The Reason Some Believe This Bible Nonsense Is...

[czyz]

I submit that if people were taught both sides of the argument regarding the bible(or any other religious text for that matter) that religion would likely be much more insignificant in our world.

Most of us were taught the tenets of the faith in places like Sunday School, zealous parents, or like myself, in a Catholic grade school. We were purposely not told the other side of the story such as there is no historical evidence for most of what the bible contains, that many of the stories in the bible have their genesis (pardon the pun) in religious practices that predate the Hebrews, the vast majority of errors in the bible regarding names and dates, and the fact that these events supposedly happened during the early Iron Age when man was ignorant, superstitious, fearful, and mostly illiterate.

There are volumes of information and historical evidence supporting the premise that the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran are mythological stories conveyed as a feeble attempt for early man to explain the natural world. It was man's early attempt at such a task and it shows by the silly stories contained within and the wicked teachings taught in some verses (i.e. slavery is acceptable, genocide of tribes which are enemies of the Hebrews, killing people for working on the sabbath, etc.)

A god or prime mover that created the universe may very well exist, and we very well could transition into a spiritual dimension upon expiring from the physical plane, but for us to speculate what may await us after death is like an amoeba with its own consciousness imagining what it would be like to be human.

I submit it is time to lay down the silly books and embrace the notion of morality and ethics in our world, and thus create the kind of society which benefits man and move our planet a little closer toward sanity.

[theopoesis]

[Replying to post 110 by Goat]

I tell you what Goat. Since you were unwilling to admit that Hume disagreed with your purported universality, I'll give you an option. Either you can hold to your claim that we need universal consensus before we move forward, or you can retract that claim. If you retract, we can proceed. If not, I'm afraid I need to bring something to your attention.

You see, there is no universal consensus as to the purpose of this forum. Some come here to seek the truth. Some come for entertainment. Some come to evangelize. But there is no universal agreement. Likewise, there is no universal agreement as to the method by which debate should unfold. The strong empiricist, say no evidence no belief, wants a debate solely on the grounds of empirical analysis. I, and other presuppositionalists like me, insist upon another methodology.

Now, I assume you are a person of character (and that you think you have a universal definition of what that would mean). By virtue of this character, you would not deign to the hypocrisy of continuing in a practice without universal consensus when you have taken the high ground in favor of this consensus. And so I assume, after bringing this to your attention, you will hastily depart from this forum until such a time as we all agree universally as to what we are doing here and how we plan to do it. I admit I am not optimistic about reaching such a universal agreement, and so I will go ahead and wish you the best for the duration of your life.

But if you continue to debate here, I will not tempt one of such high character to any hipocrisy, and so I will not be continuing this debate with you, if by the very act of debating you are contradicting your principles that demand universality.

On the other hand, if you don't really think we need universality, if the principles are merely a dissimulation, a high and mighty attempt to undermine real discussion by sidestepping the issues at hand and demanding universal definitional consensus (which doesn't exist for any word really. That was my original point), then I don't feel the need to continue with the sort of person who resorts to dissimulation, and then dismisses it as "word games" once that very individual's "word games" are exposed. I don't see it fruitful to engage an individual in philosophical debate who philosophically argues that philosophy is not valid. To be blunt, I've been down this road before and I don't feel like wasting my time with you, Goat. And it would be a waste of time, as it always is. An inability to grasp the basic questions at hand, coupled with dissimulation and factual inaccuracies, which, once pointed out, are never retracted. So enjoy your word games.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 110 by Goat]

I tell you what Goat. Since you were unwilling to admit that Hume disagreed with your purported universality, I'll give you an option. Either you can hold to your claim that we need universal consensus before we move forward, or you can retract that claim. If you retract, we can proceed. If not, I'm afraid I need to bring something to your attention.

You see, there is no universal consensus as to the purpose of this forum. Some come here to seek the truth. Some come for entertainment. Some come to evangelize. But there is no universal agreement. Likewise, there is no universal agreement as to the method by which debate should unfold. The strong empiricist, say no evidence no belief, wants a debate solely on the grounds of empirical analysis. I, and other presuppositionalists like me, insist upon another methodology.

Now, I assume you are a person of character (and that you think you have a universal definition of what that would mean). By virtue of this character, you would not deign to the hypocrisy of continuing in a practice without universal consensus when you have taken the high ground in favor of this consensus. And so I assume, after bringing this to your attention, you will hastily depart from this forum until such a time as we all agree universally as to what we are doing here and how we plan to do it. I admit I am not optimistic about reaching such a universal agreement, and so I will go ahead and wish you the best for the duration of your life.

But if you continue to debate here, I will not tempt one of such high character to any hipocrisy, and so I will not be continuing this debate with you, if by the very act of debating you are contradicting your principles that demand universality.

On the other hand, if you don't really think we need universality, if the principles are merely a dissimulation, a high and mighty attempt to undermine real discussion by sidestepping the issues at hand and demanding universal definitional consensus (which doesn't exist for any word really. That was my original point), then I don't feel the need to continue with the sort of person who resorts to dissimulation, and then dismisses it as "word games" once that very individual's "word games" are exposed. I don't see it fruitful to engage an individual in philosophical debate who philosophically argues that philosophy is not valid. To be blunt, I've been down this road before and I don't feel like wasting my time with you, Goat. And it would be a waste of time, as it always is. An inability to grasp the basic questions at hand, coupled with dissimulation and factual inaccuracies, which, once pointed out, are never retracted. So enjoy your word games.

On, I bet if you asked him, and he was alive, that 'would that brick fall', he woudl say it would'. There is a difference between knowing the brick will fall, and this pseudo intellectual position that 'we don't know for certain'.

