Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #661  
Old 12th July 2016, 09:49 AM
THWOTH's Avatar
THWOTH THWOTH is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Cotswolds, UK
Posts: 670
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

^That's a very amusing ditty.

He's a sharp cookie that Minchin. He also gives great hair.
__________________
...never eat your own nose...
Like Logic please liked this post
  #662  
Old 14th July 2016, 11:21 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Blue Lightning said View Post
Apologies, real life intruded. Back to your final obfuscation:



Ahhhh, remember that 'context' thingie?

Genesis 18:22-33. Abraham pleaded with your spectacular fellow, your gracious gawd, that HeTM should not kill together the innocent and the wicked, in the interests of of the innocent?

Remember that?

It's easy to forget, given that elsewhere in the Harry Potter series your spectacular fellow and gracious gawd drowned all the inocent in the Great Flood.

So, I get that these details can be hard to follow.

But PAY ATTENTION!

Abraham pleaded, in succession, with that spectacular and gracious fellow to save the cities if only 50, then 40, then 30, then 20, and then 10, righteous folk could be found within the cities.

The only one such “righteous folk” that your spectacular and gracious fellow could find was *drum roll* ... Lot.

That is, PAY ATTENTION! the ONLY ONE judged by your god to be “righteous” , was the one who volunteered his own virgin daughters up to be raped!

The same gawd who, via his Angel agents, even after the "righteous" Lot had behaved so wickedly , led Lot to escape from that gawd's vengeance upon those judged as wicked?! .

When seeking to defend the indefensible, that 'context' thing can be a bugger, can't it?
I have tried to cover most of your arguments here...you have bombarded me with posts

1.WAS said to me that I was "...willing to say that you think rape for god is morally praiseworthy"
2. To support this WAS later said "There exists an X where X=rape when commanded by god such that god says rape when commanded by god is good." I believe this may be paraphrased as simply "God commanded rape in the bible"
3. This has then been re-argued effectively as rape is condoned in the bible.

The first 2 are clearly false, the last is unjustified.

In defense of WAS's assertion Blue Lighting forwarded 3 references. 1 of those references was from the 2nd book of Mormon. I don't hold the book of Mormon as scripture for a number of reasons I will detail the main one. I have studied with Mormons and my question was is there any historical evidence that supports the book of Mormon? The answer I received was "no, but pray about it.". This was from 2 missionaries and a senior member. I believe in having faith, but there has to be some platform to base it upon.

The other 2 references were:

1. Numbers 31:17-18
2. Genesis 19:8

Neither of those scriptures include a command from God to rape nor condone rape.

1. Numbers 31:17-18
It has been asserted that where Moses said to the Israelites "But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves." is the same as a command to rape all the young girls.

I argued that I don't accept that assertion because:
i) An explicit law was provided on how the women of capture enemies were to treated which included a minimum period of 30 days prior to marriage.
ii) It would be breaking this law to rape them. Sex outside of marriage was immoral.

The only refutation to my argument is Goldenmane saying "That means rape. Sex slavery. ". This is equivalent of supporting an argument by saying "it does" which I don't find convincing.

Now to counter this Logic please has asserted that:

Quote:
"Forcibly "marrying" them to the invaders makes no difference to rape either, if there is no consent. Go on, try to dissemble how all of the women in a captured town would suddenly and in unison freely agree to marry and willingly fuck the invading army. Please. We could all use a laugh."
Even if the newly married husband did rape his wife, then it would be each and individual case of rape that would be wrong. The command allowing the captured women to be married is still not a command to rape them.

Marriage had a very different meaning from what I have read and seen comparted to other cultures. It can be more about financial security rather than sex which seems to be your focus. That's one reason why it was important for brothers to marry their brother's widow if the original husband died. It's also why widows were seen as one of the poorest groups in the bible, due to the culture it was difficult to earn an income.

