• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

DrZoidberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Also, never mind that the Code of Ur-Nammu predates Moses getting those golden tablets by 400 - 800 years (even assuming the Christian range for the life of the purported Moses being somewhere between 1,600 - 1,270 BC). This is the oldest surviving code of laws, well pre-dating the Hebrews as a society. The purported Abram was just getting his Yahweh promises then....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
 
funinspace said:
DrZoidberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Also, never mind that the Code of Ur-Nammu predates Moses getting those golden tablets by 400 - 800 years (even assuming the Christian range for the life of the purported Moses being somewhere between 1,600 - 1,270 BC). This is the oldest surviving code of laws, well pre-dating the Hebrews as a society. The purported Abram was just getting his Yahweh promises then....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
Click to expand...

And not only does it pre-date we're pretty sure this is the original source of Judaism. There's a hell of a lot of Babylonian religion in Judaism. Most of the names for one. Both Adam and Eve are out of the Enuma Elish.
 
Lion IRC said:
I agree. And neither do I
Click to expand...
Gonna agree to disagree.

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.
Click to expand...
How about your assumption that biblical text is ultimately factual? You have no way of actually knowing that. None.


LordKiran said:
I know. That's my point. They DONT just assume.
Click to expand...
They base their assumptions on second/third hand information that has never been verified and never can be verified.
Click to expand...

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".
Click to expand...
If you treat the information as generally credible despite having no reason to think that, then yes, it is assuming.

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?
Click to expand...

The correct answer is that "Anything is possible" Which doesn't actually mean much. Further, there is a clear and obvious distinction between something being possible and actually being. Sorry, but you won't catch me making an assumption about the existence or in-existence of a creator deity. I acknowledge the possibility, while also acknowledging that as of now, there is no reason to think such deities actually exist. Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but nor is it reason to make wild assumptions about the existence of a god or gods, or to think that your god is somehow more valid because "I can't prove it doesn't exist." My inability to prove the in-existence of something is not grounds to believe it does in fact exist. I.E. Unicorns.


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.
Click to expand...

*Sigh* .....Okay, I'll bite. What evidence?

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.
Click to expand...

The purpose of our constitution is to ensure that people are free from all forms of oppression, not to ensure the triumph of democracy over all else. So your point comes off as rather hollow.
 
LordKiran said:
How about your assumption that biblical text is ultimately factual? You have no way of actually knowing that. None.
Click to expand...

A theist can claim the bible is factual.... just not when you focus upon one branch of the multiverse.

Each apparent discrepancy is because the bible isn't exactly focused upon one branch of the multiverse... and if it didn't contain hints of a multiverse, it would be false.
 
Kharakov said:
LordKiran said:
How about your assumption that biblical text is ultimately factual? You have no way of actually knowing that. None.
Click to expand...

A theist can claim the bible is factual.... just not when you focus upon one branch of the multiverse.

Each apparent discrepancy is because the bible isn't exactly focused upon one branch of the multiverse... and if it didn't contain hints of a multiverse, it would be false.
Click to expand...

The existence of gods in another theoretical universe is honestly quite irrelevant to theological debate, which is overwhelmingly about the existence of god in the reality we inhabit.
 
LordKiran said:
Kharakov said:
A theist can claim the bible is factual.... just not when you focus upon one branch of the multiverse.

Each apparent discrepancy is because the bible isn't exactly focused upon one branch of the multiverse... and if it didn't contain hints of a multiverse, it would be false.
Click to expand...

The existence of gods in another theoretical universe is honestly quite irrelevant to theological debate, which is overwhelmingly about the existence of god in the reality we inhabit.
Click to expand...

Unless the MWI has been falsified... the existence of a God that created a procedurally generated multiverse so that we could have some form of freedom to pick paths might be relevant to certain biblical inerrantists.

I think they might even quote Isaiah 45:7 at you in order to show you the dark paths that you can select....
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
It is interesting that Thomas Jefferson wrote a long letter in which he demonstrates that the laws of the US derive from sources that had nothing to do with the Bible.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl227.php
Click to expand...

Mm... but they did invoke "natural rights" which in hind-sight is a reworking of Christian metaphysics. Natural rights require an external lawgiver. They of course didn't see it that way. But this was the first European generation for a thousand years to break with Christian thought. So they can be excused for making this blunder. It wasn't until Schopenhauer that the philosophical problem was revealed.
 
