The Great Eisegesis: One size fits all
Friendo 36 comments
Eisegesis [ahy-si-jee-sis] : An interpretation of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.
Recently I moved from from the West Coast city of Portland, Oregon, to the very center of Midwest America. Quincy, Illinois is a beautiful town of about 40,000. Stately brick homes along tree lined avenues, all just blocks from the Mississippi River.
I had discovered the concept of custom made religion while living in Oregon, but now that I am in the heart of conservative America-where they support Sarah Palin and are members of the Tea Party-I have come across a huge mass of people who (although they would never admit it, and probably don't even realize it) have developed their own God and their own system that is totally outside any established religion. Although, they call themselves Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Methodist, Lutheran, Protestants, Baptists, Southern Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, and on and on and on.
Many will tell you that they get on their knees every morning, and pray to their God. After they pray, their God answers them, or otherwise somehow takes action in their lives. They will tell you that all things are part of their Gods plan. God gives them guidance and the courage to make it through another day. He directs them.
Here in America, the Christian Bible is widely read(so it's “readers” say), used as a platform for literally thousands of churches, and is cited as a basis for an untold number of beliefs. How crazy is this? How can one book support so many different belief systems, let alone so many different religions?
The answer: Eisegesis: An interpretation of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text. It's kind of like the Tarot: interpret what you think the listener wants to hear. If you are a preacher, and your congregation needs money to build a new facility; you find scriptures that support your fund raising. If you need a certain person to get elected, you will find scriptures that support the election of your candidate. There are so many scriptures subject to interpretation, with a little research, you can get the Bible to say anything you want.
The claim is that the bible is the inspired word of God...apparently a very ambiguous writer he was, unable to pass too much along without self casting much doubt and argument within his people. Many subtle differences in translations cause the bible to apparently say many different things. Things that suit the clergy of the faith and its followers.
Doubt the bible and you will be labeled all sorts of terrible things. You can't doubt the word of God, it's the word of God!...If you don't believe it, just listen to what we tell you. We know what God is trying to do.
Here is a great video from Pat Condell that more or less supports my viewpoint.
You can't doubt the word of God, even though there are no other books from the same era that substantiate and support what it supposedly says.-I'm sure this comment will bring bible supporters coming out in droves with “evidence” supporting the Bible, but it just won't be the same, even though being the same would make it just as dubious.
It just cracks me up, I hear so many say: They have a personal relationship with God, or that they have accepted Jesus and been saved-born again...filled with the holy spirit...Well jeez, which is it? A personal relationship? Filled with spirit? Or born again?
I'm not the best of writers, and not the most knowledgeable on this blog, but I know how things feel, and its hard for me to understand that these self made to order versions of what God and religion is, is really the way it is. I just don't buy it. With so many dying everyday, with so many suffering, with so many in pain, how could god be listening to you and directing your life?
What a bunch of self centered, arrogant, fools.
Gina
Sunday 16th May 2010 | 02:32 PMCorrection: "Many will come in MY Name saying, 'I [that's Jesus] am the Christ and will DECEIVE MANY."
Matthew 24:5
For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.
Mark 13:6
Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.
Please allow me to clarify for the readers' sake (and, Friendo and any other atheists or non-believer in Jesus Christ, please don't read this if you're not interested -- I'm not trying to get you to "understand" anything here; if you are not interested in anything other than coming back to attack me, then don't read it -- this is not for you!):
Many come in Jesus name claiming JESUS is the Christ, and will deceive MANY. (Remember this: He said they'll deceive MANY.)
But the way the RCC interprets those verses is to make it sound as if many come in Jesus' name claiming THEY (the deceivers themselves) are the Christ! And that's B.H. too.
How "many" have lived and died in your lifetime and come to in Jesus' name and claimed: "I'm the Christ"?
That's right -- NOT "many."
In my lifetime with all the access I personally have to the history of the world, guess how many people have come saying that they themselves are Jesus Christ and deceived "many"? One, and his name is Charles Manson.
Furthermore, there were only a FEW he deceived, not "many."
It is these pharisees who twist the word of God who come in Jesus' name and claim that Jesus is the Christ (not they) and deceive "many." Think about it: HOW MANY PROFESSING ROMAN CATHOLICS DO YOU SUPPOSE WE HAVE IN THE WORLD TODAY? My estimates border on MANY. And just how "many" Roman Catholics who believe what they're told by the RCC are deceived by the RCC's lies? Right again -- MANY!
I hope that clears up any confusion.
