Ridiculing Religion 2 - The Ridiculining

Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by gUt, Jan 21, 2013.

  1. Collateral

    Collateral Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    13,197
    Likes Received:
    917
    Meaningless. You can disprove your clearly wrong mathematical calculation.

    Prove that God doesn’t exist.

    It doesn’t matter. If there is an omnipresent, transcendent God; do you think you would know more than him? Or perhaps do you think that applying human logic to such an advanced and higher being would be a little ignorant, arrogant and just plain silly?
     
  2. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,061
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    I'm glad you see my point about the meaninglessness of your "imagine there's a god" question. Imagine there's which god? What are the attributes of this god? Do I imagine Thor, or Ganesh, or the universe at large?

    The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the existence of god. If you want to posit there's a creator god who cares about our lives, knows and sees all, can do anything, sent his son to die for our sins etc etc etc, feel free to provide evidence. Hint: the bible doesn't count because it's a book, not a god. As many religious apologists love to point out, it's called 'faith' for a reason.

    Honestly Colly if you are as genuinely new to this topic as you seem to be then go back and read this thread. Better people than us have argued it back and forth.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
  3. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,061
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    http://religionnews.com/2017/11/02/...sting-corporal-punishment-rankles-texas-town/

    Satanic Temple billboard protesting corporal punishment rankles Texas town

    [​IMG]
    (RNS) — Arther Culpepper, a sheet-metal mechanic and part-time pastor in the South Texas town of Three Rivers, first noticed the billboard out of the corner of his eye.

    He was driving south on U.S. Highway 281 — near the local Dairy Queen — when the message caught his attention: “Our religion doesn’t believe in hitting children.”

    The sign was paid for by the Satanic Temple, a national group whose Protect Children Project takes aim at paddling in public schools.

    “I kind of thought it was funny,” said Culpepper, who pastors at the nondenominational River of Life Worship Center. “Everybody in America has the right to rent a billboard if you want to rent a billboard.”

    Free speech or not, many others in the town of 1,900 — about 75 miles south of San Antonio — expressed shock and outrage at the group’s message, which targets the Three Rivers school district board of trustees’ 6-o vote in July to reinstitute corporal punishment.

    “The community is upset, not happy,” said Kevin Mackey, minister of the Three Rivers Church of Christ, which responded on its own sign: “Satan doesn’t own all the signs in (Three Rivers) — don’t let him own you.”

    Lyn Means, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Three Rivers, echoes Mackey’s concern.

    “I’m very sorry that the billboard has been posted in our town, especially in a city park where families and our children congregate,” Means said. “There’s not really anything I can do about it personally except pray for those people responsible for putting something like that up in our town.”

    According to the Protect Children Project website, the Satanic Temple “believes that children should not be objects of physical violence or psychological abuse. We have prepared a letter that can be signed by students which informs their public schools that their deeply held beliefs do not allow for them to be hit in school, physically restrained, placed in solitary confinement, or deprived access to a bathroom.”

    told The Dallas Morning News.

    In a statement quoted by The Progress, a local newspaper, school Superintendent Mary Springs said:

    “It has come to our attention that outside groups may try to force their beliefs on our community while attempting to orchestrate controversy and conversation regarding this policy. We believe that the majority of our community is very supportive of the school and our policies. We believe that the conversations that take place between our administrators and our parents regarding student behavior are the most important conversations regarding this topic.

    “The district continues to focus on the greatest aspect of our work which is educating children and will not have any further comment on this policy,” concludes the statement.

    Neither Greaves nor Springs responded to interview requests from RNS.

    In the blue-collar community, many work in the oil business — including at Valero Three Rivers Refinery — and most claim a church affiliation, even if not all make it to worship on Sunday, pastors said.

    Three Rivers is in Live Oak County, where 81 percent of voters cast ballots for President Trump in the 2016 election.

    For many observers, the billboard’s ties to a satanic group spark particular alarm.

    “I was just really … in disbelief,” said Francis Muzquiz de Anguiano, a Pentecostal Christian who posted a Facebook photo of the billboard after driving through Three Rivers.

    “They advertise they don’t believe in hitting children, but the first thing you think about is, they’ll sacrifice them. It’s really alarming to me as a Christian because they’re being really bold about their beliefs and trying to lure in people from the outside.”