Jefferson's letters on the subject strongly suggest that he resented some religious clergies attempt to claim the US was founded on Christian principles, which he found objectionable. Today's Christians are back at it. A few years ago Texas textbooks came up for renewal and the Christian Right tried to ram through books that downplayed Jefferson's role in the creation of the USA. Out with Jefferson, in with Phyllis Schlafly! 200 years after Jefferson and we are still fighting the same old battles over Christian faux history.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
Jefferson's letters on the subject strongly suggest that he resented some religious clergies attempt to claim the US was founded on Christian principles, which he found objectionable. Today's Christians are back at it. A few years ago Texas textbooks came up for renewal and the Christian Right tried to ram through books that downplayed Jefferson's role in the creation of the USA. Out with Jefferson, in with Phyllis Schlafly! 200 years after Jefferson and we are still fighting the same old battles over Christian faux history.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that Yes, Jefferson (gah, it's two ss's. I hate how American habitually butcher this Scandinavian name ending) is against Christianity and the clergy. But what he replaced it with was just more of the same (well, similar). He just couldn't imagine a world without a lawgiver. Which I guess what Deism is about. I'm not holding it against him. I don't think anybody could back then. The American Constitution is very old now. It's got quite a few weaknesses and logical inconsistencies.

Libertarians today make the same conceptual mistake. "Natural rights" assume there's an external lawgiver. Or they couldn't talk as assuredly about what should and shouldn't apply. What they should be doing is argue for it somehow. But they don't. They just take natural rights as a given. Something that needs no arguing for.
 
Jefferson is an English name. The English omitted the extra S long before there was such a thing as America. Most early Americans had English names.
 
Sarpedon said:
Jefferson is an English name. The English omitted the extra S long before there was such a thing as America. Most early Americans had English names.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. English names that end in -son come from viking settlers. These are viking descendants and they kept the name. Jefferson means "son of Jeff". A very typical Viking name ending. Vikings back in the day didn't have last names. You were your first name and then you'd just add your family tree when required. You can also go with "-dottir", which means "daughter of". When record keeping started in England those that identified as ethnic Vikings would write their names like this. English is full of Norse language remnants as well as Norse names. Jefferson is a dead giveaway. We know why this happens. When a name stops being meaningful it will be shortened. It always happens. It's a linguistic rule. Still annoying that I will always misspell Jefferson/Jeffersson. The Norse spelling is automatic to me. "Window" in Norse literally means a hole in the wall that the wind can blow through.

If you look at a map of England it's full of obvious Viking names for stuff. Now meaningless in English. But to anybody who speak a Scandinavian language they will instantly understand what the ending is trying to inform the reader. Lots of small town end in "-by". Means village in Norse. Anything ending in "-holm" means a settlement on an island. And so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Old_Norse_origin
 
I am of course, aware of that. In any case it was the English that did the violence to your name scheme, not Americans.
 
My Swedish grandfather adopted the surname Eriksson in Sweden according to old customs since his father was Erik Andersson. When he took a Norwegian ship to the US, he changed the suffix to -sen as is customary for Norwegians. Then, when he came to the US he Anglicized the root spelling to Erick and accepted the -son at the end. Ellis Island didn't do it to him either because he did not enter the US through legal means. My grandfather was highly adaptable, traveling the world and always finding jobs wherever he went. I guess he did as Romans in Rome. In any case, my American mother merely went by the last name her Swedish father gave her.
 
Cheerful Charlie,
I read that Jefferson letter and it didn't persuade me that English law was apart from the 10 Commandments/bible.
It said the (defeated) Saxons integrated Christianian bible laws into theirs.
To which part of his letter were you referring?
 
Lion IRC said:
Cheerful Charlie,
I read that Jefferson letter and it didn't persuade me that English law was apart from the 10 Commandments/bible.
It said the (defeated) Saxons integrated Christianian bible laws into theirs.
To which part of his letter were you referring?
Click to expand...

You do mean the first three commandments? The last seven are stuff that's universal for humanity. You can find support for those in any culture, secular or otherwise.

Bible said:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Click to expand...

Freedom or religion clearly doesn't follow this one. And if you think that the Bible is fine with allowing people to believe what you want, then you need to read more about the ancient world. Individualism was not even a concept back then. This commandment really means that Christians should use whatever means they can to suppress other religions. Early Christians took this extremely literally. Christians in Rome weren't persecuted for the hell of it. They were persecuted because they were that ages equivalent of terrorists.

Bible said:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Click to expand...

These aren't compatible with free speech or free expression.

So you were saying what?
 
DrZoidberg said:
Freedom or religion clearly doesn't follow this one. And if you think that the Bible is fine with allowing people to believe what you want, then you need to read more about the ancient world. Individualism was not even a concept back then. This commandment really means that Christians should use whatever means they can to suppress other religions. Early Christians took this extremely literally. Christians in Rome weren't persecuted for the hell of it. They were persecuted because they were that ages equivalent of terrorists.
Click to expand...

Early Christians were closer to the teachings of Jesus than any other period in history imo. This means treat your neihbour as you treat yourself literally, terrorism is the opposite in this context. Romans refusing to fight after conversion to Christianity was the main reason for persecution.

Bible said:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Click to expand...

These aren't compatible with free speech or free expression.

So you were saying what?
Click to expand...

I don't know , Presidents have sworn themselves into office whilst including the words like or similar to "so help me God" then running the country. I guess this goes for law and court systems. Not all of course swear on holy books but God does seem compatible from this perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom