Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 137138139140141 191> |
| Author | ||||
Equality 7-2521 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
 Posted: April 16 2012 at 16:03 |
|||
|
Well first, I never said that. I said both parties left thinking they had won. Meaning the atheist and the woman who called both clearly thought they had won the argument.
Secondly, I thinking saying he won would betray the reality in two senses. First, I doubt he enjoyed the argument and I doubt he got in the business to feel better about his arguing skills. I would think he hopes to convert people. In that sense he failed. In another sense, the women rejected any notion of an objective and verifiable universe really. She worked from an axiomatic basis which placed beliefs over knowledge and logic. If I'm assuming that, then I could really say she won. Since they came at each other form such disparate fundamental positions, I wouldn't really say anybody won the argument. They weren't arguing about the right thing. With that said, I would have left that argument as the agnostic thinking this woman is f'ing braindead. EDIT: Thank you Dean sir. Edited by Equality 7-2521 - April 16 2012 at 16:03 |
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
 |
||||
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 3281 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 16:03 |
|||
|
Well he said "feeling as though they had" which to my eyes at least implies that they actually didn't.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 16:04 |
|||
|
^ Feeling is subjective and experienced by the two parties. The statement only implies that from the reactions of the two individuals involved in the argument, I judged that each party left with the opinion that they had won. It's really completely independent of me.
|
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
|
||||
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 3281 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 16:16 |
|||
|
Equality: Yes. Dillahunty did not achieve victory but he "won" in terms of arguing much better.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 16:19 |
|||
|
Only if talking over someone and pressing "mute" so his words could be heard is arguing better...
|
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 16:20 |
|||
|
He argued more logically and I agree with his conclusions.
Yeah and Dean brings up the ultimate flaw. Hosts of shows always have an advantage. They have all the power and prestige of the host. It's a trumped deck from the start. Edited by Equality 7-2521 - April 16 2012 at 16:21 |
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
|
||||
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 3281 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 16:46 |
|||
|
While it's true that pushing the mute button is a bit of a cheat, I hardly think it invalidates his arguments. Also, it's a necessary evil to manage radio call-ins. Take it away and you'd end up with shouting matches.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 16:49 |
|||
|
Dean didn't say it invalidates his argument. I think he's pointing out that needing to silence your opposition with a mute button does not qualify as good argument skills.
|
||||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 17:04 |
|||
|
^ That's the irritating thing - the reasoning of his argument was sound up to a point, his debating skills were pants and he was not "arguing better"...
Though I'll say again (since it has been used in another thread) using mosaic law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as an argument against a christian isn't logical or convincing. One view (after Thomas Aquinas) is that the mosaic law is in three parts - moral, ceremonial and judicial - the moral law is cast in stone permanent, the ceremonial only applicable to the time before the coming of christ (who presented a different set of ceremonial laws) and judicial laws (such as the stoning of rebellious sons) were temporary and only applicable to the society of that time (and subsequently superseded by the criminal and civil laws of whatever country you live in)... Most christians simply summarise that down to: only the 10 commandments (moral law) are applicable, all other mosaic laws were replaced by the new covenant with christ (and whatever local laws that may apply). So while his "murdering rebellious offspring" argument may have convinced some atheists, it doesn't convince the theist, but as she wasn't allowed to finish any sentence she started, we will never know her argument for or against it. (and he didn't convince this keyboard atheist) Edited by Dean - April 16 2012 at 17:07 |
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 17:11 |
|||
|
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32482 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 17:23 |
|||
Or that the Mosaic law was part of a suzerain-vassal covenant between God and Israel, and therefore didn't apply to us gentiles in the first place. That Christians don't observe the Sabbath indicates that the Ten Commandments are a part of that covenant. Some cultural understanding would be helpful about the "rebellious son" law (and other laws). Other cultures practiced the same or similar guides. Evaluating an ancient text from an ancient culture through the lens of 21st century Western values is often going to produce abhorrence; the ancients would no doubt think we today are utterly reprehensible. |
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 17:45 |
|||
I think the Lord's Day Observance Society may have something to say about that.
 Many protestant churches hold the 10 commandments to be part of the christian religion seperate from the mosiac laws, which is why it is treated seperately and given a special name (the decalogue) - in judaism it isn't given any special significance.
