|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| The originator of the term "anti-theist" is far from anti-intellectual. Hitchens is a learned man, disagree with him as you will. |
Hitchens was born in the 19th century?
| Quote: |
| Richard Hill Sandys: Antitheism: remarks on its modern spirit. London 1883 |
The rest of what you've written about "the theists" applies to such a large group of people (protestants catholics shiia sunni hindu sufis etc. etc.) that it's largely meaningless. At least use the term Literalist Christians or Sola Scripturists. Otherwise we'll be here for the next few weeks with you saying "Theists believe this", followed by me and others saying "Uh, not all theists believe that, see (example here)", then repeat ad infinitum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mith, bottom line, you think a space god writes books (or people talk/interact with the space god and then write books). And, the book is the evidence for the book. We think this is nuts. You can use all the interpretations and apologetics you want. This is the gap.
Furthermore, the books are of very dubious moral guidance. And the followers of the books try and force this dubious moral nonsense upon us all via public policy. If you want to help uninspire the anti-theists you would be better served focusing on your hyper-crazy christian peers who force their crap on us all. If they left us alone, we wouldn't even need to discuss this topic.
Your goal isn't to convince us that the evils of the bible are a translation error. What do you care what I think about Jesus? I don't want to care about Jesus. Jesus, just leave us alone. That should be your goal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All theists must believe in one thing: at least one god. Excluding pantheists and polytheists, we have only monotheists. Specifically, my remarks are directed at the monotheists of one family: the children of Abraham.
The children of Abraham believe in a creator. That creator is categorically different than the universe. Being is therefore divided into two categories: a subject, and an object. God created the universe.
Since God is categorically different than the universe, he is not subject to the same laws. He transcends space and time, yet is a subject. Moreover, he is totally other than the universe. Yet, he can suspend the laws of nature and intervene.
Herein is the fundamental error of this metaphysics:
Two things which have nothing in common can have no relationship, which includes causal relationship. Even suspending the laws of nature would suspend the possibility of causal relationship since the laws of nature are integral to and absolutely necessary for causality. Therefore, god, defined in this manner, cannot have created or have had any relationship with the universe.
All of the children of Abraham share also this feature: they use narrative to express god. Earlier versions of each respective child of Abraham were more literal , on average, in earlier times. They have as a rule and overwhelming trend moved from literal to metaphorical as science and modernity have demonstrated either the absurdity or the improbability of a literal reading of these narratives.
The many forms of abrahamic theism represent the many adaptations theists have made in accordance to this trend.
Even god has moved from a man who walked in the garden of Eden to the ground of all being.
Granted, you can cite that some sects in the early christian era were more metaphorical than the mainstream theists. The gnostics were so. But the gnostics represent an interesting anomaly.
Nevertheless, all use narrative. And it is with respect to the reading of these narratives that I apply the criticism and use the word theist as a term which unifies the many children of Abraham.
The theist, therefore, is a person who makes a particular kind of reading of the genre we call religious text. Implicit in this reading is the contradiction I mentioned above.
Though there be many kinds of theist, they are all correctly placed into a common category. We can use adjectives to further distinguish types, but the category is meaningful.
Last edited by Omkara on Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:29 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| If you want to help uninspire the anti-theists you would be better served focusing on your hyper-crazy christian peers who force their crap on us all. If they left us alone, we wouldn't even need to discuss this topic. |
Back to page 7 for you:
| mithridates wrote: |
| I consider a sola scriptura fundamentalist to be as bad for human society as a whole as a Dawkins-style militant atheist |
To continue on this thread you're going to have to get it through your head that I don't care what you think about Jesus. Got it?
My one and only point on this thread has been that given that religion isn't going anywhere, the average atheist should be able to make distinctions between different branches of Christianity, and that it's lazy to try to lump them all together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| The theist, therefore, is a person who makes a particular kind of reading of the genre we call religious text. |
Well there's the problem right there. You have your own personal definition of a word that's clearly defined otherwise. Theist  a person that makes a particular reading of religious texts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You can claim a negation, but you have to show me why this is not so. Is there a child of Abraham who does not have the core of their faith based on so-called textual evidence? That is, the Word of God? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moreover, I did not say "particular reading." I said "kind of reading." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| You can claim a negation, but you have to show me why this is not so. Is there a child of Abraham who does not have the core of their faith based on so-called textual evidence? That is, the Word of God? |
That's a weird question. Are you talking about theists (the topic) or children of Abraham now? I hope you don't consider the two terms to be interchangeable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
mithridates wrote
| Quote: |
Most definitely not a modern phenomenon. There is a reason why there isn't a single church. There was a lot of squabbling between the Latinists and the Orthodox church a long time ago over the role of the pope, what the original Greek meant, etc. |
And who can say definitively who�s right and who�s wrong. So the bible is so open to different interpretations with nobody with any authority to say who�s correct that it is useless as a source of revelation.