    Actually, the Satanic Temple is an organization dedicated to church-state separation — and one whose leaders say they don’t really believe in the devil or Satan worship. Greaves has characterized the group, based in Salem, Mass., as “an atheistic religion.”

    The corporal punishment policy enacted by the Three Rivers school board requires parental approval before a school official can paddle a child. Local church leaders interviewed by RNS distinguish between “hitting” and “disciplining” a child.

    “Our religion causes us to love our children, and therefore we discipline them,” said Mackey, the Church of Christ minister. “Now, that discipline doesn’t have to be spanking. But it also can be spanking.”

    Means, the First Baptist pastor, said: “Of course, no Southern Baptist condones abuse or hitting children. Abuse is different from giving a child, in my opinion, a spat on the seat. Hitting conveys the idea of abuse. Discipline is a word they wouldn’t dare put on a billboard.”

    Culpepper, the River of Life Worship Center pastor, declined to respond to the billboard’s message, suggesting that whatever he said would be taken out of context.

    But he voiced support for the town’s school leaders.

    “I don’t think the school district should answer to anybody except the people they serve,” Culpepper said. “And anybody outside of Three Rivers doesn’t, to me, have a dog in the fight, so why should they even get involved?”
     
  4. Collateral

    Collateral Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    13,197
    Likes Received:
    917
    You’re just avoiding the question though because you know the answer doesn’t suit your bias.

    Is it really that hard to admit that if there is a God, then he is obviously far wiser and far superior to humans? It doesn’t matter which God, because no matter which one you choose, they are still a God and you are not.

    You poorly tried to like a mathematic equation to a philosophical thinking experiment and then somehow think that this proves your argument?

    Ya’ll are arguing about how God is a big meanie because children got killed under his watch or via his hand and are thus trying to stand up with human morals to say that IF there is a God, then he isn’t nice because of these actions.

    You can’t have it both ways and refuse to address the idea that if we follow the train of thought that you guys have been using, then God must onviously be far superior to any human, and thus has his reasonings that far exceed our current understanding.
     
  5. Collateral

    Collateral Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    13,197
    Likes Received:
    917
    That’s a convenient way to try and avoid providing proof, however, since the existence nor the non existence of God are proven and you are arguing that God doesn’t exist (I assume) then you are in no position to say that you don’t have to provide proof.

    The only people who don’t have to provide proof are people who don’t give a shit or believe one way or the other.
     
  6. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    Umm, the Bible is actually a pretty long read. It contains more stuff in it than just respecting your neighbours property.

     
  7. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,061
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    lol i know but my point stands. He could have mentioned electricity or genetics or microbial life for example. It would have saved his special creations a lot of hassle and suffering.
     
  8. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    :rolleyes:
     
  9. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    Yes and NO.

    Yes, I suppose he could have told us heaps of stuff (this does btw way seem to be the classic Sam Harris argument from Letter to a Christian Nation). But that assumes that his primary concern is that we lead a comfortable life. I don't think it is. Half of the USA is on prescription drugs. Rates of depression are increasing as is perceived suffering. We killed more people last century than almost all the previous ones combined, Nietzsche even predicted it. Wow, it's almost like the teacher in Ecclesiastes was right all those thousands of years ago. Point being that despite all of our modern understanding of the world the human condition by and large has not fundamentally changed. We just stumble and fall and in vastly different landscape and in new an innovative ways than we used to.

    But most importantly, what is found in the Bible is the salvation of mankind.
     
    Knightmare likes this.
  10. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,061
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Colly,

    First things first, I don't actually know if you're a believer in god or not. If you are, then your ridiculous, tortured attempts at reversing the burden of proof make sense, and anything I say to you on the topic will be so much piss into the wind. If you don't, and you want an argument with me for the sake of it then I can tell you now I'm not interested. It's been done over and over, both in this thread and in the world.

    My mathematical analogy was exactly right in this context. It's a meaningless question because it's asking us to change a basic assumption about reality for no good reason, just like your "compare yourself to this fictional being" question of me.

    If what you're saying is "hey gUt, if the Christians are right (which Christians by the way?) and their god really is exactly the way he's described, don't you think you've made a right tit of yourself you know-nothing blowhard merkin?" then that question makes slightly more sense. My answer to that would be: well if that's true then at least this loving, omniscient, omnipresent being will know I've argued my corner out of good faith. Look up what Bertrand Russell said when he was asked a similar hypothetical.

