@ UOSnu
"Your first two points seem to be tu quoques (or perhaps vos quoques would be a better term). Politicians and the socially aberrant don't absolve religion of its crimes. Maybe we should go with ei quoque instead, as I'm neither a politician nor a stalker."

Touche' yet, as they were facetious remarks rather than actual points, no particular attack was intended. Certainly not to the point of ad hominem.

Yes, most comedians and lovers are not violent, just like most Christians. Your original post was ad hominem though wasn't it? At the very least fautly generalization. How many Christians are there in the world? 2 Billion or so, right? How many living CHristians have taken part in the crimes you suggest at the instigation of their church. Not merely using their religion as an excuse mind you, but being told this is right. Once you have those figures let me know. What's more, in making thos accusations it is entirely incumbent upon you to show that Chistians (or theists in general) are more likely to engage in them than atheists, as the jist seems to be that religions spur people to violence. It is more true that religions spur people to non-violence. MLK jr.; Ghandi; etc., these are people who were profoundly influenced by religion.

The Southern Baptist Convention is inherently sexist.

They have finally ditched racism in most cases, but sexism persists. Are women devout Southern Baptists? Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist. They have immense prejudice distaste for liberals. They do not practice what they preach, especially in that they claim to believe every word of the Bible should be followed to the letter, but if pressed will admit to believing the same kind of hogwash about Jesus' "new covenant" which essentially allows them to ignore the more contentious laws in the Bible (stoning adulterers), they'll admit to believing this same doctrine that "mainline" or "apostate" Christians in sects like the Methodist or Lutheran churches also espouse.

They are mostly good people but they are proud of their ignorance, unfortunately. Mainline Christianity is the way to go if Christianity is something you want to pursue.

If Jesus could see churches today he would be disgusted, not only by how they act, but also by what they have made him into. That's an opinion though so don't ask me to provide evidence. What I will say is this: Pauline Christianity is very different from purely the words of Jesus. If I was to found a church it would be purely based on the words of Jesus. None of this Corinthians madness in which Paul denounces braids, jewelry, and long hair among males.

"So believing in an invisible friend who watches over everything everyone on this one little planet does, judging said acts with the morality of patriarchal desert nomads of two millennia ago is the sign of a well-adjusted individual?"

Absolutely. Some of the most well adjusted people in history believed exactly that (albeit without the derogatory flavor of the language). I believe it as well and have had little problem despite my username ;-)

"Believing in an all-knowing and vengeful being who takes personal offense when people don't believe in him for lack of evidence isn't superstitious?"

No it isn't, nor is believeing in an all-knowing and loving being who ernestly desires our fellowship. Loaded questions are fallacies too you know?

"Why are the claims of Moses or Jesus legitimate, but we generally dismiss without a second thought the claims of Joseph Smith or your average cult leader? What happened?"

Who is "we"? If someone has something to say, I listen. I then weigh what their message is. No particular harm in that.

"What happened? Did your god decide to stop giving revelations to humanity?"

Not at all. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a continuing revelation to humanity.

"Who are you to say that John Doe over in the psych ward isn't the second coming without going over and evaluating his claims?"

I'm just a guy, ya' know. When I hear that John Doe in the psych ward is really saying some profound things and that he might actually be the second comind; I'd probably go see what the fuss was about and decide for myself. It hasn't happened yet though.

"Even then, if the mind of god is unknowable, why reject his claims?"

God gives us reason, Scripture, and the Holy Spirit to discover his will. Christians are not mindless automatons, please stop trying to insinuate otherwise.

"The New Testament relates that one day when Jesus was preaching his mom came by and was like 'hey let's calm down and come home and stop with all this silly messiah business okay honey?'"

Please cite a verse for that one. I'd like to look at it, as I doubt it is really presented in that manner.

"How is that different from the modern mother bereaved by her child's schizophrenia?"

You mean aside from there being no evidence in any way shape or form that Jesus Christ had schizophrenia, or that the story that you paraphrased was so badly mangled that it had little relation to the actual scriptures?



Like I said, no real evidence and nothing for which to apologize. Just because something is your opinion, doesn't make it universal. Anyone can ask a series of loaded questions, but they are fallacious.

"As far as your clumsy attack on a strawman of secularism, I'd retort that indeed, mass violence or oppression are indictments of whatever system is responsible for it. Sure, religious themes have produced works of art, but is that indicative of truth value at all? It's not like atheists are incapable of acquitting ourselves well in the humanities (c.f. Sartre, Voltaire, Ingersoll, etc)."

Not so much of a strawman then, as you have turned around and supported my initial point. People are people, whether they be Christian, Jew, or atheist. We all have potential for good and for evil. I disagree with you on the culpability of institutions. I prefer to think that that which is evil in me is my own doing; and try to take ownership of it and seek to make ammends. I do not blame my own frailties on institutions.

"How many living CHristians have taken part in the crimes you suggest at the instigation of their church."

Blackwater's executives (as well as the Bush Administration) have been rather fond of crusader imagery and have certainly been motivated by their religions (c.f. "god told me to do it"--Bush). At any rate, why do we have to confine ourselves to living Christians? It's not like the verses inciting hatred against apostates and unbelievers have disappeared. It's not like Christian authority figures don't regularly intone on extreme weather (or terrorist attacks) as evidence of moral degradation.

"What's more, in making thos accusations it is entirely incumbent upon you to show that Chistians (or theists in general) are more likely to engage in them than atheists, as the jist seems to be that religions spur people to violence."

Taking a more rather than less historical perspective I could cite the Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, pogroms, jihads, interconfessional violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland or on the continent (which would also include mainly Orthodox atrocities against Catholics and Muslims), the Shi'a-Sunni conflict in Iraq, the Hindu-Buddhist conflicts on Sri Lanka, the role of Buddhism in Japan during WWII, the list goes on.

"It is more true that religions spur people to non-violence. MLK jr.; Ghandi; etc., these are people who were profoundly influenced by religion."

Two people do not a statement prove, Mr It's-Incumbent-Upon-You-Once-You-Make-An-Asserti. It's also worth noting that Gandhi's religion caused a large amount of strife and was a main cause of India's partition. The Muslim minority was rather scared of the fact that the push for independence was being spearheaded by a fundamentalist Hindu. Gandhi also wanted the country to return to some rural economy where everyone wove their own rags in crushing poverty. Not terribly admirable, and I feel confident in saying that it's a good thing someone shot him (for, believe it or not, NOT being fundamentalist enough), else he might have set the country back a hundred years.

"Absolutely. Some of the most well adjusted people in history believed exactly that (albeit without the derogatory flavor of the language). I believe it as well and have had little problem despite my username ;-)"

I'd say you do well in spite of your belief in an eternal big brother rather than because of it.

"No it isn't, nor is believeing in an all-knowing and loving being who ernestly desires our fellowship. Loaded questions are fallacies too you know?"

How isn't it superstition? "No" isn't really satisfactory my friend.

"Who is "we"? If someone has something to say, I listen. I then weigh what their message is. No particular harm in that."

For "we" read "society at large." I rather doubt you've given a fair shake to every schizophrenic who's claimed he's Jesus.

"I'm just a guy, ya' know. When I hear that John Doe in the psych ward is really saying some profound things and that he might actually be the second comind; I'd probably go see what the fuss was about and decide for myself. It hasn't happened yet though."

But what is profundity? "Don't be a jerk to people guys it's mean"? That's hardly indicative of divine inspiration.

I haven't found the verse but I'll keep looking.

"You mean aside from there being no evidence in any way shape or form that Jesus Christ had schizophrenia, or that the story that you paraphrased was so badly mangled that it had little relation to the actual scriptures?"

Assuming he existed and the Gospels are reliable, he was convinced that he was the son of god, for one, which delusion is a pretty reliable predictor of mental illness these days. C.S. Lewis did have that trilemma, one option of which was madman.

"Not so much of a strawman then, as you have turned around and supported my initial point. People are people, whether they be Christian, Jew, or atheist. We all have potential for good and for evil. I disagree with you on the culpability of institutions. I prefer to think that that which is evil in me is my own doing; and try to take ownership of it and seek to make ammends. I do not blame my own frailties on institutions."

Why shouldn't institutions be responsible for policies they encourage?

Or to be more pointed, why should the Catholic Church receive credit for Michelangelo et al. but take no censure for the pedophilia scandals/Crusades/Inquisition etc?

Draugnar: Your emotions and response to them cannot be considered equivalent to the question of whether or not something exists.

Existence is or isn't. The question of whether a table exists is not a subjective one. It cannot be existent for one person, but not for another. Emotions are personal, and therefore can perfectly rationally be different from person to person. The existence of God is not like that.

Crazy Anglican: Re science, there it is scientists attempting to be logical, and either lacking sufficient data (and so they should go and experiment) or failing to be logical. That is why you have peer review: to make the science NOT subjective.

"Faith is where you go when the data leaves off." Just because we don't or cannot know everything doesn't mean you can fill in whatever fairytale you like on the basis of "faith". The standard position when you ask if something exists is 'no', unless there is evidence to the contrary. Was there a devastating tsunami yesterday? No. You can say that not because you've seen a beach in good condition, undisrupted, but because you have seen no evidence for there being a tsunami.

To anyone of faith: are all faiths equally valid?

Note on the last question: assuming that they do not contradict the evidence we see before us every day.

"The standard position when you ask if something exists is 'no', unless there is evidence to the contrary."

That would be nice for your side of the argument, but who sets the standard? It's the people in general. To standardize something is for at least most of the people to agree that this is the way it is. The paradigm you suggest should be the standard simply isn't with regard to this issue. When asked if some deity exits the standard reponse is "Yes" overwhelmingly "yes". For one small group to attempt to set the paradigm in their favor is nice but not compelling. You cannot sidestep the issue of God's existence. When confronting a believer you must present evidence to the contrary and resorting to an ad-hominem attack such as calling their beliefs a fairy tale simply won't cut it for most people.

An equally reasonable standard when you ask if something exists is "sure, why not? unless there is evidence to the contrary."

That isn't equally reasonable, though, and nor is it based on people setting that standard. If I tell you that there is a pink unicorn the other side of a hill, but it hides whenever you go and check it, do you believe me? Of course not.

I charge that your beliefs at present aren't anything more substantiated than a fairy tale- neither has evidence to support it, and the only evidence we can accept is...err...evidence. Look at it this way. Whenever I say something happened in a "land far, far away" it means that you cannot know anything about whether or not is true. But to believe some and not other fairy tales is clearly inconsistent. Your God is in a similar situation, but for some reason you make an exception in your own paradigm for him: why? What is so special about the existence of God?

As for pointing out that the belief is like a fairytale "not cutting it for most people". Fine, most people are wrong most of the time; they're irrational too. I don't care about most people's belief, to do so is a logical fallacy.

So, "Who sets the standard?" is as sensible a question as "Who made non-contradiction a universal law?", it just is, and that is all that can be said about the matter.

I can press my point home, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, more strongly by being more specific. If I wonder "is there milk in the fridge" but don't look, then the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When, however, I actively look for evidence for milk in the fridge, and find none, I come to the conclusion that there is no milk in the fridge. Think about it: what convinces you that there is no milk in your fridge is the absence of evidence for that milk. There can't actually be evidence for an absence of a thing, only absence of evidence for it. It will always be expressed in the form "If X existed, there would be Y. We don't detect Y, the evidence for X, therefore X doesn't exist." We are always disproving stuff by the absence of evidence, because that is the only way. If we don't accept that absence of evidence, when looked for, is evidence of absence, we cannot disprove anything, and this is clearly absurd.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

Oh, really?

Being stupid is no argument. "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."

But Y is arbitrarily set; how could you know if it is a true test in the case of God?

Right, Ghost, we just need to take LNC on faith! Excellent argument.

"If I wonder 'is there milk in the fridge' but don't look, then the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When, however, I actively look for evidence for milk in the fridge, and find none, I come to the conclusion that there is no milk in the fridge."