(The caps are not meant to be taken as me yelling, only the exclamations points are. :-))
Gina
Sunday 16th May 2010 | 02:51 PMcontinuing..
And just because I said it was the RCC who deceives many, it's not only RCC. It's the Protestants too. All of them come in Jesus' name proclaiming Jesus is the Christ, but they twist His words just like the RCC does and deceive MANY.
But before some mainstream Christian pipes up and tries to tell me that atheists have deceived many, just hold off. They are NOT coming in Jesus' name proclaiming Jesus is the Christ, they are not even coming in Jesus' name proclaiming they themselves are the Christ. They don't even BELIEVE in Christ, they despise Jesus and His words.
Neither do Hindus, Buddhists, nor Muslims come in Jesus' name proclaiming Jesus is the Christ, because they don't know Jesus or believe His word, so how could they deceive many by coming in His name? So, just exercise a little caution and give it some thought before you go and start saying that these people have deceived "many" by coming in Jesus' name. They have not and do not come in Jesus' name (and by "name" that means all that Jesus is and represents -- which is LOVE. "God is love.")
And just because sometimes things in this life hurt, that doesn't make it bad or of no value. Surely there are many out there who go to the gym, and they'll be the first to tell you: "No pain, NO gain!"
And that's all I have to say about that.
Marvin the Martian
Sunday 16th May 2010 | 04:46 PMWhat I think he is saying in the video - and I tend to agree - is that is having faith does well for you, great. But you don't need the clergy and their corruption to be religious, or to have faith.
Like him, i feel no need to believe in fairytales, but I don't condemn anyone for their faith except for those in power.
...in response to this comment by Gina. Gina my dear...I could never be angry with you for a comment. thanks for reading and thanks for your words. You know I love you. I hope that you stick around, and continue to contribute your thoughts. I know that you are a kind and generous person, and generally not smug or self righteous, not to mention other kind things you have done for me via RL.
It's a joy to have you around.
F-
Gina
Sunday 16th May 2010 | 10:47 PM...in response to this comment by Friendo. I love you too, Friendo. So there!
Gina
Monday 17th May 2010 | 01:02 AM...in response to this comment by Marvin the Martian. And, Marvin, that's another thing. Thank you for bringing that up. I think it's great (remember that) that that man points out the lies and the corruption in the clergy. But then he goes on to dogmatically state that that makes God a fairytale (a lie), and I wish he and people like him wouldn't dogmatically state that God and His word is a fairytale, as if they have ALL knowledge and know the beginning from the end. Because they would have to know the beginning from the end to make that kind of statement. But the fact of the matter is, they don't possess that kind of knowledge, they just like to pretend that they do. And you know what does, Marvin? I makes those people as big of liars and fools and those they attempt to expose.
See, it's one thing to say, Hey, these guys are scamming people and lying to get money so they can live like kings. But isn't it quite another to state that because they live that way and steal from the poor that there is no God, or that because God hasn't come to stop the insanity (literally come down to earth in physical form -- which by the way He has but atheists don't believe it) that He doesn't exist? That's logical - not! Think about it: Suppose everyone applied that kind of logic to everyone and everything that ever caused damage/death; everyone would be going around saying that bad weather, electricity, and atheists like Mao, etc. (because of the destruction and death and other pain they've brought on people) are all "fairytales" and "lies."
My point is, people can't claim that because there is destruction and pain in the world that there is no God or that God is a lie, because that is a statement of faith on their part. (Well, they can claim that, but they'd have to prove it, wouldn't they?)
And furthermore, why on earth would any atheist say that they believe God is a fairytale (a lie) out of one side of their mouth, but then say out of the other side of their mouth that they don't have a problem with anyone who believes a lie, but then go to great lengths to prove that God is a lie? It makes no sense!
Obviously, that man in the video and atheists don't believe it's good to believe a lie, otherwise, you wouldn't be trying your darnedest to get people to "understand."
And don't misunderstand, I'm not angry with that man, even if it appears that way -- as we well know -- appearances can be DECEIVING. What that man doesn't realize is that by making that video, he will cause people to think about what they believe in, dig a little deeper and eventually find the truth. I realize that's a statement of faith on my part, but no one can judge me for that faith, because as I've just shown you, even atheists have faith. Consider, for example, that the man in the video wouldn't have bothered making the video if he also didn't believe (trust/have faith/hope) that his video would cause people to reconsider (doubt/disbelieve/no longer trust or have faith in) what they believe is truth. That is, after all, the whole point of his video! Am I going to fast for anyone?