True. Either way it's not an argument atheists should be using.
|
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32482 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 18:23 |
|||
They do, but I've never understood why. The ballyhoo in the US about posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses here is silly: Adultery, envy, dishonoring one's parents, not keeping the Sabbath day holy, being an atheist, using the Lord's name in vain, and having idols or graven images are not crimes in this country. That's over half, leaving only murder, theft, and perjury.  One important thing to understand about the Old Testament law is that most of what was forbidden was not intrinsically evil (and for our friends in the gay thread, that may well include sodomy); these abominations were things that were ritualistically forbidden because the intent of the Mosaic law was to make Israel a culturally and religiously different entity. For example, a gentile could immediately recognize a Hebrew based on diet, clothing, (refraining from certain) sexual practices, farming methods, and nearly every other aspect of life. Notice that nowhere in the Bible does God smite a gentile nation because they harvested and consumed shellfish, for instance. |
||||
|
||||
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 3281 |
Posted: April 16 2012 at 23:51 |
|||
|
Dean: Your point about the distinction between the types of law is a good one, but the problem is that many Christians I have encountered do not even know about that. I hear, with little to no variation, that "everything in the bible is true, without exception" and "that it is all the word of god" and that "the word of god can never be changed or altered." Once a person says that kind of thing, then the Leviticus and Deuteronomy stuff becomes a big problem. It's the old chestnut that a lot of so-called Christians don't know what's actually in the bible. Of course there are exceptions like Rob, who really knows his stuff. Never seem to come across these people in real life though.
But as an objection to what you say, the bible never specifies any of this "Oh this stuff is only true for now and won't apply later, and this bit never changes etc". All that kind of thing was made up after the fact by commentators and apologists. The book isn't internally consistent. (In fact Jesus specifically says that all the old testament still applies, before then going on to break some of it.) |
||||
|
||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 17 2012 at 03:07 |
|||
I assumed that the posting of the decalogue outside USA courthouses was symbolic of the historical foundation of law rather than conveying any literal meaning - within the buildings (ie within the legal system) only statute, constitutional, regulatory and common laws are applicable.
Well, that's fundamentally it really - the old covenant was with the Israelites not with the gentiles, so when gentiles converted to christianity the old covenant was not with them and only the new covenant applied (including those parts of the old covenant specifically mentioned by Jesus) because they did not convert to judaism first then to christianity. They could still hold that the old covenant was literal and true just not applicable to them, and so it is today with fundamental and evangelical christians - they believe that the old covenant was the word of god dictated to men but superseded by the words of Jesus spoken to men.
|
||||
|
What?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32482 |
Posted: April 17 2012 at 06:43 |
|||
You are correct in your assumption; however, any number of ancient legal codes could be used for this purpose. It's absurd, really; churches aren't required to have the Constitution posted prominently in their sanctuaries.
In fact, that was a major point of Paul's letter to the Galatians (chapter 2). Peter and some others had been instructing the gentiles that they must first adopt the customs of the old covenant (and become circumcised and follow the dietary laws) as a requisite to Christianity. Edited by Epignosis - April 17 2012 at 06:43 |
||||
|
||||
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 3281 |
Posted: April 18 2012 at 00:06 |
|||
|
Yet another old chestnut I've had a few times:Theist: What would you accept as proof of supernatural or divine forces?
Me: If all the clouds in the sky suddenly arranged themselves to spell my name with an exhortation to believe. Theist: Oh come on, that's silly. It has to be something plausible or realistic. Me: So you think plausible and realistic events can be considered proof of the supernatural or divine? You sir, are an idiot. |
||||
|
||||
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: April 18 2012 at 00:30 |
|||
It's about keeping the law in this land free of reference to religion, or at least it should be. And even if there is no specific mention of Biblical verses or commandments in our law, the signaling out of a tradition by placing a bigass stone of the Ten Commandants is tacit acknowledgement of that. It's like giving a nudge and a wink and saying, "Just in case you didn't know what frame of mind you were supposed to be in when entering this courthouse, here are the Ten Commandments to remind you."
|
||||
|
||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32482 |
Posted: April 18 2012 at 06:13 |
|||
The Bible never says a believer must prove anything to an unbeliever. That you are so swift to write off people as idiots, I think, says more about you.  |
||||
|
||||
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 3281 |
Posted: April 18 2012 at 07:10 |
|||
|
What the bible says has nothing to do with the fact that I've had that conversation with Christians and that what they say in that conversation implies great idiocy.. |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 137138139140141 191> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
Topic Options
Textbook wrote: