[Al_U_Card]

helene_t, on Jun 3 2008, 04:53 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jun 3 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

All that is needed is to discard your way of thinking and develop a way of being.

Thanks for the tip but given the choice I prefer marijuana

REALITY is the best high

[mycroft]

Al_U_Card, on Jun 3 2008, 04:59 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 3 2008, 04:53 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jun 3 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

All that is needed is to discard your way of thinking and develop a way of being.

Thanks for the tip but given the choice I prefer marijuana

REALITY is the best high

It's certainly the most hallucinogenic...

[TimG]

TimG, on Jun 1 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 1 2008, 09:53 AM, said:

tim said:

You've criticized Richard for referring to Christian beliefs as myth, but you did not address the quoted question. It seems to me that you are not applying the same objectivity to Christian legend that you are to other religious (or world view) legends.

tim i'll try again... i didn't criticize richard for referring to my beliefs as myths, i simply stated that his presupposition is that they *are* myths... the same goes for what you, he, i believe about zeus or anyone else... the only criticism occurs when the person making the claim denies these presuppositions

I still don't quite understand. It seems to me that Richard has not dismissed the Christian legend out of hand but rather he has some (perhaps considerable) knowledge regarding who wrote the legend, how it was translated and accepted by the Church, and which parts of the story are corroborated by other histories. Based upon this, he has concluded that the story of Jesus is at least part myth. Not unlike the process by which he has concluded that the stories of Zeus and Odin are myth.

Is the complaint that Richard (and others) have a predisposition not to believe in the super-natural? Or, that we have a predisposition not to believe specifically in the Christian super-natural?

As a child I attended church and Sunday school. I was taught that the stories of Jesus as told in the Bible were true. At some point, my presupposition was that of the Christian perspective. I now consider myself an atheist. I came to atheism despite teaching to the contrary.

I do not doubt that you believe in the tenants of Christianity. But, I do not believe there is evidence to support your beliefs; I deny the Christian God. I don't deny your beliefs, I just think you are wrong!

I do not claim to be able to prove there is no God, and I am disposed to think that it may be something that is impossible to prove. But, I have not heard any convincing argument for the existence of God, either. I believe the onus of proof is on those who believe in the existence of God rather than on those who do not believe. Just as I would say that the onus of proof is on those who believe there is (or once was) life on Mars, rather than those who do not believe. I would suppose nothingness until provided with evidence to the contrary.

You are still avoiding the question regarding the virgin birth.

I was gone for nearly 48 hours and thought surely there would be a luke warm response to this when I got back.

[luke warm]

my grandson (who we are raising) has baseball games and/or practice (practice tonight, i leave in 10 minutes), i work and do other things... i'll try to work on getting my priorities straight

[TimG]

luke warm, on Jun 3 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

my grandson (who we are raising) has baseball games and/or practice (practice tonight, i leave in 10 minutes), i work and do other things... i'll try to work on getting my priorities straight

I did not mean to imply that you owed a response. You have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this topic and a lot of time posting in this thread. And, I was looking forward to reading your response to my post. I felt kind of silly checking this thread so quickly upon my return. I meant the post merely as an admission of that interest, not as a demand upon anyone's time.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Jun 2 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Lol, that's the whole point of Roland's post as I read it: the myths convey a moral lesson. They are not to be treated as history.

OK, let's ignore the fake history, do you really advocate following all the moral lessons? Like the parts that advocate slavery, child beating, wife beating and other sexist acts, capital punishment for minor offenses, raping and pillaging in war (not to mention war itself), etc.

The truth is that most Christians pick and choose the moral lessons to follow, they don't obey the Bible "religiously". As Mikeh pointed out, they use their inherent moral sense to interpret the Bible. This morality can't come from the Bible, because obviously the Bible doesn't tell you which parts of it to ignore. When slavery was common, the Bible was used as justification for the practice; when we as a society realized that this was improper behavior, those passages in the Bible were reinterpreted.