Kuros wrote
| Quote: |
I think one ironic aspect of anti-theism is its anti-intellectualism. Its true: all religion and religious texts need to be treated very delicately and with great maturity. But anti-theism refuses to allow the religious to do so, which conveniently allows anti-theists to characterize all the religious as being incompatable with modernity. Hence, the anti-theist literalist. |
So your definition of anti-intellectualism is the insistence that knowledge have some basis in fact whereas the height of intellectualism is to let your imagination run rampant in whatever direction it fancies.
Okay so tell me�.how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?
Kuros wrote
| Quote: |
Yes, many societies considered it a personal death when their societies collapsed. Why? Outside society they were as good as dead. Take that analogy back to the Garden of Eden. Take that understanding back to most of the OT. Oh, that's why OT God was such an asshole.
Yeah, the Jews were constantly on the brink of destruction. |
mmm�.so why did Jesus have to die on a cross. Surely he could have made atonement by being exiled instead?
Kuros wrote
| Quote: |
| Yes, the Bible, taken as a whole, is inconsistent. Yes, that is a good thing. Because it is the work of man, and is only an imperfect medium for God's word. |
So if it were seamless that would be a sign that it wasn�t inspired by god?
Any chance it could be inconsistent because it�s the work of man and nothing more?
mithridates wrote
| Quote: |
| Anti-intellectual theism and anti-intellectual anti-theism are the two enemies that resemble each other more than they'd like to imagine, and they love to simplify things as much as possible. |
I guess we have that famous anti-intellectual Occam to blame for that.
Somehow it seems a little unfair that while for the majority of christianity's existence christians have been insisting on the literal truth of the bible, once scientists have demonstrated that it can't be literally true they look wide eyed with astonishment that anybody could have considered that it might be.
mithridates wrote
| Quote: |
| My one and only point on this thread has been that given that religion isn't going anywhere. |
Despite the fact the proportion of atheists is rising decade by decade.
Watch this space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wrote:
| Quote: |
| "The theist, therefore, is a person who makes a particular kind of reading of the genre we call religious text." |
To which Mithridates Responded:
| Quote: |
| "Well there's the problem right there. You have your own personal definition of a word that's clearly defined otherwise. Theist a person that makes a particular reading of religious texts." |
I Answered:
| Quote: |
| You can claim a negation, but you have to show me why this is not so. Is there a child of Abraham who does not have the core of their faith based on so-called textual evidence? That is, the Word of God? |
Mithridates Replied:
| Quote: |
| That's a weird question. Are you talking about theists (the topic) or children of Abraham now? I hope you don't consider the two terms to be interchangeable. |
I have not gone off topic, as you are fond of saying in order to dodge issues.
You claimed that a former claim mine was too widely directed, that it was therefore meaningless. I put forth a definition which would show why my argument about theists is valid. I defined a category: theists; a sub-category, monotheists; and then I specified one further sub-category: Abrahamic Theists. This last subcategory was implied in the argument by my earlier sentences; I should have used the adjective clearly in my concluding statements.
Abrahamic theists, in their thousand factions, are all united in this way. They have a basic metaphysics which leads to a particular kind of reading of a genre of text we call scripture. Owing to their metaphysics, they think that a kind of text is possible: The Revealed Word of God. Anti-theists deny this reading on metaphysical grounds.
Anti-theists will take scripture seriously, but not the Abrahamic Theists' reading seriously.
It is, therefore, a literary debate. What is literal, what metaphor? What is fact, what fiction?
Last edited by Omkara on Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
mithridates wrote
| Quote: |
Most definitely not a modern phenomenon. There is a reason why there isn't a single church. There was a lot of squabbling between the Latinists and the Orthodox church a long time ago over the role of the pope, what the original Greek meant, etc. |
And who can say definitively who�s right and who�s wrong. So the bible is so open to different interpretations with nobody with any authority to say who�s correct that it is useless as a source of revelation. |
A source of revelation of what? Surely the Bible isn't the only ancient text that has absolutely no use in any type of revelation? You'll have to be a bit more clear what type of revelation you're talking about here though.
| Code: |
[b] Kuros wrote[/b]
[quote]Yes, the Bible, taken as a whole, is inconsistent. Yes, that is a good thing. Because it is the work of man, and is only an imperfect medium for God's word. [/quote]
So if it were seamless that would be a sign that it wasn�t inspired by god?
Any chance it could be inconsistent because it�s the work of man and nothing more? |
What makes you think that being inspired by x means something can't be a work of y? Inspired by Wikipedia, created by me. And yet I don't contain the entire corpus of Wikipedia inside my head.
| Quote: |
| Somehow it seems a little unfair that while for the majority of christianity's existence christians have been insisting on the literal truth of the bible, once scientists have demonstrated that it can't be literally true they look wide eyed with astonishment that anybody could have considered that it might be. |
Two errors here: sola scriptura came about in the 16th century, and the Bible was around in its full form around the 3rd century. That gives 13 centuries of non-literal (focused on tradition moreso than scripture) existence, five centuries of sola scriptura. That's not a majority.
Secondly: the people that insist on the literal truth of the Bible continue to insist on the literal truth regardless of evidence to the contrary. Not sure what biblical literalists you've encountered, but they're pretty hard-headed. Not the type to suddenly say 'it's just an analogy!' when you bring up Adam and Eve for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
mithridates wrote
| Quote: |
Most definitely not a modern phenomenon. There is a reason why there isn't a single church. There was a lot of squabbling between the Latinists and the Orthodox church a long time ago over the role of the pope, what the original Greek meant, etc. |
And who can say definitively who�s right and who�s wrong. So the bible is so open to different interpretations with nobody with any authority to say who�s correct that it is useless as a source of revelation. |
A source of revelation of what? Surely the Bible isn't the only ancient text that has absolutely no use in any type of revelation? You'll have to be a bit more clear what type of revelation you're talking about here though.
| Code: |
[b] Kuros wrote[/b]
[quote]Yes, the Bible, taken as a whole, is inconsistent. Yes, that is a good thing. Because it is the work of man, and is only an imperfect medium for God's word. [/quote]
So if it were seamless that would be a sign that it wasn�t inspired by god?
Any chance it could be inconsistent because it�s the work of man and nothing more? |
What makes you think that being inspired by x means something can't be a work of y? Inspired by Wikipedia, created by me. And yet I don't contain the entire corpus of Wikipedia inside my head.
| Quote: |
| Somehow it seems a little unfair that while for the majority of christianity's existence christians have been insisting on the literal truth of the bible, once scientists have demonstrated that it can't be literally true they look wide eyed with astonishment that anybody could have considered that it might be. |
Two errors here: sola scriptura came about in the 16th century, and the Bible was around in its full form around the 3rd century. That gives 13 centuries of non-literal (focused on tradition moreso than scripture) existence, five centuries of sola scriptura. That's not a majority.
Secondly: the people that insist on the literal truth of the Bible continue to insist on the literal truth regardless of evidence to the contrary. Not sure what biblical literalists you've encountered, but they're pretty hard-headed. Not the type to suddenly say 'it's just an analogy!' when you bring up Adam and Eve for example. |
I was brought up Anglican. We are taught that it is our duty to know, love serve god. I know that catholics are taught the same so I thought that it was a general belief of christians. One major source of information about god was supposed to be the bible which we were told god had inspired as a means of revealing himself to his people.
I'm not talking about sola scriptura. I'm talking about the bible being supposed to be literally true not the only source of truth.
| Quote: |
| What makes you think that being inspired by x means something can't be a work of y? |
I have no idea of how you got this out of what I wrote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| What makes you think that being inspired by x means something can't be a work of y? |
I have no idea of how you got this out of what I wrote. |
I got it from here:
| Quote: |
| Any chance it could be inconsistent because it�s the work of man and nothing more? |
Something can be inconsistent both as the work of man (and inspired by something else), and the work of man and nothing more. Inconsistency can be used to prove that something is the work of man, but has absolutely no bearing on whether it's nothing more or not, since we by our nature can *beep* up anything once we lay our hands on it. That's our special talent. *beep* up the Swastika, a symbol of peace - done. *beep* up the command to love one another - done. Does that prove that either of them are 100% works of men? Nope. (it shows nothing either way) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Quote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| What makes you think that being inspired by x means something can't be a work of y? |
I have no idea of how you got this out of what I wrote. |
I got it from here:
| Quote: |
| Any chance it could be inconsistent because it�s the work of man and nothing more? |
Something can be inconsistent both as the work of man (and inspired by something else), and the work of man and nothing more. Inconsistency can be used to prove that something is the work of man, but has absolutely no bearing on whether it's nothing more or not, since we by our nature can *beep* up anything once we lay our hands on it. That's our special talent. *beep* up the Swastika, a symbol of peace - done. *beep* up the command to love one another - done. Does that prove that either of them are 100% works of men? Nope. (it shows nothing either way) |
My point was that Kuros was ignoring a second (and in my opinion more likely) possibility, not that this was the only possibility. I'm actually making the same point that you made (highlighted above) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Quote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| What makes you think that being inspired by x means something can't be a work of y? |
I have no idea of how you got this out of what I wrote. |
I got it from here:
| Quote: |
| Any chance it could be inconsistent because it�s the work of man and nothing more? |
Something can be inconsistent both as the work of man (and inspired by something else), and the work of man and nothing more. Inconsistency can be used to prove that something is the work of man, but has absolutely no bearing on whether it's nothing more or not, since we by our nature can *beep* up anything once we lay our hands on it. That's our special talent. *beep* up the Swastika, a symbol of peace - done. *beep* up the command to love one another - done. Does that prove that either of them are 100% works of men? Nope. (it shows nothing either way) |
My point was that Kuros was ignoring a second (and in my opinion more likely) possibility, not that this was the only possibility. I'm actually making the same point that you made (highlighted above) |
I see. *nods head* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
