Arguments against Christianity

Skinwalker

if you can't talk about the issue and if you can't talk about the qualifications required for discerning the issue it must be an issue of belief

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Greenberg

I think it was plato who suggested that at the core of any claim to reality are some axiomatic truths.
Miscommunication on the subject seems to arise from the insistence on using one's preferred axiomatic truths as the foundation for valuing conclusions drawn from a different set.
It is kind of like trying to validate/invalidate volume with a thermometer (a thermometer is perfect for measuring temperature, but completely useless for measuring volume).
Real philosophical discussion (the like which one is rarely likely to encounter on sciforums) is the discussion of these axiomatic truths and the extent of their applications.
The popular alternative is simply to talk about the applications of these truths as the all in all ("Can your scripture help you manufacture a computer?" "Can your computer help you find a solution to the inevitability of suffering in the material world?" etc etc)

thesis and antithesis
radical theism nourishes the radical atheism

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

there are a variety of arguments for discerning the hierarchy of religious principles within what's available
in short, it boils down to two considerations

1. discerning the result of different religious practices and the hierarchical significance (emancipation, piety, wealth, long life, facility to fulfill one's desires, mystic powers, etc etc are all fine, but how would you place them in terms of level of importance)
2. discerning the ontological implications of oneself, thing's related to oneself (ie this world and everything in it) and god (for instance if the body is ultimately a temporary designation, one could question whether any eternal benefits can be drawn from it by merely treating it in a mechanical condition in either its states of living or death - eg "If you undergo ritual X when you are living/dead you get eternal life")

philosophical and moral issues are not resolved by vote
my issue was that there is not a shred of philosophical or moral issues to even begin to approach (outside of the rhetorical arguments of atheists)in regard to pink elephants, et al

having a hierarchical model, as illustrated earlier, enables one to navigate between higher and lower religious principles

one could have a faulty hierarchical model - and that is the topic of religious debate (at least in india) - namely philosophy
therefore religion without philosophy is the absence of a sound hierarchical model - and admittedly that seems to be the trend of many contemporary abrahamic religions (for instance I think it was thomas aquinas who institutionalized this organized persecution of bodies outside of christianity) .... and that also tends to be the model of theism that you model your atheism on too

we may not be qualified but discerning qualification is possible
if it wasn't, there would be no way to know who was a qualified lawyer, mechanic, doctor outside of their hearsay

these "emotional" states are indications of material contamination (sometimes it is referred to as the presence of "false ego") - IOW a sense of "I" that has a false foundation) - possession of false ego is what qualifies us for material life ( the reason we are in this world is because we have the strong desire to expresss ourselves "falsely" - namely we express ourselves through lust, through wrath etc etc)

the default position of coming free from this state of false ego is to be enlightened - IOW there is no question of being free from false ego, unless one is a properly qualified theistic practitioner

hence statements like this ....

For one who has conquered the mind, the Supersoul is already reached, for he has attained tranquility. To such a man happiness and distress, heat and cold, honor and dishonor are all the same.

animism, polytheism and monotheism can also be placed in a hierarchy
the fact that there is very little room for philosophical discussion in animistic religion (because there is very little information about the ontological status of things in this world) indicates that validating/invalidating claims is not their major discipline - nevertheless, the discipline of becoming free from false ego remains a potent discipline for making spiritual advancement

the point is that being free from false ego is the qualification for being a thesitic practitioner - it doesn't matter whether the system be animistic, polytheistic or monotheistic (although there are good arguments that suggest getting completely free from issues of false ego is not tenable outside of montheism). If one is not free from false ego, one can not be a transparent medium to spiritual discourse and will simply elucidate according to one's conditioned nature (according to one's lust, wrath etc)

kind of like there are certain qualities a student must exhibit in order to learn something from a teacher (eg studious, attentive in class etc) - it doesn't matter whether one is doing a PhD at Oxford or learning times tables under a tree in a third world country - the issue of qualification aside, Oxford university and a tree in Kenya can also be placed in a hierarchy (you stand to learn more at Oxford than under a tree in Kenya)

I don't over ride the finds of professional archaeologists - I don't even question the logical soundness of the models they construct out of those findings

what I do question is whether these models can be held as indubitable claims to which all other claims must be subservient since they are outside of the standard of science - namely falsification (and this is also a standard established by professionals too)

(IOW I don't argue that satan buried dinosaur bones to bewilder the atheistic or that the current understandings of how the eighth millennium BC moved into the ninth millennium BC has technical problems - I argue that it is all theoretical and outside of the practical fields of science)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know, how would you place them in order of importance and how, more importantly, does wealth, long life, desires, mystic powers or piety attest to the existence of certain entitites? How does wealth, piety etc etc attest to the validity of certain scripture and its claims?