If any part of the Bible can be reinterpreted to fit current morality, how can it be said that morality lessons come from the Bible? Are there passages that are not subject to such reinterpretation? Who decides which they are, and on what basis?

[barmar]

PassedOut, on Jun 2 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

The problem comes when people insist that those stories must be literally true. Roland clearly sees the bible with a clear perspective, and I gather that the folks he associates with do also. I wish more of the christians in the US had the same common sense.

The more serious problem comes when people who insist that their religion is true try to make public policy based on it. They use religion as a reason to curb stem cell research, change school science curricula, disenfranchise gays (and women in Muslim societies), prohibit abortion, etc.

If you want to believe this stuff in private, fine. But don't go forcing the consequences of your beliefs on anyone else. That should include your children, but except in the most eggregious cases no society does this.

[Codo]

barmar, on Jun 4 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 2 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Lol, that's the whole point of Roland's post as I read it: the myths convey a moral lesson. They are not to be treated as history.

OK, let's ignore the fake history, do you really advocate following all the moral lessons? Like the parts that advocate slavery, child beating, wife beating and other sexist acts, capital punishment for minor offenses, raping and pillaging in war (not to mention war itself), etc.

The truth is that most Christians pick and choose the moral lessons to follow, they don't obey the Bible "religiously". As Mikeh pointed out, they use their inherent moral sense to interpret the Bible. This morality can't come from the Bible, because obviously the Bible doesn't tell you which parts of it to ignore. When slavery was common, the Bible was used as justification for the practice; when we as a society realized that this was improper behavior, those passages in the Bible were reinterpreted.

If any part of the Bible can be reinterpreted to fit current morality, how can it be said that morality lessons come from the Bible? Are there passages that are not subject to such reinterpretation? Who decides which they are, and on what basis?

1. The Bible was a child of its time. It was written in a time where most people believe that the earth is flat, that the King is Godgiven, they had no idea about democracy, human rights, not even writing etc.

2. The parts with slavery, war etc. are for 95 % in the ancient part (Old testament). In the New Testament there are very few parts about this part of human behavoiur. (I cannot remember one, but guess there will be some)

And this is a wonder. I mean, these textes had been written in a time, where slavery was common, where war, pillaging etc was happening every single day.
So it was a dramatic switch in time. From the old part to the new part, things developed rapidly. It was a totaly new concept and a very nice concept too.
"Love your enemy" "Help the poor" "Don`t care about the rank but about the behaviour". This was revolutionry and quite opposite the spirit of their normal life.
So even if it was not possible for these first christians to switch anything to the standards we have now, it was a great development.

3. If you critisze the book because you take every letter literraly, you are simply wrong. Twothousand years ago, some strage things happened. Around 300 years later people decided which of the documents about these histories are truthfull. The textes are written in different and quite ancient languages. Many words have more then one meaning. Textes had been translated back and forth.
Sorry, but it is surely right to try to interprete the words which had been written there.

4. The moral you take from this book are written in the ten commitments and in the stories about Jesus. Yes there are debatable parts in this book, but just read and understand it and you will see that it does not demand war and crime.

5. That words in the Bible (and even more in the Koran) are used to impress idiots to do silly things like murder etc. is true. But...?

[Codo]

barmar, on Jun 4 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

The more serious problem comes when people who insist that their religion is true try to make public policy based on it. They use religion as a reason to curb stem cell research, change school science curricula, disenfranchise gays (and women in Muslim societies), prohibit abortion, etc.

If you want to believe this stuff in private, fine. But don't go forcing the consequences of your beliefs on anyone else. That should include your children, but except in the most eggregious cases no society does this.

1. Many people insists that there view is the only correct one, this is nothing special and not just a religious thing. After all, you for example claim that you are right with what you write here. Where is the difference to the fundamental believers?

