Over 300 prooofs of Gods existance...

[sgtmac_46]

What did you study?

Most humantities and social sciences displines claim that not only do they teach this but that they're the best place for learning it. But unless you take math., physics, or philosophy, you may never be truly challenged to defend an argument carefully, depending on your school and dept.

It's a shame. The freshman rhetoric and comp. courses could do this, if only students entered college knowing how to write a proper sentence.

I studied psychology. You'd be surprised the number of people in Psych departments who couldn't reason their way out of a paperbag. Sociology is even worse. That's because dogma has replaced reason in many of these departments. As for math reasoning, there is a huge difference between math logic and logical reasoning ability.

As for freshman rhetoric and comp., students would have to actually WANT to learn how to think first. Most just want rote learning so they can pass the test and get a degree.

 

[sgtmac_46]

...Ow. The logical fallacies make my head hurt. ::wincing:: What's worse, though, is that I've heard a lot of these used in a serious discussion...and they made my head hurt then, too. =P I think that's their real purpose--give me a headache so I can't rebutt.

I took four years of Practical Reasoning and Critical Discourse through grades seven to ten; mandatory course in the private school I went to. My parents loved the idea, hated the practice as I started winning the arguments and they had to fall back on BIFI ("Because It IS").

'Course, then I went on to high school, where I was introduced to such interesting logic as, "well, we should have free food at lunch because it's not fair that we should have to pay to eat. Like, those stupid rich British Properties girls who always dress all skanky are making the rules. I mean, they don't own the place, and why should they be allowed to do that anyways? It's like, not fair." (actual argument I overheard, though paraphrased from memory.)

My God embraces logic, dammit. =P

"Never argue with fools, they'll just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."-Some anonymous wit

 

[heretic888]

...Ow. The logical fallacies make my head hurt. ::wincing:: What's worse, though, is that I've heard a lot of these used in a serious discussion...and they made my head hurt then, too.

I believe that was partially the point of the site in question.

While a lot of these "proofs" are clearly presented in jest (such as the ones from Oprah or Clapton), a much larger number number of them are indeed actual arguments that Christian apologists present in real life --- and, as is becoming more and more common, on internet discussion forums and chatrooms.

I found myself chuckling as I read down the list, remembering various times in real life and on the web that Christian apologist types actually used a number of these arguments on me. Of course, they didn't work then, either. Obviously.

 

[heretic888]

I studied psychology. You'd be surprised the number of people in Psych departments who couldn't reason their way out of a paperbag. Sociology is even worse. That's because dogma has replaced reason in many of these departments.

I am studying psychology now, and I can definitively claim that this has not been my experience. In fact, the professors I typically take classes with repeatedly (its a small university and the psych department is a small department within it) are without doubt among the most competent teachers I have met in my entire life.

For what its worth, I have found psychology to be very helpful in the development of my own logical thinking. Psychology, along with statistics, for example, is the only science I have ever been taught that definitively emphasized the difference between causation and correlation. They also seemed to be much more honest and forthright about research methodology.

Then again, this is perhaps because at least two levels of statistics is required in the psychology program in my school.

As for math reasoning, there is a huge difference between math logic and logical reasoning ability.

Agreed.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I am studying psychology now, and I can definitively claim that this has not been my experience. In fact, the professors I typically take classes with repeatedly (its a small university and the psych department is a small department within it) are without doubt among the most competent teachers I have met in my entire life.

For what its worth, I have found psychology to be very helpful in the development of my own logical thinking. Psychology, along with statistics, for example, is the only science I have ever been taught that definitively emphasized the difference between causation and correlation. They also seemed to be much more honest and forthright about research methodology.

Then again, this is perhaps because at least two levels of statistics is required in the psychology program in my school.



Agreed.

Laterz.

In that you are fortunate. It's been my experience (and this is based only on my experience) that those in the philosophy department tend to be better critical thinkers than those in the psychology department.

 

[Ray]

Y'know, I still find it amusing when people use the King James Version to tell others what the Bible "really says". Its hilarious.

Not that I used the KJV to tell others what the bible "really says" but that I had access to a KJV and was able to read the setting and the rest of the thought of the quote to put it into context.

To quote something in another thread, from someone you adore:

I suggest you fine-tune your skills in logical discourse and actually read what the other guy is saying --- as opposed to distorting things with strawmen arguments.

 

[heretic888]

Nice try, Ray, but some of us can actually read the thread history on our own:

According to the King James version, 29:19-20 is not about human reason, it is about turning away from God and following the imagination of your heart instead of God. Read at least from verse 10, which is the start of a new paragraph.

Gee, sure sounds to me like you're telling Shizen Shigoku what the Bible "really says", "in context".

And, again, I should point out explicitly that which I only implied before: the King James Version is a laughably bad translation of the Bible (both Old and New Testament), and anyone who relies upon in their contextual understanding of the Bible on it is immediately suspect in their arguments and positions.

I suggest you fine-tune your skills in logical discourse and actually read what the other guy is saying --- as opposed to distorting things with strawmen arguments.

Still haven't taken this advice to heart, I see.