I don't see how any of that attests to the existence of a certain entity or the validity of scriptural claims.

Morality is not an argument to the existence of an entity to begin with. Other than that are you arguing that there is no empirical evidence to show that pink elephants exist or that you honestly cannot think of one argument for the existence of pink elephants? Take into account that unless you're a qualified zoologist your own arguments preclude you from saying anything on the matter.

By what and whose standards? Furthermore, again I must ask how wealth and piety in any way whatsoever attest to the existence of certain entities or realms or indeed attest to the validity of scripture? god exists because I'm wealthy?

I don't remember saying it wasnt. I actually asked how you determine the qualification of those that claim to be qualified, (with regards to religious qualified claimants)?

They're indications that humans, (and animals), have emotional states. Certain chemicals can be shown to affect, change and determine these emotional states. How does the existence of emotional states, (and chemicals), attest to the validity of scripture or the existence of certain entities and realms?

According to who and what do you have to attest to the reality of that claim? Right now what we have is this:

I ask what determines that scripture is valid.. You give me scripture and try to claim that it is valid.

According to... scripture. A response to me asking you to show how scripture is valid. "The book is true because it says it is". That is what this currently comes down to.

This claim attest to the existence of certain entities or realms.. how?

That clearly goes for all theistic claims as well. Well, aside from the claim that humans have emotional states. :bugeye:

But now it seems you are adopting double standards. According to your argument, it can only be validated or invalidated if you are qualified in it. This is your argument and has been since you pretty much joined this forum.

According to who? That scripture that you cannot show to be valid?

More about what? It's safe to say the boy in Kenya learns a lot more about digging wells, survival, hunting etc than the boy in Oxford. Your heirarchy is meaningless unless you claim that quantum mechanics is 'better' than survival ability? 'Better' how?

Which specific parts do you have contention with?

Summary

It has been established that humans have emotional states. It has been stated that humans can alter their emotional states, (something that medication can do without too much hassle). I have yet to see anything that even remotely attests to the existence of certain entities or realms and have yet to see anything that even remotely attests to the validity of scripture, (other than it's uncanny :bugeye: ability to show that humans have emotional states).

Did I miss anything?

 

I could easily talk about the issues, however, there's no reason to think that you'd be qualified to understand or to be able to respond with reason since, as you put it, it is a matter of belief. You're a believer and, therefore, biased to a preconceived conclusion -therefore, you aren't qualified to evaluate the topic.

Sorry. I'd love to discuss it further, but you're simply too narrow-minded with your preconceived conclusions and not nearly as open-minded as someone such as myself who is willing to accept whatever truth there is based on actual evidence. (not the supernatural and pretend evidence proposed by those who make post-modernist arguments such as yours)

 

Snakelord
“

I thought you were inquiring about the practical application of scripture

IOW for what reason would you forego getting mummified even though the Book of the Dead expresses its importance for gaining an afterlife?

maybe you could re-state your question more clearly

once again maybe you should clear up your question

but it does contribute to the performance of action (which seemed, at the time, to be relevant to the question you were asking)

I'm saying that even if I was to sincerely go looking for the ways and means to approach a pink elephant, there is nothing outside of the rhetorical arguments of atheists

it seemed that you were quibbling about practices since there are many religions that claim god exists - now it seems you are back tracking to quibble about whether god exists at all - hence my suggestion that you get your q's straight

I suspect you are making a simple answer more difficult than it need be

If you were in a situation where you urgently required a plumber, how would you determine whether he was qualified or not?

