qre:us]

Actually, I said your statement demonstrated how much you value feeling as a rational function. In that, do you see its value in reasoning as less than that of logic. Not whether it is a rational function or not but whether you see it as a desirable form/function for reasoning.

Yes, in terms of the context of belief... and is the crux of my argument that discussions of belief can best work using subjective reasoning (I'll expand below). Do I personally value such reasoning? I won't answer that as my personal value is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

It works for me says:
1. I use personal values to come to the conclusion that this set of beliefs works for me. No implication regarding the use of either rational function. You can't really argue with personal values.
2. When you use this for somebody else's beliefs, in my view you are also implying the above about that person and thus comes across as an end of discussion from either end.

The above. Did I misunderstand? Please clarify.




Can't you and don't you choose how to set up the model/logical inferences and which ones you concentrate on (to falsify or not)? It seems in the realm of religion where we have limited information and observation powers, you can use logical principles (depending on how you set up the model and thus what propositions you seek to to declare as true/false) to reach either conclusion in this case - there is a God or there isn't.



I'm not arguing there is an absolute morality. I said above that ethics are subjective -- I just don't see it as a black or white issue though, either an absolute morality or completely subjective values. However, there are other possibilities. There are commonly understood and accepted (based on consensus) principles we can use or establish ourselves to evaluate our beliefs based on these ethical principles.

As a social scientist, living in the world of probabilities and not absolute truths, I can't help but apply that to this realm as well.

Are you not attaching value to the term subjective as less than equal to objective analysis? If not, then I misunderstood you.

Okay, I've been thinking for a bit on how best to approach my answering to you. And, rather than decide to tackle the points raised, maybe I can re-state my argument (differently worded), and then, we can see if it resolves some of the above misunderstanding?

(I have issues sometimes translating what I understand inside le head to words... , bear with me)

Christianity, let's use as an example.

Now, you start off calling it a belief. So, we can't inherently use any questioning of objective evaluation of true/false. It's a belief. It's subjective by the very nature of what a belief is. It's *your* (general) belief. It's obsolete bringing in any kind of objective evaluation on the merit of belief.

Now, you want to understand (question) that belief, for yourself, help others, whatever.
By the very first assumption that you set up....i.e., that it is a belief, you have moved it to the subjective realm, thus, any logical premise/statement that you set up, will be subjective towards your aim/end, as it fullfills your initial subjective aim (that of 'belief'). And, in this point, I say, it's redundant to sway back to the objective evaluation, as a bias is already introduced, that of subjectivity, by the very nature of what you are discussing. You're kinda favouring the argument towards one side right from the start, then, saying, okay, we can objectively evaluate even though the base it sits on is subjective. My question is, what does this 'objective evaluation' say in terms of any additional information that you couldn't have achieved by sticking to subjective evaluation throughout?

Why the need for an objective evaluation of belief if you accept it to be a belief in the first place? Why not stick to the subjective? What does an objective evaluation afford if the premise of these objective evaluation are based on subjectivity in the first place?

 

[BlueScreen]

This post is in isolation because I haven't read the rest of the thread, because I am an ENFP and there is completely unnecessary effort involved, which is irrelevant to my view.

Here are my reasons why Christianity might be not true.

Firstly there is too much consistency. It sounds great that what God does involves certain numbers over and over, but these numbers were also liked by men because they had practical significance in the times when the bible was spoken/written. I know we would all love God to be a J, they appreciate him the most, but I can't see an all powerful maker out there wanting to move with the times. Really, I can't believe that if God exists he would be someone I could laugh at.

Secondly, it was a natural progression. I don't know how many people think deeply about the evolution of society and our species, but Christianity had a strong case to be invented. As did Judaism before it. Whether it was to make people more comfortable with their own mortality, or give people a reason to unite, something to fight for. It still offers some parts of humanity a great service. And I'm not just talking about giving those with no abition or free will something to do. Many food for souls campaigns operate throughout the world. And they are important for keeping people alive. And why else would you keep a person alive, but to find God.

And lastly, some of God's servants are entertaining writers, but others should be shot. If not wooed by some scheme, or introduced to it at a young age, I'd have trouble reading much at all without killing myself. I know the church says it is hard to believe and you are of little faith. But a lot of it makes no sense, and is even too contradictory in message for an ENFP. I can understand there are different accounts and different views, but if you don't put a lot of effort into turning off alarm bells, and have a degree in making sense out of nonsense, then the Bible will most likely feel poorly written, poorly compiled, a poor at communicating (yes God, you decided to create bad poetry when you really should've just said what you wanted to say. Though this could be the problem in getting men to write a holy book.)

 

[Jeffster]

Ask yourself why you CAN'T do that, and you'll understand my argument.

Nah, BS. The onus is not on me to prove something I never contended. You were the one who made a declaration about what people CAN'T do. I never said for sure that they can.

 

[Qre:us]

Nah, BS. The onus is not on me to prove something I never contended. You were the one who made a declaration about what people CAN'T do. I never said for sure that they can.

Onus of proof only works if you understand the argument put forth, and I'm not yet convinced that you even understand what my argument is. Hence, me trying to establish that first.

As when I gave proof - neuronal plasticity....you bypassed that, making me infer you didn't understand the argument so no amount of proof would work, would it?

 

[Son of the Damned]

Unrelated to the ongoing exchange here, this is my opinion on Christianity.

I have nothing but contempt for it. No matter how awesome Jesus may or may not have been, His followers have spread nothing but disease, slavery, and war.

Think of all the voices in the early church, and how they disagree.
Think of that the fact that the Bible was made by committee, ordered to action by a Pagan Emperor.
Think of the rivers of ink and seas of blood wasted on the "mystery of the trinity".
Think of the wars waged over the word of God.
Think of the children raped by "men of God"
And they want us to call it "God's love"

I have nothing but contempt for Christianity.

