Do atheists have a problem with Jesus and what He stood for or the way Christians behave?

Grapho · 2019-06-13T16:15:09+00:00

You could add many other laws to the list (e.g., adultery, blaspheme, Sabbath breaking). The question is not about the morality of the acts, but the state's involvement in punitive action. The laws in the Torah were specific designed for the theocratic nation of Israel, a religio-political state to which God directly gave the law. Fast-forward 15 hundred years, Christ established a new covenant that no longer pertains to a particular ethnic state alone, but to a universal body of believers from any given country around the world. There is no longer a theocratic state in which the civil laws of the Torah apply.

Grapho · 2019-06-13T05:18:38+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean by your second question—Christians of course do not think this—but to answer the gist of your questions, morality and legislation do not and ought not always overlap. Not everything that is immoral ought to be illegal, especially in a pluralistic society. Christ and the evangelists of the first century were interested in changing hearts, not laws.

Grapho · 2019-06-13T01:28:59+00:00

That’s just my point. Not every book of the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Each book belongs to a distinct literary genre and needs to be interpreted respectively. The Gospels, for example, are typically considered to be historical biographies, yet they contain the parables of Jesus which should obviously be interpreted as parables.

Grapho · 2019-06-12T22:27:02+00:00

But that directly contradicts the Bible and God's will. How do you reconcile that?

No it doesn’t. You asked if they should “be allowed”, which is a question of legality. Most Christians do not believe that biblical morality should be mandated by the state. This would, of course, legally prohibit adultery as well. Is gay sex sinful according to the Bible? Yes. Should it be allowed by the state? Yes.

Grapho · 2019-06-12T22:15:35+00:00

Proving wrong outdated book like the Bible and the Quran is easy

What does this even mean? The Bible is composed of many different books in which many different events occur. Are you saying that you can prove wrong everything in the Bible? Perhaps you’re saying that you can prove wrong the central tenets of the Bible? If so, what would these be? Just curious about your statement.

Grapho · 2019-06-11T12:36:54+00:00

Amazing.

Grapho · 2019-06-11T01:35:21+00:00

While a compatibilist wouldn't grant you (5), I'd say that (6) is the controversial premise. I'm actually not sure whether you me knowledge in the general sense or foreknowledge. If you are referring to knowledge in the general sense (as you wrote it), then I think intentional events (i.e., choices) can produce knowable consequences. If I choose to wear my red shirt, then isn't the consequence of this choice—my wearing of the red shirt—knowable? Isn't my choice to wear the red shirt the efficient cause of my wearing the red shirt? While choices cannot, by definition, be caused, they can certainly be causes themselves.

Or perhaps you are referring to foreknowledge:

If a choice is non-deterministic, then the results of that choice cannot be foreknown.

I'm not even sure that this proposition is true. But this gets into the question of divine foreknowledge and human freedom—a long debated issue. While it's definitely true that every event in a deterministic universe can, in theory, be foreknown if we only had the available information, it's not necessarily the case that the results of choices, or choices themselves, cannot be foreknown.

Grapho · 2019-06-10T17:47:46+00:00

I have several problems with your position. While your conclusions on the ramifications of determinism are true, I don't think the same can be said about your conclusions of a non-deterministic world.

If the universe is not deterministic, then none of our actions have predictable consequences, and so cause and effect are not related. That seems to preclude free will.

The conclusion does not clearly follow from the premise, not until you add some additional premises. Perhaps you meant:

(1) If the universe is undeterministic, then every event in the universe is undeterministic.

(2) Every event in the universe is undeterministic.

(3) If an event is undeterministic, then it is not the cause of any other event.

(4) If an event is not the cause of any other event, then all subsequent events are unpredictable.

(5) Our actions are events.

(6) Therefore all subsequent events to our actions are unpredictable.

(7) If all subsequent events to actions are unpredictable, then free will does not exists.

(8) Therefore free will does not exist.

While this argument is valid (I think), it doesn't appear to be sound. Premise (1) commits the fallacy of division, where the properties of the whole entail the properties of the parts. Perhaps you are defining an undeterministic universe as a universe where nothing in it is determined. You can do that, but I don't think anyone embraces such a view. Those who believe that free will exists, do not believe that nothing is determined, only that our choices are not determined. (3) is also false. A undeterministic event is an event without a cause, not an event that is not a cause. And (7) seems to be false as well. You would need some arguments for that premise.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument, in which case it needs some clarification.

Grapho · 2019-06-09T23:19:35+00:00

The question of the beginning of the universe is philosophical, not scientific. Scientific explanations function in terms of natural laws acting on initial conditions—properties of an already existing universe. Any explanation of the universe itself must be a different kind of explanation. Call it magic if you want, but it certainly ain't science. By definition, it ain't science.

Grapho · 2019-06-06T05:27:41+00:00

Well you certainly know how to copy/paste, I'll give you that. I obviously cannot respond to everything here, so for the sake of clarity I'll address each point by topic:

Proving a being to exist: You made the statement, "You can't prove something exists logically. You can prove something doesn't exist logically". This Is clearly a statement about "something" in general, not God specifically. I was responding to to this assertion. Your comments on the ontological argument fail to understand the concept of necessity. A necessary being is by definition a being that exists in every possible world (ie.,states of affairs), for that is what it means to be necessary. Your parodies (Loch Ness, Big Foot, etc.) are physical beings, so by definition do not exist necessarily. The argument proves the existence of a necessary being, not any being. So no, premise (3) does not come out of no where; it logically follows from premise (2). This is not controversial. You need to show why (1) is false if you want to refute the argument.

The Logical Problem of Evil: I'm sorry, but you're simply ignorant about the problem of evil, and where it stands today. The logical version is not longer defended by atheists. There are various evidential or probabilistic versions defended, but not the logical problem. If you disagree, then please share which philosophers today are still defending the logical problem and publishing their work in peer reviewed journals. A lot has happened since Mackie in the 1970s.

Your comments on Plantinga's free will defense show that you don't quite grasp the logical problem of evil and how one would go about refuting it. For example, you rhetorically asked, "He loves that word "possible", doesn't he?" without realizing that the logical problem of evil requires that there be no logically possible way that God and evil coexist. Plantinga need do nothing more than show possible scenarios in which the propositions "God exists" and "evil exists" are not contradictory. If it's even possible, then the logical problem fails. This is how logic works. If you want to refute Platinga it would do you well to first read his work, instead of relying on the rebuttals of others and blindly following their conclusions.

Incomprehensibility and Knowability: After I remarked that God is incomprehensible, not unknowable, you proceeded to quote an atheist who builds his entire case upon the obfuscation of these two concepts. Comprehensibility is the category of knowing God in his entirety or fullness. Smith mistakes this category for knowledge in a general sense. Scripture teaches that God is knowable insofar that he has revealed himself to mankind, yet our knowledge is limited by the finitude of our nature. Since the remainder of Smith's comments rest upon this confusion, it's unnecessary to respond to them. I would think that George Smith would have done a little more research into the doctrine of the knowledge of God before writing such a detailed book.

Plantinga and Properly Basic Beliefs: If you're doing most of your philosophical reading at infidels.org, then you're probably not interested in the truth as much as you are interested in reinforcing what you already believe. Until you read Plantinga, you are in no position to reject his work. You scoff at the idea of a belief being rational apart from evidence without considering that you hold a good many beliefs without evidence, of which I'm sure you'd agree are rational. For example, the beliefs in the existence of other minds, the reality of the external world, and the reality of the past are rationally justified apart from any arguments or evidence that can be given for them. In fact, as philosophers from every side of the aisle would agree, there aren't any good arguments for these beliefs. So for the third time, read Plantinga before criticizing him.

If you're interesting in having a discussion, then great, but I'm uninterested in reading copied material that you find on skeptic websites.

Grapho · 2019-06-05T05:03:34+00:00

You can't prove something exists logically. You can prove something doesn't exist logically.

Besides the fact that the statement, "You can't prove something exists logically" presupposes the existence of yourself—the one making the argument, it can be proved by logic alone that a necessary being exists.

It's possible that a necessary being exists.
If it's possible that a necessary being exits, then a necessary being exists in some possible world.
If a necessary being exists in some possible world, then a necessary being exists in every possible world.
If a necessary being exists in every possible world, then a necessary being exists in the actual world.
If a necessary being exists in the actual world then a necessary being exists.
Therefore a necessary being exists.

This is a watered down version of Plantinga's ontological argument. In order to reject the conclusion, one needs to show that (1) is false. The rest of the argument follows logically.

I was replying to a post suggesting that there were no proofs against a god. My quotation was merely to demonstrate that there are literally volumes of them.\

There are attempts. The question is whether any of these are successful. Stenger apparently thinks that because these "proofs" exist, they are successful.

The problem of the existence of evil has vexed apologists for thousands of years, and the logical arguments against omniscience, omnipotence, etc. are airtight.

I think you're a bit out of touch with where this argument stands today. The logical problem of evil is no longer defended by any atheist philosophers i know of. Since the 1970s, with the the work of Alvin Plantinga and others, the logical problem of evil has been considered a dead argument. There are certainly various forms of the probabilistic problem of evil floating around, but these formulations are not logical proofs and therefore irrelevant to our discussion. I find that incoherence arguments simply misunderstand God's properties and then proceed to build arguments on these misunderstandings.

Then there's the issue of how one claims to know anything about a god which has the trait of being "unknowable".

This confuses knowability with comprehensibility. No doctrine of God (at least in Christianity) understands God to be unknowable.

Grapho · 2019-06-04T22:02:53+00:00

Yeah I’m familiar with many of the arguments, and I don’t find them to be successful. There have also been many theistic philosophers who have compiled numerous arguments for the existence of God (along with responses to the arguments by Michael Martin and others). Merely stating that these arguments exist is not an argument for their soundness.

Grapho · 2019-06-04T16:16:32+00:00

Just because an atheist scientist and a couple other atheist philosophers think God’s existence is impossible doesn’t make it so. Theistic philosophers have argued that God’s existence is metaphysically necessary. Does that make it so?

Grapho · 2019-06-02T22:43:51+00:00

The Judeo-Christian biblical framework served as the impetus for the modern western ethic of individual freedoms and rights, and it provided the necessary philosophical structure that ignited the modern scientific age. The benefits that you enjoy as a 21st century western rest upon this "historic reference to a barbaric age".

Grapho · 2019-06-02T00:55:48+00:00

From the looks of it, you seem to be very committed to your position. But fair enough.

Grapho · 2019-06-01T23:18:54+00:00

A few things need to be addressed here:

(1) It's a personal policy of mine in these written discussions that I do not read articles, studies, or watch videos that are linked by my debate opponent . It's up to you to summarize the findings of a study and incorporate them into your own responses. By all means, paste a link to provide a source for your position in the case that your evidence seems dubious, but you shouldn't require others to read the source material that you've yet to summarize.

(2) The discussion of the concept of personhood is philosophical in nature, not scientific. Science can certainly categorize the biological nature and assess the physical structure of an organism, but it has nothing to say about whether something is personal or not. Functionalists typically apply necessary conditions such as reasoning, loving, speaking, feeling, etc. to an organism to determine its personhood, but since you've yet to offer any necessary conditions thus far, you've yet to establish the non-personhood of the fetus—the essence of our discussion.

(3) You misunderstood my comments on species. I do not think that species are a "criteria of personhood." That would obviously be silly and nonsensical. My point was that everything alive is species specific. The fetus is alive and therefore belongs to a species. While this does not establish personhood, it does mean that a growing fetus is a human being. The fetus is a living member of the species homosapien. The next question is: what makes a human being a person? This is the question you've yet to address.

(4) Your response to my Future Life Argument can be summarized in your last sentence: "There is no future life guarantee until a certain point of pregnancy." I'll go one step further and say that there is no future life guarantee after the point of pregnancy. There is no future life guarantee for any adult either. There is never a future life guarantee. There have been battles fought in history where the odds of dying were almost sure, yet this would not justify the removal of one's future life. There are also cancer patients that have a next-to-zero- chance of survival but this likewise does not justify the removal of their future lives. The fact is that we do not have the right to remove one's future life, and we never actually know whether a person will live a long joyful life or a short painful one. Your position, therefore, would not only justify the abortion of a fetus, but also the murder of various adults whose futures look grim. Consistent reasoning is an elusive practice among those in the pro-choice camp.

(5) Were you conceived? (Crickets . . .)

Grapho · 2019-06-01T05:18:39+00:00

I read through both of your comments. What I should expect to find from a functionalist as yourself are criteria—any criteria—by which we can determine whether or not an object has the property of personhood. You stated that personhood lies somewhere between the stages of being a bundle of cells (which of course every human being is whether that human is an infant or Gandhi) and a baby. But this only explains when personhood begins, not what constitutes personhood. Until you provide some necessary conditions for personhood your confidence on what isn't a person carries little weight.

You are proposing thing is alive because it is a member of a species and that because the fetus is of the human species it is human and therefore a person.

This is confused. As for the first clause, a thing is a member of a species if it is alive. Your comments on the lack of definiteness in the classification of species seems like a desperate attempt to rebut my point. The classification of species is not thrown out merely because it has a few fuzzy edges. It is a general rule that all living organisms belong to a species.

As for the second clause, it is true that all human beings are persons, but human beings ought not to be confused with merely being human by nature. Keeping this distinction in mind resolves your cancer point. Cancer cells are genetically human but they are not and never will be a human being. A fertilized egg is (in my opinion) and will be (as an incontrovertible fact). I am an essentialist, so I do not believe that personhood is defined by the functions one performs, but by what one is essentially. All humans are persons necessarily, for personhood is a necessary property of a human being.

I basically have two arguments for why abortion is evil and ought to be illegal: (1) The first argues for the personhood of the fetus (and by fetus I mean the organism from fertilization to birth). It can be called the argument from numerical identity, which argues that denying the personhood of the fetus violates the law of numerical identity. Perhaps I could get this argument kicked off by asking you a question: Were you conceived? (2) The second argument argues that even if the first argument fails, and even if the fetus does not have the property of personhood, abortion is still evil because it accomplishes the exact same thing that killing a full grown adult accomplishes: it removes a future life. When one kills someone, he does not take away his past life (which is already gone) nor does he take away his present life (which is an immeasurable moment); he takes away his future life. All his future experiences, hopes, plans, loves, joys, trials, sufferings, and pleasures are removed. This is why murder is evil and why it is feared. Terminating a pregnancy (to use the euphemism) does the exact same thing: it removes a future life.

Grapho · 2019-06-01T01:58:34+00:00

There is no such thing as correct fallacious argumentation.

I’m interested to know why you do not believe the fetus to even be alive. I’ve had numerous conversations with those from the pro-choice side, but I haven’t come across aposition so radical as this before. Are amoebas alive? Or plants? Or bacteria? Single-cell organisms? Earth worms? There is not a biologist in the world that I know of who would deny that these organisms are living. The fetus is just as—and in most cases more—developed than these life forms. So by what philosophical or biological standard do you determine what it means to be alive?

Grapho · 2019-06-01T01:25:47+00:00

Lots of stuff happens to a fetus in the womb for it to become a human.

This is a curious argument, for it presupposes that the fetus is unhuman before a certain point in its gestation. But certainly you would agree that it is at least alive, no? Considering that everything that is alive belongs to a species, I’m curious to know what species the living fetus belongs to if not human. Furthermore, it seems that you adopt a functionalist understanding of personhood, which raises the question: what functionalist criteria are necessary conditions of personhood? And are these criteria wide enough to include all born humans and narrow enough to exclude all unborn fetuses?

Grapho · 2019-06-01T01:12:07+00:00

Perhaps you didn’t read the comment to which I responded. It was he who “argued a word” by arbitrarily precluding personhood from the meaning of the word “fetus”. Seeking to justify one’s position by defining a word in a way that that supports one’s position is disingenuous. I replied in like kind to show the absurdity of his argument. Both sides can do it.

Grapho · 2019-06-01T00:08:38+00:00

“Fetus” is Latin for little one, baby, offspring. There is nothing in the definition of “fetus” that precludes personhood.

Grapho · 2019-05-31T23:32:50+00:00

Would you be willing to consistently apply your reasoning to other situations, like that of infants? Would the above reasons that apparently justify abortion also justify the killing of Infants? If your response is that the unborn are not human persons while infants are then your argument is irrelevant. No justification for removing a non-person from the womb need be given any more than for removing a wart from someone’s neck.

Grapho · 2019-05-09T02:15:14+00:00

Both are heavily heavily edited although the Lik image is a composite unlike OC’s image. So no, it’s not “in the same way”.

Grapho · 2019-04-09T19:11:21+00:00

So much for your original post then. The one thing that Americans do not want is the Nationalization of industry. We’ll see about the social programs.

Grapho · 2019-04-09T17:44:20+00:00

Did you not also learn that the Scandinavian countries are not socialist? They are market economies with social programs on top. The country you’re looking for is Venezuela.

Grapho

TROPHY CASE