quite simply - they cloud our vision and understanding - there are certain things that a person affected by false ego cannot approach

ok in that case your (new) question is a lot more simple
one can test any given instruction (ie normative description) by applying it

actually when I look at your question it seems to be wearing two hats
if all you want to ask is "HOW" (practical inference) the answer is simple
-by practice

if you want to ask "WHY" (logical inference) you have to be prepared to run with a few theoretical concepts

I quoted it to indicate that enlightenment and conquering false ego are the same phenomena - I submitted this because I interpreted you were asking a "WHY" question

assuming that all theistic claims are equal (ie absence of a hierarchical model - which practically means an absence of philosophy)

a hierarchical model deals with this
for instance if claim doesn't have a philosophical framework to operate out of, it takes its place at the lower end of the hierarchy

regardless whether one is an animistic or a montheistic practitioner, getting free from issues of false ego draws top marks across the board
“

would he learn them in a maths class under a tree?

No
I am claiming that you get a higher grade of knowledge about physics at Oxford than you do at trees in kenya
certainly explains the criteria for entrance ....

the claims that things which are not falsifiable (like macroevolution for eg) have the same status as things that are falsifiable

I wasn't aware that medication was making the world more jolly and anxiety free

you should focus on whether you want to ask a "how" or "why" question and accept the proper standard for receiving an answer

 

then better that you just sit in the back ground and pat your stomach in a contented fashion rather than opening diatribes
:shrug:

 

It is asking which scripture is valid and how you ascertain that. It can be assumed that you put no stock in the Book of the Dead, (unless you're planning to be mummified), but that does indeed express the importance of doing so.

Unless you have been to an afterlife, on what basis do you determine that this 'scripture' is invalid and on what basis do you determine that the scripture you subscribe to is valid?

Ok, so if I say so earnestly, in a non-rhetorical manner that there are pink elephants.. are you going to look sincerely? If so I am interested in what you would consider necessary in order for you to believe such thing. Remember that you can't ask me for evidence for your own arguments preclude you from being able to do so.

Your suggestion is not needed if you took the time to read my original post to you which says:

"it does not attest to the validity of scriptural claims, (gods, heavens, souls or "zombie messiahs")"

"Being free from certain emotional states does not attest to the validity of the claims in that scripture in any way whatsoever."

Etc.

It seems quite apparent what I am asking you. What was so hard to get?

We're not talking about a plumber. Please, "how [do] you determine the qualification of those that claim to be qualified, (with regards to religious qualified claimants)?

To ask it again: How does the existence of emotional states, (and chemicals), attest to the validity of scripture or the existence of certain entities and realms?

Such as? A scriptural example please that doesn't merely leave one with the understanding that one can alter emotional states. Anyone can do that - via scripture or prescription.

O...k and that attests to the existence of certain entities or realms... how?

What? Sorry, what theistic claims have been validated, (other than the ability to turn a bad mood into a good one)?

What qualifications do you have then with relevance to Guiana Indian beliefs? If none, why do you presume to say what it does or does not have?

And that attests to the existence of certain entities or realms.. how? Furthermore what board are we talking about? I see no mention of false egos in the OT, indeed that god seems more to incite human emotion such as fear, anger, wrath and basic intolerance.

What? Where do maths classes come into it?

O..k and you get a higher grade of knowledge about well digging under a tree in Kenya. What's your point?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Reading that might help clear the issue up.

You are now. My brother as one such example suffered greatly. He had a fuse shorter than an ants penis. He was the kinda guy you wouldn't dare be seen with in public. A few pills later and he's an almost charming individual who wont threaten the nearest car parking attendant with death if he dares look at him. If you think this is an isolated case you think wrong.

As it's free advice day, perhaps you should focus more on what's been said to save given answers that weren't wanted.

 

Snakelord
“

in short - by forming a hierarchical model

probably not because it sounds like you are being rhetorical

so how does getting mummified fit into the picture?
:scratchin:

once again - it warrants a simple answer
if you can fathom how a plumber is qualified you can fathom how a religious claimant is qualified

get back to me when you have the means to be chemically free of lust

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ditto above
/waiting

that attests to the particular nature of the prescriptive description and why amiable pharmacists cannot really help us

That clearly goes for all theistic claims as well.
sorry
I assumed you knew what you were talking about

once again, if you have something philosophical to represent regarding animistic claims, go for it.
If you don't, I rest my case.

it does attest for a certain commonality of practice

guess you missed the ten commandmants

where did learning about a digging a well come into it?

you really think there is more to be learnt about excavation/engineering under a tree in kenya?

lol
and to think you have issues with scripture

so is he free from anxiety or is he simply operating out of a socially acceptable level of anxiety now?

good answers require good questions

 

This is demonstrative of what I'm saying: you aren't qualified to have these discussions.