And people have said that atheists don't teach -- or try hard to make believers in God to make sense of the world by saying God doesn't exist and that God is a lie. But clearly that is not a true statement; in other words, that statement is a lie! And for proof, all one has to do is watch the video and read over this forum. They do too do that just as much as Christians go around trying to get people to "understand." And, Marvin, that's why I pointed out the scripture in Romans (see below) in your last article: https://rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=4212
Romans 2:1 YOU therefore, have NO EXCUSE, YOU who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point YOU judge the *other*, YOU are condemning YOURSELF, because YOU who pass judgment DO the SAME THINGS.
Does that make sense now? Paul isn't talking to only the believers in God there. That statement is applied universally.
But the fact of the matter is, is not a sin to judge!
1 Corinthians 6:2: Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
1 Corinthians 6:3: Do you not know that we will judge angels (messengers)? How much more the things of this life!
Of course we are to judge. Judgment has no moral bias -- it just means to "render a sentence": And there are one of two sentences that can be rendered: Guilty and Not guilty. So, judgment isn't wrong, but telling lies is. And I believe, as the man in the video, that it's perfectly fine and good to expose liars and cheats. I'm not judging this man's character (his qualities), because there is no way of that I could know for a fact what his true character and qualities are based on one SILLY video (even though I could make an EDUCATED guess based on the things he has said -- he's already educated me in that regard). I'm just judging his words, and therein lies the difference -- and that's the truth.
Have a nice day. (Pat-pat.) (Oh, man! That reminds me of what Cuba Gooding's character said to Jack Nicholson's character in the movie "As Good As It Gets" after he goes off on "Mr. Udall" -- that's Jack Nicholson. I GET THE BIGGEST KICK OUT OF THAT SCENE!)
Gina
Monday 17th May 2010 | 01:15 AMCorrection: And you know what *that* does, Marvin? *It* makes those people as big of liars and fools and those they attempt to expose. In other words, they expose THEMSELVES. They have condemned themselves.
...in response to this comment by Gina. Gina...did you get my video or not?
Hey, I gotta tell you, I'm not sure if I get what your saying above or not...I don't think I graps what your trying to say, only maybe I do.....Now as far as Tyler's comments, I for sure cant make heads or tails out of them. I think he is trying to baffel us with bullshit.
You are b little more understandable. I can barely read, so all those big words make my head ache.
F-
Gina
Monday 17th May 2010 | 03:13 AM...in response to this comment by Friendo. Ah, now no instigating fights between me and Mr. Christian, okay, with loaded comments about his inability to articulate clearly, okay? That's not the "atheist way."
(I got the video, Fido.)
Freindo,
I actually think that Gina has done a pretty good job of answering your post. Her main objection that just because SOME people misuse religion doesnt entail that ALL religion is bad or even false, I think is her best insight. Its just a false conclusion based on massive assumptions and a huge step of illogical generalization. I honestly ask that you re-read you post with the same level of skepticism that you hold for the Christian posts. Would your own post past mustard? Or did it assume the truth of its conclusion, and simply beg the question of the falsity of the contrary position at every step of the way?
As for you comments that I am trying to baffle people with B.S. simply because you cannot make heads or tails of them. Is this because you simply cannot understand them (a question of comprehension) in which case, you can always ask questions for further clarification as the discussion to increase our understanding is hopefully the purpose of most people on this site; or is it that you think that they are ACTUALLY B.S. in which case you must be able to defend THAT position by showing why the premises are either absurd, the inferences invalid, or the conclusions impossible. As it stands, you have only assumed they are false because it is contrary to your own worldview. That however only shows that you have governing presuppositions that have, until now, gone unchallenged.
Gina
Monday 17th May 2010 | 08:57 AM...in response to this comment by Gina. I made a mistake -- I need to correct myself. Judgment doesn't mean to render a "sentence"; no, Judgment means to render a VERDICT. (BIG difference , and I'm sorry for any confusion.
Sentencing has to do with punishment, whereas a judgment has to do with deciding whether someone is guilty or not guilty. So, please notice that God never tells us to SENTENCE anyone. But we are to judge. And, maybe not the person in particular, but rather whether they're right or wrong (innocent or guilty). I hope that makes sense.
Gina
Monday 17th May 2010 | 09:00 AM...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Kudos, Tyler. (Sorry, I don't feel like logging in. Thanks for understanding.)
Don't get me wrong, Friendo. I don't agree with Tyler's view of God anymore than God does, but I have to say for the record, that reply of his was right on!