    Secondly, I genuinely cannot compute the answer you want from me about "if there's a god you must admit he would be way brighter and wiser than you". If I admit that much, how does it advance your position? All you've done is gotten me to agree to some empty hypothetical and does nothing to address the actual issue on the ground here which is basically the classic morality/trolley problem. This is far more interesting to me in itself; there's no reason to bring the existence of some hypothetical god into it.

    Thirdly, I've not weighed into that discussion at all anyway, so I don't know where you're getting "you guys are saying X" from. All I did was say I think there are moral problems and issues with abortion - far more than most liberals and progressives would want to admit - but also I think religions have nothing to add to the discussion if all they want to add is "it's wrong because god/our teachings say it's wrong".
     
  11. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,061
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    I am with you on most of this. Where we disagree goes without saying.

    I'm obliged to take the shortest route to the most likely answer here: there isn't, and never was a god that both created us and loves us. We are simply self-aware apes whose global society is inching its way forward through history, with a million major threats, mistakes and problems all jostling us as we go.

    There's no reason to think there's a deity supervising this. We are responsible for what we do to ourselves and our planet. The sooner we collectively wake up to this fact and stop looking to the skies for the answers, the better.
     
    SBD82 and Apey like this.
  12. Surely

    Surely Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    61,279
    Likes Received:
    1,847

    Did he have to smite the infant's though ?
     
    Mr Spock! likes this.
  13. Surely

    Surely Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    61,279
    Likes Received:
    1,847

    Yes and yes

    If he exists he's a run of the mill tele scammer
     
  14. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    Since when is the supposed non-existence of God a basic assumption about reality? Your analogy assumes that God's non-existence is as sure as 2 + 2 = 4. If this is your actual argument then you have assumed a burden of proof.

    I actually think what Collie is saying is that if the Christian God truly did exist then his foreknowledge and wisdom and power and love would lead Him to make choices that we could not possibly understand with out finite brains and self-centred hearts. I could be wrong but that's what I would pose to you.

    BTW, the Christian God would not accept that you've argued out of good faith. He would argue that you've actively suppressed the truth. I'd say this thread and others would be a testament to that.

    Your in a bind here though gUt. Only a few days ago you were singing the virtues of The Moral Landscape. Now the biggest problem with that book is it's piss poor defence of Utilitarianism which is that actual moral grounding of the book, not science. He simply states that science could in the future completely inform a Utilitarian morality (which one Sam?). One of the reasons Utilitarianism breaks down is because we don't know the future. But an omniscient God does. So as a utilitarian, the holes in your moral theory are all plugged up by an all-loving, all-knowing being. It turns out that your own moral philosophy needs God.

    If life isn't sacred, and without a Creator it is not, then why preserve it at all?
     
  15. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    And yet I see that as the long and convoluted route. The existence of anything material is unexplained. The fine-tuning of the universe is unexplained. The origin of life is unexplained. Even neo-Darwinism is under attack these days from atheistic and agnostic biologists. Not to mentioning the meaninglessness of life and other philosophical questions. One answer solves all those questions. So if you're after the shortest route, the one answer that answers a wide range of questions then go with God.

    Well I've presented at least 5 different lines of evidence over the last few years. I don't remember anyone proving any of them wrong. I suppose it is your choice to consider them non-compelling. But without a good reason can you really maintain that you've held your position in good faith?

    Eat, drink, be merry, then die.
     
  16. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    When I shot down the plane in my hypothetical I had to.

    Look, I'm not yet even comfortable with the idea to be honest. I would have baulked at doing it. But even though they did Israel engaged in exactly the same type of practices as those who formerly inhabited the land, Would Israel have been even more idolatrous otherwise? Would there have been no one faithful to God? At one point prior to the Exile there were only 7000 believers. Would that have been 0? We just don't know. There are two passages in the OT that I have struggled with for a few years and this is where I have to take the posture of Job and recognise that I am not God.
     
  17. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,061
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    I could be charitable and say for me it's a basic assumption about reality, because there's no evidence for it. Just like the assumptions I make about the non-existence of fairies, unicorns, the Norse gods, the chocolate teapot etc. I know you think your arbitrarily chosen faith is somehow in a different class to these other fictional ideas but trust me, outside the bubble, it isn't. There is equal good evidence available for the existence each of these things.