2. Genesis 19:8
It does seem clear that Lot valued protecting the visitors "for they have come under the shelter of my roof" more than his daughters. Was this a righteous act? No. Was Lot righteous? According to 2 Peter 2:7...Yes. But how can that be? It all depends on how, biblically, a person is considered 'righteous'. Without going into too much theology, it is clear from the bible that righteousness does not mean that a person has not done anything wrong. Therefore, a person who did a wrong action and is called righteous does not imply that the wrong action is condoned.


No doubt there are terrible actions in the bible particularly the OT and yes, the flood and the attacking of the Canaanites are probably the biggest. I still haven't formed a solid view for the biblical basis for morality. It is probably some form of weak divine command theory. I would say God's nature is omnibenevolent and therefore his commands would be based on his nature. So if God commanded something that is contrary to omnibenevolence then I would agree that the God I currently believe in does not exist. There is one issue with that....what is omnibenevolence? Is God's nature the definition of good? If that were true it wouldn't make sense to try to assess if God's nature is good...it just is. That doesn't sit very well with me, but I haven't devled into this very deeply. There does seem to be some mechanics that define if an action is good or bad. Whenever I try to think of an action as being good or not, the most important I would say is to "do unto others..."...which is effectively using empathy. There does need to be some form of consequentialism, however, because one should have stronger feelings of empathy for a larger quantity of people. (Empathy seems also impacted by the closeness of individual's...but putting that aside for now.) There is also the issue of people being an 'end' in themselves, having intrinsic value, they should not be used as a means to an end.

If 'good' entails some form of consequentialism then acts may seem to be bad, that could actually be good if the context is expanded. The difficulty is, the context available to God is all people over all history. We are in no position then to assess if something is good or bad. I have my own sense of what good is....but is it actually good? How would I know? How would I measure it? Do I compare it to others thoughts of what is good? Wouldn't that be equivalent to saying something is true if the majority believe it to be so?

I can see how moral actions and concepts can be derived from evolution, including altrusim...this gets us to an 'is', but not an 'ought'. I have reviewed secular based moral frameworks, seem mostly based around consequentialism and empathy. However, they seem to require axioms (in my view unjustified) to get off the ground, like persons having intrinsic value. I can always think of examples that would be considered moral based on the framework...that I know is not moral. I can think of models that would predict actions that I would agree as moral, but it seems circular...I can only assess if the model is accurate if it fits my current view of what is good.

Let me throw this out there...

i) How do you assess if an action is good/bad?
ii) How do you get from believing/accepting/knowing an action is good, to asserting other people ought to act accordingly. For instance, say you accept that maximising wellbeing is your moral framework of choice. It would seem if you want to project that others should agree with you that an action is good/bad? Why ought others who may not subscribe to the same moral framework agree with you that the action is good/bad? Or do you resign to fact that you cannot suggest to someone who subscribes to a different moral framework that they ought to agree that an action is good/bad?
  #663  
Old 14th July 2016, 11:35 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
odd said View Post
My point, ptutt, was that a gift is in the eye of the beholder. You may be familiar with the concept of a 'white elephant', the story goes that the Kings of Siam were fond of gifting a white elephant to those who displeased them - they could not get rid of a gift the king had given them, but keeping the beast could send them into ruin.

You say that each day is a gift from God, Pollyanna. Everyday awful things happen, children die painful deaths after drawn out battles with cancer, while elsewhere in the world a corporate fraudster who robbed the retirement savings of thousands sips champagne on his yacht in the Greek Isles. God seems to favor some with his gifts. Why?

This is an important question - do you believe in heaven? If you do, then how is everyday on earth a gift? It is merely another day you have to wait to get to paradise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes, I do believe in heaven.

In fact, yes it is a good question for which I do not have a satisfactory answer.
I guess if we spend eternity in paradise, the time on earth is inconsequential in comparison. And yes, a gift is in the eye the beholder. There is no doubt people who would prefer death to life. I can only suggest that this is not how things ought to be and is caused by man-made and natural evil. Plantinga in defense of the problem of natural evil proposed that demons could possibly be responsible for natural evils, cancer, tsunami's etc.

Another view is that since the 'fall' that mankind as well as the physical world inherited imperfection which is the cause of natural evil.

I am not settled on any view at this point.
  #664  
Old 14th July 2016, 11:37 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
robertkd said View Post
Yes but isn't that like life after death, no actual evidence of that magic trick, just a lot of tragic death. just saying.
I have heard it said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  #665  
Old 14th July 2016, 11:43 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,015
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Thanks, ptutt. There's a lot packed in that, and I'm about to travel overseas.

I'll come back to the detail you've now posted as soon as I can. Although, I'm sure you're about to get some firm input from others in the meantime. (Strap your seat belt on! )

For now, three quick thoughts:

First, did you notice the command to commit genocide? (Note that I'm of the view that -at best- you're fundamentally, egregiously mistaken about rape, but ... there's still that other rather large elephant sitting over there there.)

Second, although I'm sure others will, too, I'll come back to some of the important questions you've raised towards the end of your post. They're worthy of answer.

Third, this stood out:

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
1 of those references was from the 2nd book of Mormon. I don't hold the book of Mormon as scripture for a number of reasons I will detail the main one. I have studied with Mormons and my question was is there any historical evidence that supports the book of Mormon? The answer I received was "no, but pray about it."
So, applying the same standard as you have suggested, if there was no adequate historical evidence to support the fundamental contentions of the bible -such as in relation to its central supernatural events-, you would reject the bible and your god?

(I must say, I'd understood you to be saying you knew things apart from evidence, which is the exact reason I wanted to ask you about others who do the same thing, and hence my reference to the Mormon text.)
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 15th July 2016 at 12:00 AM.
  #666  
Old 14th July 2016, 11:47 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
I don't hold the book of Mormon as scripture for a number of reasons I will detail the main one. I have studied with Mormons and my question was is there any historical evidence that supports the book of Mormon? The answer I received was "no, but pray about it.".
Any historical evidence that there was ever just 2 people called 'Adam' and 'Eve'?

Any historical evidence that there was ever a global flood?

Any historical evidence that a person could live in an aquatic mammal?

Any historical evidence that the world was crafted by an extra-universe being?

Any historical evidence that there used to be giants?

Any historical evidence for an exodus of Israelites from Egypt?

Any historical evidence that water didn't refract light prior to rainbows being made as a promise by God?

Any physical evidence of a fixed firmament?

Any historical evidence of Herod slaughtering innocents?

Any historical evidence that Gadera used to be on the shore of the sea of Galilee?

Any historical evidence of the critical Roman census?

Any historical evidence of Jesus resurrecting, walking on water, magically multiplying food?

Any historical evidence of Jesus being crucified?


The list of things you accept without having historical or physical evidence is vast and you care not a jot about that, but suddenly when someone of another doctrinal persuasion believes something in the absence of evidence you grow some skepticism.

Another example that should set bells ringing in your head: more like giant flashing warning hazards.

Last edited by Spearthrower; 14th July 2016 at 11:51 PM. Reason: greengrocers' apostrophe
Thank Blue Lightning thanked this post
  #667  
Old 14th July 2016, 11:50 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,015
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

How reliable is hearsay upon hearsay written, decades after the alleged events, by anonymous persons from a different culture with no direct knowledge of those events? People with their own human failings and agendas?
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 14th July 2016 at 11:55 PM.
  #668  
Old 14th July 2016, 11:50 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
The other 2 references were:

1. Numbers 31:17-18
2. Genesis 19:8

Neither of those scriptures include a command from God to rape nor condone rape.

1. Numbers 31:17-18
It has been asserted that where Moses said to the Israelites "But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves." is the same as a command to rape all the young girls.

I argued that I don't accept that assertion because:
i) An explicit law was provided on how the women of capture enemies were to treated which included a minimum period of 30 days prior to marriage.
ii) It would be breaking this law to rape them. Sex outside of marriage was immoral.
You're lying to yourself.

Capture woman, wait 30 days, marry her, rape her.

The rape is still there - unless you think all the women suddenly fell in love with their captors, forgetting their dead husbands and children, and universally finding sexual desire for their assailants.

Your argument actually reads that forcibly marrying a woman after murdering her family and then having sex with her is not rape. In the real world, it's even more despicable.

If you wave your hands energetically enough that you no longer have sufficient to power your conscience, you might be able to ignore the large twangs your brain must be signalling.

But don't expect anyone with a functioning brain or sense of empathy to buy into your crude attempts at justifying this viciousness allegedly commanded by the creator of everything.

Last edited by Spearthrower; 14th July 2016 at 11:55 PM.
Thank Blue Lightning, Logic please, DanDare thanked this post
  #669  
Old 14th July 2016, 11:58 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,909
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
1. Numbers 31:17-18
It has been asserted that where Moses said to the Israelites "But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves." is the same as a command to rape all the young girls.

I argued that I don't accept that assertion because:
i) An explicit law was provided on how the women of capture enemies were to treated which included a minimum period of 30 days prior to marriage.
ii) It would be breaking this law to rape them. Sex outside of marriage was immoral.

The only refutation to my argument is Goldenmane saying "That means rape. Sex slavery. ". This is equivalent of supporting an argument by saying "it does" which I don't find convincing.

Now to counter this Logic please has asserted that:



Even if the newly married husband did rape his wife, then it would be each and individual case of rape that would be wrong. The command allowing the captured women to be married is still not a command to rape them.

Marriage had a very different meaning from what I have read and seen comparted to other cultures. It can be more about financial security rather than sex which seems to be your focus. That's one reason why it was important for brothers to marry their brother's widow if the original husband died. It's also why widows were seen as one of the poorest groups in the bible, due to the culture it was difficult to earn an income.
You still don't get it do you? So you kill their fathers, kill their mothers, kill their brothers, kill their older married sisters, hold them captive for 30 days, because the law says that's how it must be done, and then after 30 days you can marry them, whether they want to marry the murderers of their mothers, brothers, fathers and older sisters or not. And it's ok to do that because, well it's only because of financial security and they may not have sex with them anyway.

Are you actually reading what you are writing, because this is the most obscene defence of rape I have ever come across even from most theists. Even if it's enshrined in law, it's still rape. It used to be, in European culture even as late as the middle of the last century, that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife, we now recognise that this was wrong, why are defending this behaviour? Is it only because not defending
shows your mythical god in a bad light?

Quote:
I have heard it said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Really? That might have been me somewhere on these forums, or any one of the atheists here, this is a very common discussion point that you see to have thrown in as if expecting none of us to have encountered it previously, so I will explain it, again, for you.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence where evidence should exist if a proposition were true is indeed evidence of absence. For instance if the biblical flood were true, and lasted as long as claimed, then evidence should exist all over the world, none of this evidence has ever been forthcoming despite having been looked for over several centuries. Since this evidence should exist, but doesn't, we can say with some certainty that the world wide flood never happened. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The exact same principal can be applied to god.

Quote:
Plantinga in defense of the problem of natural evil proposed that demons could possibly be responsible for natural evils, cancer, tsunami's etc.
Another convenient refrain, used by our own pastor Danny Nalliah to blame Australian natural disasters on, gays, abortion, atheists, just about anything he doesn't like. This is a rather transparent ploy to blame natural disasters on a group that one wants to take action against because of religious sentiment, hate even, don't go there i strongly suggest.
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Like Blue Lightning, DanDare liked this post
Thank Blue Lightning thanked this post
  #670  
Old 15th July 2016, 12:10 AM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 240
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
hackenslash said View Post
This is a shockingly bad recapitulation of the point. Here are the issues in order.

1. Evidence is always reliable.
2. Evidence doesn't produce conclusions.
3. All evidence is gained by experience.

The problem is compounded when you then go on to assert that nobody could know anything if your reading were correct, but even that is wrong, and here's why:

Although science is rooted in experience, there are some important things to note, and the first and most important of these is that the subjective/objective distinction is a false dichotomy. There's another option available, and it's this that science is rooted in: Inter-subjectivity.

In science, we observe the evidence, and then we try to work out what that evidence might be telling us, by constructing a prediction generating machine, known as a hypothesis. This hypothesis will have implications, and those implications can be tested, by devising experiments and observations to see if they match the predictions. Where the observation matches the prediction, the hypothesis survives.

Now, it's important to note that the hypothesis might not be the only one available, so we can't land on a single hypothesis and say that it's true, even where it matches observation. In fact, we can't even say that it's true when it's the only hypothesis left that matches observation, because we can't rule out the possibility that some future hypothesis will match as well, or in fact better.

Where a hypothesis fails to match observation, it's false.

A proper hypothesis should also contain something that will categorically show it to be false, usually in the form of a prediction of something that will definitely NOT be observed if the hypothesis is wrong. This is the 'null' hypothesis. If that prediction bears fruit, the hypothesis is discarded.

In the case of competing hypotheses, we can only say that those that still stand have not yet been falsified.

When you've satisfied yourself that your hypothesis stacks up, that your experimental methodology and all your reasoning is solid, you publish, and this is where inter-subjectivity enters the picture.

Your paper will include every detail of your research, including paying out exactly what the subject of your research is, and how you intend to solve it. All your experimental data are included, so that other experts in the field can test your conclusions for themselves. When the experts reach consensus that your hypothesis stands up to critical scrutiny, it's accepted, not as true, but as 'empirically adequate'.

In the case of your personal experience, no peer-review of this type is possible. Moreover, since your claims are fantastical, and since there are other, far more plausible mechanisms that adequately explain what you describe (delusion, lying, drugs, wish-thinking - all well-understood phenomena), your relation of your 'experience' can't be taken as evidence of anything other than that you said something. It's entirely unfalsifiable, untestable and epistemologically worthless.

HTH.
First let me say that I recognise the scientific method as the best means to determine what is most likely correlate with our experience of reality. I work as a software programmer (funny someone said previously in this thread something to the effect of don't ever become a software programer ).

I follow, to some degree the scientific method to fault find.
This includes determining a number of hypothesises (as many as I can) based on the symptoms (evidence) and the possible causes (mechanisms).
Work through to either prove or disprove each hypothesis by data collection either by highest probability or easiest to test.
Design a solution to the problem which will include peer review either before or after implementation.
Confirm that the implemented solution works by testing for both positive and negative scenarios.

Funny enough, I find a lot of programers can actually use superstition to fault find. I 'feel' this is the problem, so I am trying to fix it. It's annoying. Computers, are exactly logical down to 1's and 0's.

In actual fact, I have used elements of the theory of evolution in team and process management. Make regular small changes even those where the outcome is unknown to be good or bad, evaluate the effectiveness of the change, continue effective changes, cease what isn't...repeat. It has been very effective.

Now, you say there are "far more plausible mechanisms that adequately explain what you describe (delusion, lying, drugs, wish-thinking - all well-understood phenomena)".

I think it is unrealistic to claim that more than half the world's population is delusional, lying and taking drugs as an explanation for their religious experience.

Now, wishful thinking. For me personally, I started to read the bible for myself. I was impacted by Jesus' teachings, but I was also personally challenged by call to live a pure life. There were things I enjoyed in life that I had no intention of changing. So I wanted to stop reading, but then I read a scripture James 4:17 "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them.".

I thought to myself, the more I read, the more things the bible will say I need to change. I don't want to change, I like my life. But then I thought, if God knew that I deliberately stopped reading the bible because of that reason I would be the person not doing the good I know I ought to. I was trapped.

Now, if I was wishful thinking, why would I believe in a God that was telling me to make changes in my life that I didn't want to make? That's not the God I was wishing for.

Wishful thinking cut's both ways, as an atheist may wish that God does not exist.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.