Papa
Monday 17th May 2010 | 03:31 PM...in response to this comment by Friendo. Don't you know Friendo?? "It only shows that you have governing presuppositions that have, until now, gone unchallenged." Let this 20 some year old teach you the ways of the world Friendo!!
Aw yes, point out age in an attempt to invalidate arguments. Do you really think ad hominems are valid?
Marvin the Martian
Monday 17th May 2010 | 05:42 PM...in response to this comment by Gina. Gina,
Oppologise if that upset you, but we are talking about something that has been deemed by Tyler as supernatural. Since the supernatural cannot exist inside our universe, god must be an illusion. While I am not 100% certain of this fact, I see no compelling reason to change my point of view.
I guess my issue is that those in power of virtually every faith, have taken advantage of those they are meant to lead. The long history of the Mulism Imams, Jewish Rabbis and Christian clergy needs no editing. They are resonsible for so much suffering by their own hands.
Atheists are not immune to this, but the vast majority of violance in our distant, not-to-distant and current realities are due to the faithful. I make no appologies for calling attention to these actions.
...in response to this comment by Papa. Unchallenged my ass!
F-
Where did this whole string of thought come in about Tylerism and that I am the one who has deemed that God is supernatural or that I am the one making this all up. I mean, that God is supernatual is the universal consent of all Christians, theists, deists, philosophers, and pretty much anyone who talks about God whether or not they believe in him.
Now, lets look at your syllogism:
1. Supernatural things cannot exist inside our universe.
2. God is supernatural.
3. Therefore God cannot exist inside our universe.
4. What does not exists inside our universe must be illusory.
5. Therefore God is illusory.
Well forgive me but I supplied your enthemic premises that got you from your P1 to P5 (the only two that you stated.) Now before we evaluate it I feel compelled to show you that you have, as I pointed out many times elsewhere, make a positive case for a state of affairs in which case God cannot exist and thus carry the burden of proof. I know you try to wriggle out of it by saying that you arent 100 certain, but not having 100% certainty about an assertion does not mean that it is not a positive assertion.
Premise 1 True/False. It depends on what you mean by exist. If by exist you mean that supernatural things cannot require matter or physical laws for their existence, then you are 100% correct. But if, and this seems to be what you mean, that supernatural things cannot have any interaction within a natural universe or that because our universe is natural that you presuppose that supernatural things CANNOT exist, then you are false and guilty of begging the question.
Premise 2 True.
Premise 3. Since P1 is ambiguous the conclusion does not necessarily follow and if you mean the former meaning of exist; then P1 is false and P3 definitely doesnt follow.
Premise 4 False. And illusion is something that appears to be true WITHIN our universe but turns out to be false like a mirage in the desert or the ghost in the childs bedroom that turns out to be a white blanket draped over a chair. Thus you are either saying say God actually DOES appear to be real in the natural world (something you staunchly forbid in other premises) but is illusory (something you assume but do not prove question begging) OR you must deny your own premises to maintain that supernatural things cannot exists (even apparently so) in the universe and thus deny the conclusion to your own argument. In either case your argument is reflexively self-destructive.
What is also so strange is that you and Trent and everyone reject philosophy and logic as a valid means to prove Gods existence (or to even make a positive case for it) but you seem to have no problem using those very means to attempt to disprove Gods existence (or to make a negative case for it.) Well whats good for the goose, as the saying goes. You clearly think that philosophy and logic is a valid means to discuss the existence of God and thus when you deny that it is elsewhere, it is not because you actually believe it, but because you are unable to answer it and the only way to wriggle out of the arguments is to reject the means of the argument itself and demand a more rigid standard only to become more laxed again for your own arguments.
If your issue is that virtually every faith has taken advantage of those they were meant to lead, then that is not a problem of faith, that is a problem of HUMANITY. That occurs with EVERY faith, secular ideology, political theory, and even Darwinian thought! Any concept, when placed in the hands of power hungry ideologues will be abused. But that has NOTHING to do with the truth/falsity of if God exists or not. In fact, as we have discussed before, when Christianity has been used to oppress the people, it is IN SPITE of the teachings of its own religion to love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, blessed are the meek, etc. It is not BECAUSE of their faith in Jesus that they oppress, it is due to a total LACK of it. They may say that it is faith in Jesus, but if they are doing the EXACT opposite of what Jesus taught then they show b y their fruit what they really have faith in. But what about atheists. When Stalin killed 100+ MILLION people, did he do it in spite of or contrary to his worldview? No. As an atheist and a secularist, he was exercising his will to power, there is no moral standard that he was obliged to keep, no God watching the suffering of the people that he starved to death, nothing. Stalin wasnt in violation of his worldview, it was perfectly in line with it. (Please dont read that as me saying that all atheists are megamaniaical dictators but only that an atheistic worldview has no basis for saying that what Stalin did was wrong.)
