Science is our friend - says Lion IRC (is not, is too, is not, is too,)

[Keith&Co.]

Learner, do you understand the difference between attributing things to god and god-of-the-gaps arguments?

What I was highlighting was that some religious people can't explain outside the belief. The scripture is the explanation.

That's not what i asked, but thanks for playing.

 

[Learner]

You are correct , I should have indicated my idea of creation. Sorry about that people.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...they loudly proclaim this assumption to people around them as if their claims/assumptions are factua and even frame the laws of the land around them, or try to.

You mean people actually try to pass laws which shape the society they want to live in?
Man. Democracy sucks.

Theocracy sucks.

 

[Lion IRC]

I tend not to make assumptions based on nothing but personal belief. To do so is the literal definition of irrationality.

I agree. And neither do I

What assumptions?

Is this a joke?

No. If you think my understanding of God consists entirely of assumptions just answer the question and show me where I have assumed God's existence without reason.

I know. That's my point. They DONT just assume.

They base their assumptions on second/third hand information that has never been verified and never can be verified.

If you have prior information then you aren't "assuming".
We can argue about the credibility of that information (if you like) but the people who think that information is plausible can rightfully deny the accusation that they are merely "assuming".

Remember - I agree with you that belief/assumption without justification is irrational. If you asked me why I thought something and all I could say in response was "I just believe" or "I can't tell you why" or "Its a matter of trust" then that would be tantamount to assuming something.

In other words: Belief. This of course leads us right back to square one. Basing an assumption on belief and nothing else is the literal definition of irrationality.

Agreed.

Do you believe there is no such thing as a soul? Is that belief warranted?
Do you assume God isn't real? Is that your default presupposition unless and until shown otherwise?

If the only thing theists ever said was "we assume" stuff, atheists would have nothing to contend with. Instead, atheists spend most of their time;
1. asking for the evidence
2. rejecting said evidence
3. declaring that there is zero evidence
4. asking for evidence again

Notice that when they reject your evidence, they don't do so because they're irrational, but rather because your evidence isn't actually evidence just because you say it is.

The retort here would be that they ARE irrational because they reject the evidence and that they have a reason for doing so - their own presupposition that God isn't real therefore the evidence must be false.

You mean people actually try to pass laws which shape the society they want to live in?
Man. Democracy sucks.

Isn't forcing people through law to follow a religious doctrine completely unconstitutional?

Only if the people democratically decide to have a constitution which establishes such.
But most Magna Carta jurisdictions have laws in place which derive from Judeo-Christian Decalogue principles. And nobody objects to them on the grounds of religious freedom.

If a democratic constituency wants to ban abortion based on the voter's overwhelming religious belief that human life is sacred, there's nothing stopping them from electing congressional Reps who will carry out the will of the people. And an atheist who doesn't think life is sacred can't claim that such a law violates the separation of church and state.

 

[bilby]

<snip>

You mean people actually try to pass laws which shape the society they want to live in?
Man. Democracy sucks.

Isn't forcing people through law to follow a religious doctrine completely unconstitutional?

Only if the people democratically decide to have a constitution which establishes such.
But most Magna Carta jurisdictions have laws in place which derive from Judeo-Christian Decalogue principles. And nobody objects to them on the grounds of religious freedom.

If a democratic constituency wants to ban abortion based on the voter's overwhelming religious belief that human life is sacred, there's nothing stopping them from electing congressional Reps who will carry out the will of the people. And an atheist who doesn't think life is sacred can't claim that such a law violates the separation of church and state.

Most Magna Carta jurisdictions do no such thing - As I already pointed out to you in excruciating detail two months ago.

Because a world suddenly (miraculously) full of atheists would be wondering who made those laws?

Why? Modern western law is overwhelmingly NOT based on Christian or Jewish law.

As I posted in a thread about a year ago, regarding the claim that the Ten Commandments were the basis of US Law, and should therefore be displayed on the grounds of the Oklahoma Capitol:

The Wikipedia page on Western Law does not contain a single use of the words 'Commandment' or 'Commandments'; nor of the word 'Ten'.

It does say:

and:

Roman law became the foundation on which all legal concepts and systems were based.

The article on Roman Law likewise does not contain a single use of the words 'Commandment' or 'Commandments'; the word 'Ten' appears twice:

In 451 BC, according to the traditional story (as Livy tells it), ten Roman citizens were chosen to record the laws (decemviri legibus scribundis). While they were performing this task, they were given supreme political power (imperium), whereas the power of the magistrates was restricted. In 450 BC, the decemviri produced the laws on ten tablets (tabulae), but these laws were regarded as unsatisfactory by the plebeians. A second decemvirate is said to have added two further tablets in 449 BC. The new Law of the Twelve Tables was approved by the people's assembly.

No support for the Ten Commandments fanbois there.

Still, Canon Law sounds more promising; It is "the body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority (Church leadership), for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members", according to Wikipedia.

If Western Law is based on both Roman and Canon law, then the Ten Commandments surely get a look-in on the Canon Law side of things, right?

Wrong.

Still no mention of Commandment or Commandments in the Wikipedia article on Canon Law; but the word 'Ten' does appear:

The Book of Concord is the historic doctrinal statement of the Lutheran Church, consisting of ten credal documents recognized as authoritative in Lutheranism since the 16th century. However, the Book of Concord is a confessional document (stating orthodox belief) rather than a book of ecclesiastical rules or discipline, like canon law.

But wait! There is still hope. According to Wikipedia:

The Catholic Church has what is claimed to be the oldest continuously functioning internal legal system in Western Europe, much later than Roman law but predating the evolution of modern European civil law traditions. What began with rules ("canons") adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in the first century has developed into a highly complex legal system encapsulating not just norms of the New Testament, but some elements of the Hebrew (Old Testament), Roman, Visigothic, Saxon, and Celtic legal traditions.

Obviously, the Hebrew Law will turn out to be based on the Ten Commandments, right?

Right?

Halakha (/hɑːˈlɔːxə/; Hebrew: הֲלָכָה, Sephardic: [halaˈχa]; also transliterated as halacha or halachah) or halocho (Ashkenazic: [haˈloχo]) is the collective body of Jewish religious laws derived from the Written and Oral Torah. It includes the 613 mitzvot ("commandments"), subsequent talmudic and rabbinic law and the customs and traditions compiled in the Shulchan Aruch (literally "Set Table", but more commonly known as the "Code of Jewish Law").

Wait, 613?? Six Hundred and Thirteen??? Shit. The Oklahoma Capitol is going to need a bigger monument. A MUCH bigger monument.

Still, those 613 must include the ten they have on the current monument, right?

The Talmud notes that the Hebrew numerical value (gematria) of the word "Torah" is 611, and combining Moses's 611 commandments with the first two of the Ten Commandments which were the only ones heard directly from God, adds up to 613.

Shit. Two out of ten commandments, which contributed to Hebrew Law, which was a minor contributor to Canon Law, which was itself a minor contributor to Western Law. Worse, the Talmudic tradition has these 'First two' as:

1. I am the Lord thy God
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me

But number 1 there is not recognised as a separate commandment in Protestant traditions; who have the first Commandment as:

I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

On the basis of this quick analysis, the only one of the so-called 'Ten Commandments' that could have had any influence on Western Law at all was: "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me". A phrase that is clearly and unequivocally overruled by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore explicitly does not form the basis for US law.

But then, since when have facts had any place in this debate?

The answer to "Who made those laws" is "In the case of the longest lived and most basic laws,originally the Romans, and then a load of kings and their parliaments modified them; More modern law usually has the identity of the original lawmaker(s) included in it - for example, the 1275 Statute of Westminster was drafted by Robert Burnell, and passed into law by King Edward I". Almost all of modern western law is NOT based on religion.

And clearly few atheists and even fewer theists are sufficiently curious about who made the laws we currently observe to ask the question; so why becoming atheists would pique their interest in this hypothetical, I do not know.