What a terrible analogy. Sure if I look for milk in the fridge and find none, it's likely that there is no milk in the fridge (if you saw my fridge you'd understand). But what you're saying amouts to "I found no milk in my fridge therefore milk doesn't exist". However you seem to be getting a little hot under the collar. So far you've insulted the beliefs of Christians in general and called someone stupid (I assume you meant me because Acosmist is clearly very smart). I'm not generally one to go tit-for-tat in this situation. So you think I'm stupid, that's fine good luck with that outlook.

I'm saying that dialetheism is stupid, not either of you.

Also, when I say "X doesn't exist", I mean it as shorthand for "It is considerably more likely than not that X doesn't exist", and accept that correction every time. It isn't scientific to say that something is true to all certainty.

"I'm saying that dialetheism is stupid, not either of you."

This is the part where you mount any sort of argument against it, rather than dismissing it out of hand as stupid. Annnnd go.

Absolutely, hence on some level you have to agree that these "fairy tales" (and that's an entirely different argument) could very well be true, and at the least a person doesn't need to disavow science to be a Christian. Which was my original point. Right?

With regard to LNC, to reject it is to reject reasoning itself, something you clearly do not do.

"With regard to LNC, to reject it is to reject reasoning itself, something you clearly do not do."

No it's not. Whatever makes you think that?

Crazy Anglican, you are correct here:

"Absolutely, hence on some level you have to agree that these "fairy tales" (and that's an entirely different argument) could...be true,"

but using the words "very well" are misguided. A scientist believes that which is most likely to be true given the evidence. Christian religion is not the most likely thing to be true, given the evidence, or lack thereof, so you cannot be Christian and scientific.

Ok, construct your logic without LNC, and watch me break it.

Also, as a simple question: would either of you describe yourself as agnostic (defined as the belief that we cannot know whether or not god exists)

In some instances I most definitely don't embrace LNC.

"When I began a kick was a kick and a punch was a punch,
When I trained a kick was not a kick and a punch was not a punch,
When I reached enlightenment a kick was a kick and a punch was again a punch."
Bruce Lee

There is certainly philosophy that does not embrace LNC as such. Eastern Philosophy is no less well reasoned as Western. Yet there is a place for intuitive thinking. It produces results often giving that leap that logic later catches up to.

"you cannot be Christian and scientific."

You must believe that Christians do discover scientifically-accurate things, though; but what they are doing can't be science...then how do you account for their discovery of those things?

"Ok, construct your logic without LNC, and watch me break it."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

Go break it.

"Also, as a simple question: would either of you describe yourself as agnostic."

I would not.

""you cannot be Christian and scientific."

You must believe that Christians do discover scientifically-accurate things, though; but what they are doing can't be science...then how do you account for their discovery of those things?"

Scientific about the matter of religion I mean, obviously.

Ok: RE LNC

Take as premises P is true and P is not true.

P is true
Therefore P is true or F is true
P is not true
Therefore F is true.

F can be any statement I like. Therefore I have proved that everything, and the contradiction of everything is true, which is absurd.

"Scientific about the matter of religion I mean, obviously."

You didn't actually say that, though. Now that you've said it, the objection is no longer valid.

You of all people should be rigorous in your language...

But of course, being scientific about religion would be being scientific about metaphysics...wouldn't that violate the positivist principle?

As for the rest:

Paraconsistent logic is not explosive. Dialetheism does not entail trivialism (everything is true). That's why you were confused - you thought dialetheism led to ALL contradictions being true, but dialetheism says only that SOME contradictions are true. The Liar Sentence is one of those true contradictions.

Anyway, rejecting disjunctive syllogism renders your explosive argument unsound.

So...Christians can be as scientific as anyone else.

But when dealing with an issue that does not purport to be scientific but still has value in that it bolsters them in many ways. Some of which can be veirifed empirically (ex. a slightly longer life span and faster recovery from disease and injury on average). When speaking about this aspect of life that cannot be experienced in a physical way as it is not physical, they are not scientific.

This is a problem how exactly?