And you make a numbers comparison about who hurt more people atheists or the faithful. Well actually when you consider the deaths caused by Lenin, Eugenics, Stalins Russia, Maos China, Castro, Kruschev, Pol Pot, Jong Il, Hoxha, et al. you actually reach numbers exceeding 200 MILLION in the past 100 years alone!!! Sorry, but that VASTLY exceeds the crimes of the church throughout history combined. And its all in the current and very repeatable time. I mean what are the chances of the inquisition coming back to New York? But what are the chances of another eugenics program starting up where were force sterilize or euthanize the unfit? Or the rise of a secularist nation that oppresses its own people like enacting laws against religious freedom of parents to raise their children in the church. Etc. Sure, there are crazy Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to blow people up. But when we are talking about large scale oppression, the looming danger is not from the faithful.
Marvin the Martian
Tuesday 18th May 2010 | 06:09 AM...in response to this comment by Tyler V. My appologies. I didn't mean to say that god was an illusion, but rather your dillusion.
Papa
Tuesday 18th May 2010 | 06:28 AM...in response to this comment by Tyler V. If I invalidated your argument, that was due to your own perception that I did.
You accuse and accuse every member of this forum for their use of Ad hominems, and yet you still appeal to my lack of providing you with my university to invalidate my arguments... Black Pot perhaps?
ha, Marvin, nice. Totally irrelevant, unfounded, and presumptuous, but witty.
Papa, I never appealed to your face school to prove your position wrong. I only appealed to it when you tried to use it as a reason why we should trust you - because you have "studied" textual criticism. I never once said you were wrong because you never actually went to school, I never said you were wrong based on anything about you person. So nope, no black pot.
Henk V
Tuesday 18th May 2010 | 12:59 PMBoring
nobody asked how the clan weekend was.
Didn't think the lion of Ju Woo-dah would have the guts after last week utterances. Friendo doesn't comprehend? Why should he? Ju Ju doesn't.
Gina
Tuesday 18th May 2010 | 02:01 PM...in response to this comment by Marvin the Martian. You didn't upset me at all, Marvin.
Have a nice day!
Henk V
Tuesday 18th May 2010 | 03:20 PMI didnt mean the original post was boring, just the boring same old replies of the other.
I can arrange to be condescending tho. Seems to be a prerequisite around here
Marvin the Martian
Tuesday 18th May 2010 | 03:25 PM...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "Totally irrelevant, unfounded, and presumptuous, but witty." - your posts
Now we see eye to eye.
Papa
Tuesday 18th May 2010 | 06:04 PM...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Oh and yes I think ad hominems are completely valid. I would not trust your judgement simply based on the fact that you obtained your degree from Moody. Get the point?
I had a hard time getting another job after I taught Taekwondo at an ATA black belt academy. Why? Because the school I was applying at didn't agree with the certain principles and technique my ATA school taught. Hence, they didn't see me in their school, and they didn't see exactly what I could do. They made a judgement call based off my past experiences. But thats how the world functions Tyler, grow up...
...in response to this comment by Marcah. No!!!! Not 'nuff said. I could google "The book of Zohar" but that would make too much sense. I don't have a clue what your talking about. Can't even tell if you're friend or foe.
F-
Trent Greguhn
Friday 21st May 2010 | 03:10 AM...in response to this comment by Papa. As I've said, ad hominems are valid in certain instances. Though one has to wonder if they're even to be called such at that point.
Henk V
Sunday 23rd May 2010 | 10:16 AMWhen Shrodingers cat messes up his box; a reply to The lion of Ju Woo-daH's last sophistries
"Where did this whole string of thought come in about Tylerism and that I am the one who has deemed that God is supernatural or that I am the one making this all up. I mean, that God is supernatual is the universal consent of all Christians, theists, deists, philosophers, and pretty much anyone who talks about God whether or not they believe in him."
HV ; Logical phallussy; appeal to popularity. Ive seen Bart Erhman do exactly this recently. Big hoop is everyone thinks something is nothing.
To overcome this fallacy, you have to derive or present an argument that proves this, or something better
On the inference, the bible is astoundingly consistent in statements that El, Yahweh, Baal, the pesky serpent/dragon, angels, cherubim, nephilim and the queen of Heaven are real physical beings. Which argument are you taking?