You, for example, seem not to care - as you have not bothered to make even the most cursory check to see whether your guess - that law derives from Judeo-Christian sources - is in fact correct.

You seem to have a very short memory when it comes to being proven to be talking total bollocks.

 

[Lion IRC]

@LordKiran
You will find that the Decalogue predates Roman law by a few thousand years.

 

[Lion IRC]

Sunday laws are really interesting.
I'm pretty sure we didn't get them from the Romans.

 

[Lion IRC]

Denmark had Sunday laws for shop trading hours until as late as 2012
But they still pay people extra for working on Sunday's and holidays (holy days)

 

[bilby]

@LordKiran
You will find that the Decalogue predates Roman law by a few thousand years.

You will find that Roman Law (and NOT the Decalogue) is the foundation for law in most Magna Carta jurisdictions, contrary to your claim.

You will also find that persistent adherence to a soundly refuted argument makes people think of you as dishonest.

 

[bilby]

Sunday laws are really interesting.
I'm pretty sure we didn't get them from the Romans.

No - they originate in Canon Law, which (as set out above) does not derive from the Decalogue.

And of course their existence does not imply a religious origin for the hundreds of thousands of other laws in Magna Carta jurisdictions.

Perhaps you should keep a fire extinguisher handy, in case you need it for your pants.

 

[bilby]

Denmark had Sunday laws for shop trading hours until as late as 2012
But they still pay people extra for working on Sunday's and holidays (holy days)

Sun worship still leaves its obsolete mark on Danish law then.

Hail Sol Invictus!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sunday laws are really interesting.
I'm pretty sure we didn't get them from the Romans.

Sunday laws are stupid.

Also,

Sabbath (/ˈsæbəθ/) is a day set aside for rest and worship. According to Exodus 20:8 the Sabbath is commanded by God to be kept as a holy day of rest, as God rested from creation. It is observed differently among the Abrahamic religions and informs a similar occasion in several other practices. Although many viewpoints and definitions have arisen over the millennia, most originate in the same textual tradition of: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy".

In Judaism, Sabbath is the seventh day of the Hebrew calendar week, which in English is known as Saturday.[1]

...
...

At first, Christians continued to worship alongside Jewish believers, which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity.

The Roman emperor Constantine the Great enacted the first civil law regarding Sunday observance in 321 AD. The law did not mention the Sabbath by name, but referred only to a day of rest on “the venerable day of the sun.”

On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrate and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however, persons engaged in agricultural work may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain growing or for vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.[6]​

 

[Lion IRC]

Very interesting that so many countries - including notionally muslim countries - have laws and civil regulations which derive from one of the 10 Commandments to observe a day of rest in recognition of something which the God of Abraham and Isaac did.

So much for "Roman law".

 

[bigfield]

Sunday laws are really interesting.
I'm pretty sure we didn't get them from the Romans.

Blue laws are a relatively recent addition to Western law, only introduced in many jurisdictions in the 20th century.

Which makes your argument, as usual, an argument from ignorance.

 

[bilby]

Very interesting that so many countries - including notionally muslim countries - have laws and civil regulations which derive from one of the 10 Commandments to observe a day of rest in recognition of something which the God of Abraham and Isaac did.

So much for "Roman law".

You are right that this 'one day off per seven day week' idea is popular - and that it doesn't originate with the Romans.

The Sumerians had this long before the Jews (or Romans) did. And the Jews pinched it from Sumer - along with a whole bunch of other stories, including the flood myth, which frankly we should have expected might come from Mesopotamia.

A seven day week is an obvious artefact of a lunar calendar. And the connection between Sun and Moon - and their differing but related calendars - was of vital importance to humanity long before the Abrahamic faiths were ever thought up.

But let's not let the facts get in the way of your favourite fairy tale. Tell us again how the day of the Sun is all about Jesus.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So to sum up, Lion RC is wrong about everything and everybody else is right.