 

Try the long answer, the short one is lacking. You mentioned this hierarchical model earlier which included: wealth and piety. I am still at a loss how wealth and piety attests to the validity of the existence of certain entities and realms or indeed attests to the validity of scriptural claims.

I would have thought that was quite obvious actually. Try reading my first response on my last post.

Ok, I can't. Kindly explain it to me from a religious claimant perspective. Thanks.

What has that got to do with my question other than absolutely nothing?

"How does the existence of emotional states, (and chemicals), attest to the validity of scripture or the existence of certain entities and realms?"

And that attests to the existence of certain entities or realms... how?

How is that an answer to what was asked?

"Sorry, what theistic claims have been validated, (other than the ability to turn a bad mood into a good one)?"

This bears striking resemblence to what is asked of you on this very forum. The answer is consistently that they must be qualified. Can the unqualified really rest a case? Those double standards of yours really get in the way of an otherwise enjoyable discussion.

And that attests to the existence of certain entities or realms.. how?

He's certainly more jolly.

Actually now let me return your sentiment to you..

"I wasn't aware that religion was making the world more jolly and anxiety free"

Of course even if it was, which it isn't, I don't see how it attests to the existence of certain entities or realms.. which is the actual issue that still remains unanswered.

 

Skinwalker
“

:shrug:
all you have demonstrated in the past 2 or 3 posts is your proclivity to troll

 

Snakelord

my mistake
I thought you asked this question

Unless you have been to an afterlife, on what basis do you determine that this 'scripture' is invalid and on what basis do you determine that the scripture you subscribe to is valid?

ok now what?

if you can't fathom how a plumber is qualified there's not much room for further explanation

the italics is the loaded part of your question

by questioning the foundation of your loaded question

seems like you are confused
being free from false ego is the prerequisite for validating the claim of god's existence
at the moment it seems you are trying to suggest that such a state can be achieved by drugs/chemicals
hence my suggestion that you get back to me when you are chemically free from lust

erm - there is philosophy that surrounds (mono)theistic claims
the only qualification required to discuss it is the ability to run with theoretical concepts
apparently this is beyond you

its not obvious how states of being affect our vision?

but not anxiety free, right?

since it seems you are not even aware what religion is, hardly surprising

 

Don't blame me because you lack the qualifications necessary to have a rational discussion.

 

yes and no.

Yes, I certainly am lacking a suitable qualification for a rational discussion
namely a counterpart who will desist from trolling

No, I am entitled to blame you
:shrug:

 

Tsk, tsk.

You've already sufficiently demonstrated your lack of qualifications. No need to reinforce that demonstration.

 

pots and kettles
(ps - should we take this to the site feedback subforum or do you want to continue spamming up this thread?)

 

I've deleted the off-topic post. I'm making the exact same point (albeit with considerably more brevity per post) that you have unsuccessfully attempted to make: you are not qualified to evaluate religious topics since you are biased by the delusion of belief.

Those who aren't, however, are most suited to the task since they aren't afflicted with the same bias you have. I have no "dog in the hunt" as it were. If the evidence supports the supernatural explanations, then I'll revise my opinions cheerfully. The religiously deluded do not hold that position: they are not swayed by evidence and are, therefore, not qualified to evaluate their own beliefs.

You call it trolling. I call it fair criticism: you lack the qualifications. Moreover, your willingness to use ad hominem attacks supports that. That you edited your post only shows that you recognized it was an ad hominem attack, your edit only slightly less.

By the way, I deleted your off-topic post that would have been better suited for the Site Feedback forum. Further posts of that nature here may result in warnings and other moderation efforts.

 

and you manage to pull all this off without offering a definition of what is reality
-snazzy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wow. Yet another ad hominem. Yet more demonstration of your lack of qualification.