Of course you could state, "what would a bunch of goat herders and their subsequent town states know". That would be a tiny bit counter-productive to your argument. Your god (which ever of the ones above) has a remarkable ability to transform from matter types and states, even come over for a fine meal.
Ju-Ju, the supernatural god is as you consistently claim, non existent in the material descriptions of the above set.
"Now, lets look at your syllogism:
1. Supernatural things cannot exist inside our universe.
2. God is supernatural.
3. Therefore God cannot exist inside our universe.
4. What does not exists inside our universe must be illusory.
5. Therefore God is illusory.
Well forgive me but I supplied your enthemic premises that got you from your P1 to P5 (the only two that you stated.) Now before we evaluate it I feel compelled to show you that you have, as I pointed out many times elsewhere, make a positive case for a state of affairs in which case God cannot exist and thus carry the burden of proof. I know you try to wriggle out of it by saying that you arent 100 certain, but not having 100% certainty about an assertion does not mean that it is not a positive assertion."
HV; And you are I take it, why the variance of positions between here and arguments with others elsewhere? I do note that when you presume you cal them absolute logic and when someone else does the same thing, you belittle them and call them assertions.
"Premise 1 True/False. It depends on what you mean by exist. If by exist you mean that supernatural things cannot require matter or physical laws for their existence, then you are 100% correct. But if, and this seems to be what you mean, that supernatural things cannot have any interaction within a natural universe or that because our universe is natural that you presuppose that supernatural things CANNOT exist, then you are false and guilty of begging the question."
HV; Pure sophistry. If something is supernatural it cannot even be detected in nature. Its the same argument of Chi and other vitalisms. Ju Ju, the god that you have invented cant have interactions with matter and energy. That's why its supernatural; by necessity.
"Premise 2 True."
False, sorry Friendo and Ju Ju. The base concept of any god in nature is confined to the belief sets of the adherents. This sets a god as an idea only. This idea is easily propagated. What you call christmas season may have been a celebration of sex and brutality in the past. Memes and tremes are real. Surely this is where philosophy shines in the identification of concepts. Gods are real in that they are an old way of explaining things. Nobody believes that cows grow out of dirt or eyes shine rays out.. folk used to.
"Premise 3. Since P1 is ambiguous the conclusion does not necessarily follow and if you mean the former meaning of exist; then P1 is false and P3 definitely doesnt follow."
HV; P1 is ambiguous? only in the sense that the wording is slightly off. The supernature doesn't exist in nature. How would you detect it without constructing a belief set that hopefully sees cranky clouds in boxes or serpent chasing flying beings (unless you elevate your god to an eagle)
Secondly, If something truly supernatural existed, who said it would be able to think? After all
it didn't face any natural selection pressures.
No, Ju Ju, This P1 is far better than any P1 you have constructed in the past because it at least goes someway into presenting a logical absolute. Yours haven't (I think I commented that absolutes cant be a wish list).
As stated before if nature is to be defied, do so by all means. If Supernature exists it doesn't exist with nature, not in time, space, matter, energy. Its undetectable, its unknowable, if it is in a supernature universe, fine. Let them eat... yes, apparent burning fat pleases some gods. It's your dichotomy Ju-Ju. It's not one of mine.
"Premise 4 False. And illusion is something that appears to be true WITHIN our universe but turns out to be false like a mirage in the desert or the ghost in the childs bedroom that turns out to be a white blanket draped over a chair. Thus you are either saying say God actually DOES appear to be real in the natural world (something you staunchly forbid in other premises) but is illusory (something you assume but do not prove question begging) OR you must deny your own premises to maintain that supernatural things cannot exists (even apparently so) in the universe and thus deny the conclusion to your own argument. In either case your argument is reflexively self-destructive."
HV; Again Ju Ju, you have totally knee capped every argument you have stated about a god with this paragraph. I must admit that you have a very poor understanding of illusions. I have al these one dollar notes, can You change them for a ten dollar not. To be fair, religious illusions are what the religious brain does to confirm events.. Optical illusions happen because of physical reasons. The latter doesn't comfirm an idea. God is no illusion, its only confirmation bias.
Make up your mind, is your particular deity real or not?
"What is also so strange is that you and Trent and everyone reject philosophy and logic as a valid means to prove Gods existence (or to even make a positive case for it) but you seem to have no problem using those very means to attempt to disprove Gods existence (or to make a negative case for it.)"