2. Neither you nor me or anybody else can proove where human life begins. If you say: Human live begins just after the semen has entered the egg, then an abortion is a murder. If you define that human live begins in week 16 or 8 or whatever, you define the beginning of live different. But you have no proove that that is the point where life really becomes human.
But if you believe that life begun the first day, then there is a sense to prohibit abortion. And I guess this point is simply a point of believe, not of science. Or does science proof that humans are humans only after the birth and the embryo is different and can be killed? SO what is wrong to be against abortion? It is just another POV. (One I don`t share, but ...)
Same is true about stem cells. Many don`t define them as life. But who says so? You may have another POV and say that you better leave them alone.

3. We believe in the equal rights for anybody. But again, this is just a believe.
I mean, people are different and should be treated different. Where is the borderline? Who takes this borderline?
Is it correct to open the door for your wife, to pay the bill in the restaurant, to be the one who works, while she stays home with the kids? Where is the borderline?
We have our personal POV where this borderline should be, but why is this the correct and only POV?

4. To disenfranchise non- normal people is a sad experience but has nothing to do with religion. It is done in any known society.

5. Sadly, the rights of women aren`t the same as the rights of man. This is right anywhere. But please check it: Where on this planet have the women the most rights? In Northern Europe and in Northern America. Funny, these are the countries with the biggest community of protestants too. Do you see it? It is not in buddist or atheists countries, it is not in muslims or catolic countries, no it is here, here where the protestants had the biggest influence. Here it is, where woman, kids, etc. have the most rights. And this is not because of luck, it is because this church tried to force equal rights as good as they could.

6. I agree that noone should be forced to believe the way I do. Not even my children. But I believe that I should try to convince them (and at most my children) to follow a similar ethic. At least in the basic lines. After all, I believe that my ethics are good, so why not spread them?

7. If you don`t want to believe this stuff, fine. But if you think that "we" should stay in private, you should be the first to follow this rule and stay with you opinion in your privacy. But hopefully you will still share your views with us and allow me to answer.

[Al_U_Card]

Whatever the source, from what is presented, take what you need or can use and leave the rest. Respect the right of others to do the same.

[barmar]

Codo, on Jun 4 2008, 06:05 AM, said:

1. The Bible was a child of its time. It was written in a time where most people believe that the earth is flat, that the King is Godgiven, they had no idea about democracy, human rights, not even writing etc. 

2. The parts with slavery, war etc. are for 95 % in the ancient part (Old testament). In the New Testament there are very few parts about this part of human behavoiur. (I cannot remember one, but guess there will be some)

The Bible is a child of its time? I thought it was the "inerrent word of God."

Quote

3. If you critisze the book because you take every letter literraly, you are simply wrong. Twothousand years ago, some strage things happened. Around 300 years later people decided which of the documents about these histories are truthfull. The textes are written in different and quite ancient languages. Many words have more then one meaning. Textes had been translated back and forth.
Sorry, but it is surely right to try to interprete the words which had been written there.

So how is someone supposed to know which parts of the Bible to follow seriously, versus those that are just a reflection of the time it was written? You have to use moral judgement independent of the words in the Bible, or your reasoning is totally circular.

Quote

4. The moral you take from this book are written in the ten commitments and in the stories about Jesus. Yes there are debatable parts in this book, but just read and understand it and you will see that it does not demand war and crime.

The Bible has dozens of chapters, and those are the only parts that are really important? Is the rest of it all just filler?

Do you really need an organized religion to tell you that it's wrong to lie, steal, and kill? Everything in the 10 Commandments is either common ethics (the last 5-6) or religious claptrap (the first 4-5).

[mikeh]

Quote

1. The Bible was a child of its time. It was written in a time where most people believe that the earth is flat, that the King is Godgiven, they had no idea about democracy, human rights, not even writing etc.

I don't think this is true, at least not in the sense that peoples back then were profundly ignorant compared to more recent thinking.

The Greeks certainly knew that the world was a globe. I can't recall specifically if the Romans did, but they assimilated a lot of greek knowledge, and used greek scholars as tutors for their upper classes.. and their engineering prowess certainly argues for some sophistication.

The notion of democracy, at least in some form, was practiced by Greeks and Romans.

The divine right of kings survived in technologically advanced societies until living memory.. witness Japan until the end of WWII.

Human rights, while a fairly recent invention, is hardly a universally recognized concept even today.

Quote

 
3. If you critisze the book because you take every letter literraly, you are simply wrong. Twothousand years ago, some strage things happened. Around 300 years later people decided which of the documents about these histories are truthfull. The textes are written in different and quite ancient languages. Many words have more then one meaning. Textes had been translated back and forth.

I agree 100% with this. But this begs the question: why take the bible as a 'holy book' at all? Why not take it as an anthology of ancient writings, dating from disparate times and, to some degree, cultures... written by various individuals for various purposes, and later translated, mistranslated, poorly copied, and edited for political reasons having to do with the power structure, and power struggles, of the church elite?

You seem to be arguing for the concept of moral relativism, which I had understood (mistakenly?) was anathema to organized christianity. LW, for example, regards morality as absolute. Historical evidence clearly demonstrates that the sense of what conduct is considered moral by the majority of people in any given society has changed over time, but I gather that the absolutists say that earlier societies, even professedly christian ones, were mistaken. The nice thing about that approach is that it reinforces one's belief that one is finally and utterly 'right': that one's moral code resonates with some ultimate truth founded on the existence of god. I find that notion to be as arrogant as it is nonsensical.

I am with you, in accepting that societal moral values change over time. This is not to say that we do not have an underlying moral sense.... without such an innate sense, we would have no morality at all. But how the moral sense is manifested appears to depend on cultural norms and expectations.

When survival was, for the majority, dependent upon extended family, and life was short and usually brutal, our moral sense would perhaps have not extended to many other humans outside of our 'group'. Strangers are non-human, in the sense that people do not act as if their behaviour towards such strangers is constrained by the morality that governs their behaviours within their grouping, whether that grouping be family, tribe, religious cult etc. Witness the incessant ethnic and quasi-religious brutality that is rife in the world today, and has NEVER been absent in recorded history.

For prosperous 'enlightened' westerners, we can extend our moral sense to include non-humans such as pets and even food animals or baby seals, but our ancestors would have thought such emotions to be ludicrous.

My long-winded point is that if morality is relative, how can any ancient holy book, written in the moral climate of those times, be a valid guide to morality today, or tomorrow? How can it be 'the word of god'? Surely beleif in the word of god must carry with it a sense that god speaks to us without regard to our current cultural values.. that he tells us how we should behave, on an absolute basis?

Put another way: if I were a Christian and I murdered a heretic in the name of the Lord, will I be treated by god, upon my death, the same way as a crusading Knight from one of the crusades? If I burned a witch at the stake, would I be treated by god differently than one of the persecutors of the Salem witches? Are not my beliefs... my moral code.. the same as were shared by my earlier counterparts? If their conduct was sanctioned by god's church why isn't mine?

[Codo]

barmar, on Jun 5 2008, 01:10 AM, said:

The Bible is a child of its time? I thought it was the "inerrent word of God."

Please read on Wikipedia about the "production" of the bible. The textes are surely written by man. And if you read the New Testament, you will see that different writers sometimes describe the same story in a different way. (they had three writers to describe the live of Jesus, sometimes they saw things from a different angle)

You may believe that the writers had been inspired by God and that the guys who choose the parts which should be part of the Bible and refuse the others had done in his spirit too. And you may believe that the monks in the middle age did a great job while translating and copying the textes.

Or you may believe that these textes are a great symbol and include stories about right and wrong.

Your choice, but don't trust anybody who claims that the english translation of the ancient german translation of Luther of latin textes , which had been translated from ancient greek, aramae, kannaish ( or however these languages are named in english) papyrus is the ultimate truth.

Quote

Do you really need an organized religion to tell you that it's wrong to lie, steal, and kill?  Everything in the 10 Commandments is either common ethics (the last 5-6) or religious claptrap (the first 4-5).

I have read this before (around page 3 or so) I don't get it, why anybody says that the commitments 1-5 are "religious claptrap". Maybe you have a different counting ( I know that the 10 commitments are different in different religions). But Nr. 3 (Have a nice weekend) Nr 4: Be a nice kid and Nr 5 (don't kill) are "normal" ethics.

[mike777]

I do not think it is logical to say the Bible represents moral relativism and was written with that intention. I think if any poster wishes to make such a claim they need to present some evidence of that claim. I have my doubts that the main historical religious documents of the Jewish and Muslim Faith represent or advocate a moral relativism.

Of course none of the above means there is not symbolism in the Bible or the historical religious tracts. None of the above does not mean there is a difference between some Church rules, Church rules that may be based on culture and some absolute moral beliefs that may be advocated in these texts. And of course none of the above does not mean that those who try to follow them may fall short.

At least when it comes to the Bible I see little evidence that convinces me that the authors were advocating a moral relativism or a cafeteria approach to morality.

However I do agree that many current readers do take that approach in reading it.

It may be logical if you believe or are convinced that the writers were insane, deluded, power mongers or deceitful liars OK. If you think they were suffering some mass psychosis in writing it OK. In that case the authors lose all credibility in their writings and preaching and what they say can be dismissed.

However if you do believe that there is no such thing as absolute Knowledge, as many prominent Philosophers say(see my previous posts in this thread), then I can see how there would be no absolute morality without absolute Knowledge.

I do accept that if you believe there is no such thing as absolute Knowledge or absolute Truth there can be no absolute morality.

[Codo]

mikeh, on Jun 5 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

The Greeks certainly knew that the world was a globe. ...

The Greeeks had been long dead and so had been their ideas from democracy et al. But you are right, I choose bad examples for my point.

Quote

[ But this begs the question: why take the bible as a 'holy book' at all? Why not take it as an anthology of ancient writings, dating from disparate times and, to some degree, cultures...

This book is special and it is a symbol. We can take some simple wine and bread as a great symbol for the blood and flesh of Jesus. We take the Cross as a great symbol and the same do we do with this book. It is so holy, because we believe that it is holy.

Quote

You seem to be arguing for the concept of moral relativism, which I had understood (mistakenly?) was anathema to organized christianity. LW, for example, regards morality as absolute.

I do believe, I do not know. So Luke is free to believe in different concepts. Maybe he is right in what he does. Maybe you are. I don't know, but a religion who claims to be the only way into heaven sounds wrong for me. (Even if it sounds right for "all" muslims, "all" Jews and "all" Catholics- besides maybe 1.000 other religions and big parts of the protestant church in your country. (Which makes me a member of a small minority)

Quote

I am with you, in accepting that societal moral values change over time. This is not to say that we do not have an underlying moral sense.... without such an innate sense, we would have no morality at all. But how the moral sense is manifested appears to depend on cultural norms and expectations.

Amen brother

Quote

My long-winded point is that if morality is relative, how can any ancient holy book, written in the moral climate of those times, be a valid guide to morality today, or tomorrow? How can it be 'the word of god'? Surely beleif in the word of god must carry with it a sense that god speaks to us without regard to our current cultural values.. that he tells us how we should behave, on an absolute basis?

In the New Testament they describe a brand new concept, which still would work here if we would try to follow it: YOu can come into heaven even if you have failed, there is grace. You should treat others like yourself, if someone hurts you, don't fight back etc... These things are still true today. So we can take a lot out of this book.