 

[Jeffster]

Onus of proof only works if you understand the argument put forth, and I'm not yet convinced that you even understand what my argument is. Hence, me trying to establish that first.

As when I gave proof - neuronal plasticity....you bypassed that, making me infer you didn't understand the argument so no amount of proof would work, would it?

You are right to not be convinced. I don't understand. And a phrase, or a vague reference to some sort of study on children that you gave no details of is not proof anyway. What I asked is how YOU know the statement you made about ideas having to come from outside is true, and you never answered that question.

 

[Jeffster]

I have nothing but contempt for it. No matter how awesome Jesus may or may not have been, His followers have spread nothing but disease, slavery, and war.

That is factually untrue. Many of His followers have provided food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, shelter to the displaced, comfort to the traumatized, the elderly, and the disabled. Countless hours have been spent by Christians in the service of others, demonstrating the selfless love that Christ directed us to show to our neighbor. You cannot ignore all the good that has been done in the name of Jesus if you are going to point out the bad that has been done.

 

[Qre:us]

You are right to not be convinced. I don't understand. And a phrase, or a vague reference to some sort of study on children that you gave no details of is not proof anyway. What I asked is how YOU know the statement you made about ideas having to come from outside is true, and you never answered that question.

Never said ideas have to come from the outside, that doesn't even make sense...again that's not my argument.

It's simply that any idea cannot have come out of 'thin air'...it had to be built on a context, a base, an association.

For example, the reason this whole conversation came up is me challenging that god could be found from within without outside influence (as proposed by Night). And, I said, be it god or any concept, that's simply not a reality...as there had to be some base for one to even question 'god'. Someone told you about the concept of god for you to even begin contemplating about it. Someone must have died for you to even understand/contemplate what death is. As an isolated system, you living is not enough to know that you are alive and that you will die. You cannot know it 'out of thin air'...there had to be a context from which it arose.

 

[ceecee]

That is factually untrue. Many of His followers have provided food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, shelter to the displaced, comfort to the traumatized, the elderly, and the disabled. Countless hours have been spent by Christians in the service of others, demonstrating the selfless love that Christ directed us to show to our neighbor. You cannot ignore all the good that has been done in the name of Jesus if you are going to point out the bad that has been done.

You're going to compare the number of people helped by Christian charitable work to the numbers killed by Christians throughout the centuries?

 

[Jeffster]

Never said ideas have to come from the outside, that doesn't even make sense...again that's not my argument.

It's simply that any idea cannot have come out of 'thin air'...it had to be built on a context, a base, an association.

For example, the reason this whole conversation came up is me challenging that god could be found from within without outside influence (as proposed by Night). And, I said, be it god or any concept, that's simply not a reality...as there had to be some base for one to even question 'god'. Someone told you about the concept of god for you to even begin contemplating about it. Someone must have died for you to even understand/contemplate what death is. As an isolated system, you living is not enough to know that you are alive and that you will die. You cannot know it 'out of thin air'...there had to be a context from which it arose.

That's what I meant by "outside." And my belief is that you can't know one way or the other whether the mind can create things out of thin air if not exposed to the "stimuli" you referred to. Anything that anybody learns from outside influences, well somebody had to be the first one to come up with whatever that was. So at some point, there had to be "out of thin air" ideas, unless God just told us stuff from the start the way the literal Bible interpretations seem to imply.

 

[Jeffster]

You're going to compare the number of people helped by Christian charitable work to the numbers killed by Christians throughout the centuries?

Exact numbers aren't the issue. He said that followers of Jesus had spread NOTHING but "disease, slavery, and war." Obviously that isn't true. Those who wish to kill will always find a reason, and distorting the teachings of a faith to justify it is a convenient way to do it.

 

[Qre:us]

That's what I meant by "outside." And my belief is that you can't know one way or the other whether the mind can create things out of thin air if not exposed to the "stimuli" you referred to. Anything that anybody learns from outside influences, well somebody had to be the first one to come up with whatever that was. So at some point, there had to be "out of thin air" ideas, unless God just told us stuff from the start the way the literal Bible interpretations seem to imply.

Even those 'out of thin air' had a context. Nothing is without context. Except...nothing (and even this concept has a context, that which is an opposite of *something*). Being first to come up with something does not negate my argument...it's not even relevant to it.

 

[Argus]

Think of the rivers of ink and seas of blood wasted on the "mystery of the trinity".
Think of the wars waged over the word of God.
Think of the children raped by "men of God"
And they want us to call it "God's love"

I have nothing but contempt for Christianity.

Christopher Hitchens, in his book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", argues that religion takes racial and cultural differences and aggravates them. The statement is fair but fails to recognize that there have also been societies which produced massive violence against its own people without the influence of religion (i.e. Communist Russian, Chinese, and Cambodian regimes, and the French Revolution)
Alister McGrath points out that when the idea of God is gone, a society will still "transcendentalize" something else... some other concept, in order to appear morally and spiritually superior.


When people do injustice in the name of Christ they are not being true to the spirit of the one who himself died as a victim of injustice and called for the forgiveness of his enemies.

The people who are fanatics within the Christian faith are those who are not committed enough to the gospel.
The Pharisees are a good example of those who were not committed to the gospel but rather to moral improvement. This naturally resulted in feelings of superiority and to various forms of abuse, exclusion, and oppression.
Therefore, for Christians, the answer is not to tone down and moderate their faith, but to grasp a fuller and truer faith in Christ.


I share your contempt for the injustice and evil done in the name of Christ.

 

[Argus]

You're going to compare the number of people helped by Christian charitable work to the numbers killed by Christians throughout the centuries?

Yeah, that's not exactly biblical... at all.