No, philosophy and logic to validate god requires that you can't start from primary statements. None of your primary statements have been unarguable or absolute. I certainly reject your attempts as neither philosophy or logic is used. Having gone over the rules of absolute logic, I see that yours and your compadres logic statements consistently and conveniently break all the basic rules.
It's why its called sophistry. With all the herring, straw and poison you use whilst pleading your own well; what other conclusion can I draw?
" Well whats good for the goose, as the saying goes. You clearly think that philosophy and logic is a valid means to discuss the existence of God and thus when you deny that it is elsewhere, it is not because you actually believe it, but because you are unable to answer it and the only way to wriggle out of the arguments is to reject the means of the argument itself and demand a more rigid standard only to become more laxed again for your own arguments."
HV; Stop writing about yourself Ju-Ju. Its getting interminably boring.
"If your issue is that virtually every faith has taken advantage of those they were meant to lead, then that is not a problem of faith, that is a problem of HUMANITY. That occurs with EVERY faith, secular ideology, political theory, and even Darwinian thought! Any concept, when placed in the hands of power hungry ideologues will be abused. But that has NOTHING to do with the truth/falsity of if God exists or not. In fact, as we have discussed before, when Christianity has been used to oppress the people, it is IN SPITE of the teachings of its own religion to love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, blessed are the meek, etc. It is not BECAUSE of their faith in Jesus that they oppress, it is due to a total LACK of it. They may say that it is faith in Jesus, but if they are doing the EXACT opposite of what Jesus taught then they show b y their fruit what they really have faith in. But what about atheists. When Stalin killed 100+ MILLION people, did he do it in spite of or contrary to his worldview? No. As an atheist and a secularist, he was exercising his will to power, there is no moral standard that he was obliged to keep, no God watching the suffering of the people that he starved to death, nothing. Stalin wasnt in violation of his worldview, it was perfectly in line with it. (Please dont read that as me saying that all atheists are megamaniaical dictators but only that an atheistic worldview has no basis for saying that what Stalin did was wrong.)"
Necrophilia; Flogging a dead horse.
"And you make a numbers comparison about who hurt more people atheists or the faithful. Well actually when you consider the deaths caused by Lenin, Eugenics, Stalins Russia, Maos China, Castro, Kruschev, Pol Pot, Jong Il, Hoxha, et al. you actually reach numbers exceeding 200 MILLION in the past 100 years alone!!! Sorry, but that VASTLY exceeds the crimes of the church throughout history combined. And its all in the current and very repeatable time. I mean what are the chances of the inquisition coming back to New York? But what are the chances of another eugenics program starting up where were force sterilize or euthanize the unfit? Or the rise of a secularist nation that oppresses its own people like enacting laws against religious freedom of parents to raise their children in the church. Etc. Sure, there are crazy Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to blow people up. But when we are talking about large scale oppression, the looming danger is not from the faithful. "
HV; I love satire!
Your examples "Lenin, Eugenics, Stalins Russia, Maos China, Castro, Kruschev, Pol Pot, Jong Il, Hoxha" are just a little bit bullshit. But please; extend your historical knowledge off the billy graham net. I do note Ju Ju, that if your arguments hold true in your mind, your god did it all made Hitler a fine dictator in your mind? Mussolini? Franco?
PS I know I am being just a little contrary here but Lenin-Stalin stepped into a vacuum where religious infrastucture allowed the state to have an incredible hold. So to did Mao and Pol Pot was religiously trained. Jong Il is a god (miss that did we Ju Ju?).
PSS. Isn't Hoxha the sort of person who studied philosophy and hated science. Reminiscent of snow white?
PSSS I do note that if a nice catholic boy with a bad back kept on making his ideological mistakes none of us would exist. By about a minute from all reports.
Henk V
Sunday 23rd May 2010 | 02:10 PMI'll give you an example of what can be belief and what are facts.
Medieval "histories" would have you believe that Britain was invaded by angles and saxons as the romans pulled out. There are thousands of books that will make reference to this as the "venerable" bede made some reference to it.
It's the basis of the arthurian legend as well as the pride of fresian, dutch and danish populations.
Is it true though?
What is the evidence?
Did bede really report on a depleted "sub human briton unable to cope with roman withdrawal? Did bede report what he liked to believe? Were bede's arguments selective.
Archaeology and science seems to suggest otherwise. It's come to the overwhelming conclusion that historians are incorrect in maintaining bede's position.
It bugs me that such science would remove my callous superior positions. But evidence removes belief and the modification becomes a more thoroughly grounded belief.
Belief, history as we learn it is an account of what really happened.
Damn well have to remove my "property of Hengist" tattoo from my partners posterior.
Consider that a non synoptic gospel exists. It is revered by all yet all notice the astounding inconsistencies in with the history of the other gospels. Where does history and message cease? Where does it start? With any of the gospels?
Henk V
Tuesday 28th September 2010 | 02:51 PMDammit Friendo, all those years I thought an eisegesis was the CO2 frozen wood to keep yer vodka cool over that 30 seconds before....Skol!
So its not a roman word from the first century?
OXO BEPPO
Wednesday 24th November 2010 | 09:10 PMWhat a bunch of self centered, arrogant, fools.
Henk V
Thursday 25th November 2010 | 06:48 AMYep, Freindo's entire position, I am glad you spotted it.
Hey...Thats one of my pen names!!! Malina wants you dude...
f~
Henk V
Thursday 25th November 2010 | 02:09 PMBugger, I thought we'd stayed sensible to this point. OK I'll clean the kitchen and make the bedroom.
Gina
Sunday 16th May 2010 | 02:11 PMFriendo,
I certainly see your frustration. However, it sounds like the man in the video agrees to a certain extent with the words and ways of Jesus Christ. So he believes the Word and believes it's good, but because:
(1) the pharisees down through all the ages, who have chosen to live in palaces and make nice for themselves on the backs of poor people (I understand his anger) - JUST AS WAS FORETOLD for those with eyes to see; and
(2) because Jesus hasn't come back *literally* to stop the madness.
he concludes that it's all lies. What? That makes no sense. Jesus said, "My words are SPIRIT and they are life."
The man believes that there is so much on this earth in this life to take pleasure in, in the here and now, and according to him there is no God. So why let a few oppressive pharisees get in the way of that pleasure? What's stopping him from enjoying this life fully and completely? Could he really and honestly say that he would enjoy this life fully and completely were there no religion or anyone who believed in God and made certain sacrifices (sacrifices that obviously the pharisees throughout the ages knowing nothing about, grant it)? Certainly, the man believes that people should make sacrifices and not gratify themselves with riches -- especially on the backs of poor people. But then he just wipes out taking pleasure in the here and now! The man is so angry, he doesn't make any sense. His own thought processes are all screwed up. According to him, this world would be very pleasurable were it not for the pharisees, but then he agrees that it would be better to live as Jesus did -- but Jesus did not live a life that that man would take PLEASURE in, yet, the man agrees that Jesus set a good example. But then he calls the bible a LIE! The man is very angry and I understand that kind of anger, but he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Is he worried that his children and his children's children will be bothered by religion and the "idea" a false god? Why? He'll be gone never to return -- he even said so "THIS IS THE ONLY LIFE YOU HAVE." What good does it do for him to worry about something he can't do anything to correct? And even if he or his children could correct it, it won't matter! They won't ever reap any benefit from it because you're here today, gone tomorrow!
Sure, there is plenty about this life that is pleasurable, but not everything that is pleasurable is GOOD or beneficial. He's bothered by the fact that clergy insist that their followers not use any form of birth control, but then it's not birth control when you're talking about two homosexuals engaging in sex, is it? No, it's not. He's upset with the RCC because of that, but what he's really bothered about is the fact that homosexuals are getting AIDS and dying from it because they're not wearing condoms! What?! YOU MEAN THEY"RE DYING BECAUSE THEY"RE NOT WEARING CONDOMS? Bull honkey! They're dying because they're engaging in VERY RISKY, UNHEALTHY SEX ACTS. And even if they did have condoms, THEY WOULDN'T BE INTERESTED IN USING THEM anymore than they're interested in abstaining from something that pleasures them, but is of NO VALUE WHATSOEVER.
Even if there were no other people oppressing others with their "false" gods, he would still be hard pressed to say that this life is pleasurable totally and completely. Look at all the diseases, the wacky weather, the other types of oppressive zealots who've never believed in Jesus Christ (even if they say that they do -- like the pharisees he mentioned "Many will come in MY Name saying, 'He [that's Jesus] is the Christ and will DECEIVE MANY."). Obviously, if taking God out of the equation made life more pleasurable or meaningful, then why hasn't it made it more pleasurable for him?
He's pretty upset about religion and all the lies, but then you take that away and you still have diseases, and hurricanes and floods and death and other criminals and no reason to care because you live and you die (according to him) and there ain't no more! Oh joy.
NOT!
Friendo, now don't go and get all angry with me for this reply -- You asked me to comment. And if you turn around and give me hell, I will NEVER comment on another one of your articles!