 

[Floating Egg]

The community at large is still heavely influenced by Descarte, and it's only within the last fifty years or so that those interested in argumentation have started to re-think their approach. Of course, all they really have to do is look back and return to the classics before everything was divided up.

 

[heretic888]

The community at large is still heavely influenced by Descarte, and it's only within the last fifty years or so that those interested in argumentation have started to re-think their approach. Of course, all they really have to do is look back and return to the classics before everything was divided up.

There is more truth to this than most people realize.

Many of the proofs advanced by Thomas Aquinas, for example, were originally put forward by (among others) Aristotle --- who by no stretch of the imagination was a Christian. Ironically, Aristotle had a very different conception of "God" in mind when he formulated his arguments.

 

[Ray]

Gee, sure sounds to me like you're telling Shizen Shigoku what the Bible "really says", "in context".

Well, what is the context and the meaining? Is it only the two verses quoted or does it encompass more?

And, again, I should point out explicitly that which I only implied before: the King James Version is a laughably bad translation of the Bible (both Old and New Testament), and anyone who relies upon in their contextual understanding of the Bible on it is immediately suspect in their arguments and positions.

Since I don't read Greek, Aramiac, or Hebrew, I have to rely on English translations. But let me know your thoughts: from your original copies of the writings, and your expertise in the original languages, what are some good English translations that I could utilize to capture the true meaning of the Bible?

 

[heretic888]

Well, what is the context and the meaining? Is it only the two verses quoted or does it encompass more?

Sorry, but that request is too vague for me to give a satisfactory reply. I suspect it is somewhat off-topic, as well.

In any event, I'm not the one that is making implications as to what the Bible "really says", "in context" --- going as far as using badly translated 16th-century tomes. Ergo, the burden of proof is by no means on me.

Since I don't read Greek, Aramiac, or Hebrew, I have to rely on English translations. But let me know your thoughts: from your original copies of the writings, and your expertise in the original languages, what are some good English translations that I could utilize to capture the true meaning of the Bible?

Once again, projecting strawmen arguments onto one's detractors, I see. Color me surprised.

It is a logical fallacy to assume one must have direct observation of a subject or phenomena to say anything valid about it. It is also a fallacy to assume that those who have not are all somehow on "equal footing", as far as it goes. It is exactly this sort of thinking that is used as some sort of pathetic rebuttal of evolutionary theory.

To answer your question, I would stick with the New International Version (NIV). While it has some problems in transliterating Greek philosophical concepts into English (Example: What is usually translated as "soul" into English is actually "psyche" in the original Greek and has a similar meaning as the English usage of "psyche".), it is a far preferable choice to the thoroughly discredited King James Version (KJV).

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

Sorry, but that request is too vague for me to give a satisfactory reply. I suspect it is somewhat off-topic, as well.

You're right, you and I took it off the topic of that amusing list.

Ergo, the burden of proof is by no means on me.

Have you and I agreed upon some sort of rules to the conversation? {tongue in cheek}

It is a logical fallacy to assume one must have direct observation of a subject or phenomena to say anything valid about it. It is also a fallacy to assume that those who have not are all somehow on "equal footing", as far as it goes.

Perhaps from a philosophic point of view; but not as a witness in a legal proceeding.{half serious/half tongue in cheek}

To answer your question, I would stick with the New International Version (NIV).

I'll get one next chance I get. Thanks.{serious}

While it has some problems in transliterating Greek philosophical concepts into English (Example: What is usually translated as "soul" into English is actually "psyche" in the original Greek and has a similar meaning as the English usage of "psyche".), it is a far preferable choice to the thoroughly discredited King James Version (KJV).

Does that apply to the verse where God breathed a spirit into Adam and Adam became a "living soul?"{curious}

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

Ray: " According to the King James version, 29:19-20 is not about human reason, it is about turning away from God and following the imagination of your heart instead of God. Read at least from verse 10, which is the start of a new paragraph."


Out of context or not, and regardless of which translation it comes from, Christians are deciding how to live based on such things as 'God will not pardon one who follows his imagination (which is turning away from God), and will burn him with wrath and come down on him with a book-full of curses.'

Bottom line: 'Obey God or else.'

That conclusion assumes god(s)' existence as an unstated premise. How should we examine that assumption? Better not use our imaginations!

Imagination is the source of reason and logic. It allows for abstract thought, creativity, the examination of possibilities, and for noticing patterns.

"and the continuation of that paragraph is "3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy paths." Nothing wrong with looking for more knowledge or wisdom than we have. We even do the same when we ask for other people's opinions when making certain decisions."


What's the point of looking for more knowledge and wisdom if one has trust in a lord and allows him to direct his paths? "lean not on your own understanding . . . in all thy ways acknowledge him."

Again, it's like if I want to know what's in a locked box that I'm carrying, and my lord says "that box contains proof that I am your lord, trust me, don't think, follow me, and don't take those keys out of your pocket."

These lines just show the protection that goes up around 'God' to hide his non-existance. They take away the possibility of questioning and thus the possibility of learning anything. I'm not examining the above biblical passages as some sort of proof for or against gods, but just pointing out examples of how logic and reasoning are actually forced out of the discussion of such proofs.