Lion RC - 0
Everybody else - 1

 

[DrZoidberg]

Actual Data:
https://commons.trincoll.edu/worldviewsofscientists/report/

No doubt Lion will cherry-pick what he takes from it

Oh you bet I am gonna pick it to pieces.
66% of the respondents self-identified as Hindu!
Most of them have no qualms over introduction of Ayurvedic medicine as a subject in universities.
Nearly half of them 49% believe in the power of prayers.
This summary of that same report affirms that religion and faith are "deeply ingrained" among Indian scientists.
50% think homeopathy works.
58% think ("strongly approve") Vedic astrology should be taught in universities!
93% think "secularism" means tolerance of various religions.
54% either approve, strongly approve or "aren't sure" about space scientists getting an official religious blessing from lord Venkateswara for their scientific endeavours. Presumably lord Venkateswara is the god of science or space travel.

...but the facts are overwhelming - scientists are much less religious than the general population.

Scientists ARE the general population. There are scientists everywhere.
What you are doing is dividing scientists into 'no true scotsman' categories and making an artificial boundary where, for example, food hygiene laboratory scientists or mechanical engineers aren't the same as non-commercial, scientist boffins working in academia.

...India is a weird choice too - the 'religious' there are Hindu, not Christian.

I didn't say the majority of scientists are Christian.
Hinduism is a religion. Islam is a religion.
And your very helpful report about the religiousity of scientists in India bears out my claim.

Millions of Hindus. Millions of Muslims. Millions of Christians. And the percentage of them who are scientists will numerically outnumber the percentage (number) of atheists who are scientists.
This surely cannot be a surprise to you.

The problem with this kind of comparison is that Hinduism is a completely different type of religion than Abrahamic religions. For one, it's not a faith. The fact that somebody is a Hindu tells you nothing about what they believe. A Hindu could be an atheist. Here's a fun statistic. 10% of Indians identify as both Muslim and Hindu. No, it doesn't make sense within Islamic theology. But within Hinduism is works fine. In Hinduism nothing is mutually exclusive. NOTHING!

So scientists being Hindu tells you absolutely nothing.

The religious identity survey that USA uses is better. Since that ignores what labels people use and only focus on what type of religion they follow and what God concept they adhere to. That's an informative survey. The above is worthless.

 

[funinspace]

Our understanding is the bible is a book of prophesies and the guide to a good way of living is by the examples of Jesus.

It seems that “we” atheists aren’t the only ones with mice in their pockets… I think many an evangelical Christian would take issue with your description/understanding of the Christian Bible(s).

What issue would they/we have with Learner's description?

Many evangelicals would have issue with such a simple statement, as being “our understanding of the bible”, where Jesus is a guide to a good way of living by his example. That would set off alarm bells for many, worried that some people would not be keeping the ever important death/resurrection front and center of the whole salvation monologue; and the human belief in that. FWIW, I’m not suggesting that was Learner’s intent.

Roman's 5:10, among others, would sum it up pretty well: "For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"

 

[funinspace]

Very interesting that so many countries - including notionally muslim countries - have laws and civil regulations which derive from one of the 10 Commandments to observe a day of rest in recognition of something which the God of Abraham and Isaac did.

So much for "Roman law".

That's kind of odd, I'm pretty sure that the Tanakh's 10 Commandments said something more like "the Sabbath" not "a Sabbath"... And since Islam is built off of Judaism and some Christian components, it really isn't all that surprising that they also have a day of rest.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Very interesting that so many countries - including notionally muslim countries - have laws and civil regulations which derive from one of the 10 Commandments to observe a day of rest in recognition of something which the God of Abraham and Isaac did.

So much for "Roman law".

Ehe...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8

But joking aside Roman law derives from Greek law which predates Jewish law. Roman writing makes it pretty clear where their law derives from. And the Greeks likewise are pretty clear where their laws come from. Which was ethics, ie philosophy. They were based on reason alone. And since Palestine was a Greek province, it's more likely that influence went the other way. But who knows?

Also, the ten commandments clearly comes from human biology and basic human psychological make-up. Apart from the first three they're innate. These are all things nobody needs to be taught. I think the last seven are only there to sell in the first three.