    And if my auntie had 2 heads she'd have been in the freak show.

    There's an assumption here that you and other faithful people are privy to this truth and can prove it to be the truth. There's a further assumption that this truth is available to everyone and those of us who can't accept it have no good reasons for doing so, except out of some sort of deliberate and wilful anti-faith. Those assumptions are incorrect.

    What is actually going on here is we unbelievers are being asked suspend the standards of evidentiary tests we apply all day and every day to everything else in this one special case. You guys call this suspension 'faith'. It's not good enough for me, sorry.

    At worst I think the moral landscape is a good starting point or a good refinement of the discussion that's been going on since Greece around these issues. He may be completely wrong, at least as wrong as the religions on this topic, but it's not a worthless contribution. You and I fundamentally disagree on the limits of science so this is a dead end imo. Your last statement is some sort of leap that's not available to me.

    Life can be considered sacred without invoking the supernatural and any of the untestable baggage that comes with it. In any case, it's a question we are free to ask and answer any way we agree to do so.
     
    Apey likes this.
  18. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    You talk about the importance of evidence (which I agree with) but then you make silly statements like this. What evidence is there for fairies? Only literary evidence found in fictional writings. Same with unicorns. We should expect to find at least one instance of these things since they inhabit the physical realm. Fairies live in gardens yet no one has seen one in any garden. No on has found the bones of a horse with a huge horn coming out it's nose. There's no positive evidence for them and the evidence that we would expect to find is missing.

    What about Gods. Surely all the evidence for various gods is exactly the same, all myths and fables. The problem is that the Bible is not written as a myth or fable. It's history, involving people that actually breathed, situated in places that actually existed. It's not some story that cannot be disproved like some guy finding a set of golden tablets that no one get's to see. Paul's very clear challenge to the Corinthians was go talk to the 500 or so people in Judea who are still alive about what they witnessed.

    Your equal evidence claim shows a lack of respect for evidence.

    No. My only assumption was that the Christian God was true. If so, then the Bible is true and it states that people aren't ignorant of the truth but suppressors of it.

    Faith is evidence based my friend. And quite frankly you use faith all the time.

    Do you see that Harris' moral platform is Utilitarianism and not science?

    Only if you strip the word sacred of all it's meaning.
     
  19. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,061
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Again, you rely on special pleading for your own beliefs. You start from the position that the bible is 100% true and what's more, dictated or inspired by the divine. No. The bible is also literary fiction. Yes there may be passages or whole books in it that are at least based in historical events, but historical fiction is historical fiction.

    What evidence inside the physical realm is there for the Christian belief? I'll even grant you that a real historical Jesus existed (which I am sceptical about), but that says nothing at all about his supposed divinity. Let alone the monsters, giants, angels and demons that are also part and parcel of the belief system.

    I'm sure that makes perfect sense from within the belief. Islamist suicide bombers feel the same way of course.

    My faith that the elevator will deliver me to the floor I want it to take me to is based on evidence, yes. There's also evidence they break down and it might not work in the way it's meant to at all. Even so, I will still have faith that the next time I use one it will behave properly. I think your faith is not based on evidence, you may sincerely think/believe it is and I won't be able to convince you otherwise.

    IT seems like Utilitarianism Plus to me. His basic point is morality = concern for the well-being of conscious creatures. Well-being is rooted in the physical. What is physical can be studied scientifically. Therefore there is no reason in principle why we can't develop a science of morality. Religion itself can be considered a first, incorrect attempt at exactly this.

    Not quite all of its meaning my friend:
    regarded as too valuable to be interfered with; sacrosanct.
    "to a police officer nothing is sacred"
    synonyms: sacrosanct, inviolable, inviolate, unimpeachable, invulnerable, untouchable, inalienable, protected, defended, secure, safe, unthreatened
    "Coronation Hill was sacred to an Aboriginal group"
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
  20. Surely

    Surely Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    61,279
    Likes Received:
    1,847

    That's because they are in a plane, it is unavoidable

    Slaughtering caanite infants was easily avoidable , it's not like they carpet bombed the place.

    Plus it was an instruction from the boss anyway.
     
    Mr Spock! likes this.

Share This Page