"...and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" speaks more about our motiviations than it does reasoning and use of logic."

Oh it speaks volumes about Christian motivation.

Again, taken out of context or taken with your additional explainations doesn't change the fact that those that argue for the existance of an unprovable will actively throw away logical reasoning in order to do so.

I don't care what "the bible really says," because it is only people's interpretations of it and their subsequent behavior that has any effect on my life.

sgtmac: "Never argue with fools, they'll just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Good advice; here's some more:

"Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig. Both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it."


p.s. just noticed that my "God exists / ...something something something... / Therefore, God exists." tautology is number 666 on the list.

hee hee

p.p.s. I didn't read all of them. Is Pascal's Wager in there?

I like this counter to PW by Mark Thomas (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm):

"Pascal’s Wager has several faults. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. Like many other such arguments we have discussed, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided."

Here is a Yuletide version of PW -

Either there is a Santa Claus or there isn’t. If you believe in Santa Claus, and Santa Claus exists, then you win big time and get presents. If you don’t believe in Santa Claus, and Santa Claus exists, you lose big time and get a lump of coal in your stocking. If there is no Santa Claus, then you haven’t lost much by believing. So the obvious choice is to believe in Santa Claus, because it’s simply the best bet.

 

[Ray]

Out of context or not, and regardless of which translation it comes from, Christians are deciding how to live based on such things as 'God will not pardon one who follows his imagination (which is turning away from God), and will burn him with wrath and come down on him with a book-full of curses.

Again, taken out of context or taken with your additional explainations doesn't change the fact that those that argue for the existance of an unprovable will actively throw away logical reasoning in order to do so.

I suppose some do both; or one. But I suppose some do neither.

Nevertheless, some of the items on the list of 300 were amusing.

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

Found this useful:

http://www.mzla.com/bible/

"
Tired of confusing verses that don't seem to mean anything?
Bored with the current versions of the Holy Bible?
Wish that Commandment was a little more specific?
Tired of being told that one person's interpretation of The Holy Bible is the only correct one?
Want to poke fun at the most abused and destructive book of all time?
Have a little free time?

If you answered Yes, Oh God Yes! to any of the questions above, this site's for you!

"

 

[heretic888]

You're right, you and I took it off the topic of that amusing list.

Um, sure.

Have you and I agreed upon some sort of rules to the conversation?

"Burden of Proof". Look it up.

You make a claim, its on you to defend it; NOT on the other guy/gal to disprove it.

Perhaps from a philosophic point of view; but not as a witness in a legal proceeding.

This is not a legal proceeding. No one is on trial here.

And, it still remains a logical fallacy that one must directly observe or be involved in a subject to make valid claims about it. I've never been in outer space, but I could still tell you the Earth is round-ish.

Does that apply to the verse where God breathed a spirit into Adam and Adam became a "living soul?"

It depends if you are referring to the original Hebrew used in the Jewish Torah or the Greek used by Christians in the Septugaint (as well as many other Hellenistic Jews from that era).

They come out, um, slightly different (as one scholar put it, the Septugaint "Platonizes the Lord").

I believe the word used in the Hebrew is 'nephesh', but I could be mistaken.

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

This is probably even more useful:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/critical_thinking/unfalsifiable_claims.htm

Enjoy.

 

[Ray]

"Burden of Proof". Look it up.

You make a claim, its on you to defend it; NOT on the other guy/gal to disprove it.

Again, I don't recall agreeing to using your rules. But I'll tell you what: For you to know whether I incorrectly stated that the original quote was in or out of context, then you must examine the evidence. No amount of discussion without looking at the evidence will do. If you truely desire to know if I was incorrect, then you must read the quotes that were given--read them from whichever translation of the Bible you wish--use you critical thinking skills and tell me what you come up with.

This is not a legal proceeding. No one is on trial here.

And, it still remains a logical fallacy that one must directly observe or be involved in a subject to make valid claims about it. I've never been in outer space, but I could still tell you the Earth is round-ish.

Everyone is on trial: people make claims of whatever; If it interests us then we listen to the arguement and examine the evidences and we make a decision of what we'll believe about it.

I'm certain that you have many evidences of the earth's round shape; you may have, as a child, taken the word of others - but now you have ways of independantly investigating that subject. You don't sound like the type to blindly believe what you're told.

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

If you don't agree to the rules of debate, then discussing anything with you is useless.

 

[Ray]

If you don't agree to the rules of debate, then discussing anything with you is useless.

Only if we're having a debate.

I couldn't find anything on this website that says this was strictly "debate" stuff governed by some debate rules. Are you using the National Parliamentary Debate Association's rules or someone elses?

Re: the interpretation of given biblical quotes no amount of debate will resolve it, but an examination of the actual verses in the bible and the paragraphs that they're in should be enough for Heritic888 to see if he agrees with me or not (as I suggested in my last post). I don't know if an examination of the evidence is within the rules of debate you use or not.

But by now, we're way off the topic of the amusing list originally given.