And, honestly, it's not me that is playing the word game. And, honestly, my argument is not a philosophical argument. It's pointing out that without a definite meaning, your proposition about 'truth' is a null concept.

[iamtaka]

I was pointing out you were using terms that can not be properly defined, or be shown to exist at all.

What does it mean for something to be "properly defined?" And would "exist" be an appropriate attribute to apply to "Truth?"

To me, it sounds like you're taking a logical positivist stance. Would that accurately communicate your perspective?

[Goat]

I was pointing out you were using terms that can not be properly defined, or be shown to exist at all.

What does it mean for something to be "properly defined?" And would "exist" be an appropriate attribute to apply to "Truth?"

To me, it sounds like you're taking a logical positivist stance. Would that accurately communicate your perspective?

No, I am taking a position near the logical positive. I would say it's more along the lines of A. J Ayers idea of 'MEANING'. It is a section of logical positivism to be sure, but not the entire thing. The one thing I will take from it is that 'If something can not be verified even in theory, then it has not meaning'. Other than that, people get just to involved and nit picky.. They try to make general principles to precise, and any principle, and as far as I can see, any metaphysical principle that people try to make too precise breaks down.

The thing is, when it comes to 'Truth' , I don't see any way to objectively verify it. Now, truth, if you mean 'reflecting facts and objective reality', then yes, but the metaphysical one you indicated by capitalizing it. no... I don't see it having any meaning. So, to me, both Nietzsche, and the people who oppose him about the matter of 'Truth' can not show they speak accurately.

[iamtaka]

No, I am taking a position near the logical positive. I would say it's more along the lines of A. J Ayers idea of 'MEANING'. It is a section of logical positivism to be sure, but not the entire thing. The one thing I will take from it is that 'If something can not be verified even in theory, then it has not meaning'. Other than that, people get just to involved and nit picky.. They try to make general principles to precise, and any principle, and as far as I can see, any metaphysical principle that people try to make too precise breaks down.

The thing is, when it comes to 'Truth' , I don't see any way to objectively verify it. Now, truth, if you mean 'reflecting facts and objective reality', then yes, but the metaphysical one you indicated by capitalizing it. no... I don't see it having any meaning. So, to me, both Nietzsche, and the people who oppose him about the matter of 'Truth' can not show they speak accurately.

I am unclear on what you mean by verify. I understand the idea of verification, but I am having trouble making the connection you're making.

Also, there seems to be contradiction here. It seems you oppose both being too precise and not being precise (accurate) enough. Could you clarify on that? Thanks.

[Goat]

No, I am taking a position near the logical positive. I would say it's more along the lines of A. J Ayers idea of 'MEANING'. It is a section of logical positivism to be sure, but not the entire thing. The one thing I will take from it is that 'If something can not be verified even in theory, then it has not meaning'. Other than that, people get just to involved and nit picky.. They try to make general principles to precise, and any principle, and as far as I can see, any metaphysical principle that people try to make too precise breaks down.

The thing is, when it comes to 'Truth' , I don't see any way to objectively verify it. Now, truth, if you mean 'reflecting facts and objective reality', then yes, but the metaphysical one you indicated by capitalizing it. no... I don't see it having any meaning. So, to me, both Nietzsche, and the people who oppose him about the matter of 'Truth' can not show they speak accurately.

I am unclear on what you mean by verify. I understand the idea of verification, but I am having trouble making the connection you're making.

Also, there seems to be contradiction here. It seems you oppose both being too precise and not being precise (accurate) enough. Could you clarify on that? Thanks.

Verify is show some indication that something might be true. In the case of 'Truth', there are so many different concept of what 'Truth' (not truth) is that the term does not have any meaning without further explination... no can that be shown to be accurate (if it could be , there would not be so many 'theories' about what Truth is). So, since the term is so ambigious, it has no meaning.

[help3434]

Let's look at an example of "philosophy," just in case you are unfamiliar with this term, too. I want to briefly consider the ideas of simulation and dissimulation. So, while we are defining words, let's return to the word "dissimulate," the noun form of which is "dissimulation." Merriam Webster defines "dissimulate" as follows: "to hide under a false appearance." Philosophically, Jean Baudrillard defines dissimulation as follows: "To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has." I would point to igtheism as an example of dissimulation. Many an igtheist will debate for years against the idea that God exists, only to turn around and periodically say mid debate "I don't know what the word 'God' even means." This is dissimulation, for if the igtheist truly did not understand the term, the igtheist would have never entered the debate in the first place.

There are many definitions of "God". Sometimes even Christians will in certain debates argue for the philosophy of "bare theism' instead of Christianity. If one argues against specific conceptions of God that does not mean that they know what "God" means in the broader sense.

[Divine Insight]

So you think your powers are purely from GOD?

Yes like Jesus, I and God are one. Therefore anything that comes from me comes from God.

Can you reference this from the holy bible?

What are you calling the "Holy Bible?" The Old Testament myths, or the New Testament hearsay rumors? Or both?

I dismiss the Old Testament myths as a bastardization of God having no more merit than Greek mythology. Therefore I have no need to reference it.

I consider the New Testament hearsay rumors of Jesus to be a bastardization of Jesus.

I merely point out that those hearsay rumors have Jesus defending his sorcery as being from God because he claims it can't be from Satan because Satan would then be divided against himself.

If that defense is deemed to be acceptable for Jesus, then it must also be an acceptable defense for Wiccans.

That's all I'm saying.

The fact that you can find other hideous remarks in the Bible concerning witchcraft, magic or sorcery is totally irrelevant.

If Jesus' defense for his sorcery is valid then it necessarily applies to Wiccans as well. Period.