Quote

Put another way: if I were a Christian and I murdered a heretic in the name of the Lord, will I be treated by god, upon my death, the same way as a crusading Knight from one of the crusades? If I burned a witch at the stake, would I be treated by god differently than one of the persecutors of the Salem witches? Are not my beliefs... my moral code.. the same as were shared by my earlier counterparts? If their conduct was sanctioned by god's church why isn't mine?

The moral code is clear: It is forbidden to kill heretics or witches. This did not hinder the churches to kill millions of them. But it is still not right. If you take Jesus word for word, you are not even allow to kill someone in selfdefence.
One of the most famous parts of the bible is the "Sermon of the mount" with this "love your enemies" part.

[mike777]

AGain if you think there is no such thing as a living involved God that pretty much ends this discussion.

Let's keep in mind that in the founding story of three major faiths God told Abraham to go and kill his son with his own knife. And Abraham followed what God told him to do. This is the founding story. That there is something more important than your life and your son's life.

Keep in mind that this in fact is what humanism advocates and preaches. Humans decide what living genes live or die. Humans decide the moral code, not something else.


However it would be wrong very wrong to say that the three main faiths that grew out of Abraham think that GOD has decreed you cannot kill living genes. It is pretty clear that GOD killed not only living genes, animals, etc but advocated it.
There is no such moral code that advocated you do not kill.

Now as for killing humans, keep in mind even God killed off 99.9% of the human race and all the baby puppies. There is at least the suggestion he will Kill more at the end of time.

And please as in other threads I said I am against the death penalty and murder so please no posts with that in them, ty.

[barmar]

Please read on Wikipedia about the "production" of the bible. The textes are surely written by man. And if you read the New Testament, you will see that different writers sometimes describe the same story in a different way. (they had three writers to describe the live of Jesus, sometimes they saw things from a different angle)
[/quote]
Quite true. This is what many atheists use as evidence AGAINST religion. How can you follow the Bible if the different gospels don't even agree on many things? And it's not just Christianity that has this problem, there are inconsistencies in the Koran as well.

But I don't believe that fundamentalists share your liberal view of the Bible.

Quote

Quote

Do you really need an organized religion to tell you that it's wrong to lie, steal, and kill?  Everything in the 10 Commandments is either common ethics (the last 5-6) or religious claptrap (the first 4-5).

I have read this before (around page 3 or so) I don't get it, why anybody says that the commitments 1-5 are "religious claptrap". Maybe you have a different counting ( I know that the 10 commitments are different in different religions). But Nr. 3 (Have a nice weekend) Nr 4: Be a nice kid and Nr 5 (don't kill) are "normal" ethics.

As has also been mentioned earlier, the commandment numbers vary in different versions of the Bible, and I don't really know the order. The religious ones I refer to are "make no graven image", "don't take the Lord's name in vain", "have no God before me", "keep the sabbath holy" (if you really interpret that as "have a nice day", you don't take your religion very seriously, so why are you debating so hard?).

Basically, there are some commandments that are about actions among people, and others that are about actions between people and God. The latter are "religious claptrap", the former are ethics that all societies consider normal, and no one requires a holy book to tell them to follow those rules.

I'm not saying that there aren't any good lessons to be learned from the Bible, like "turn the other cheek" or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." But what is it about this that requires you to believe in a supernatural being that you have to pray to, and a Hell that you'll be damned to if you don't?

You've mentioned that people weren't as enlightened when Christianity was being organized and the Bible was written. People in *those* societies may have needed all this structure, because they couldn't understand the world without it. But we've come a long way since then. Science has filled in all the large gaps in our understanding of nature, there's no need to resort to supernatural causes to explain how the Earth, Sun, animals, and man came to be.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I don't know, but a religion who claims to be the only way into heaven sounds wrong for me.

I am with you on this point - however, the predominant Calvinist viewpoint is just the opposite. I would think Catholicism would think in a similar fashion, but am ignorant of their beliefs.

This is the great unstated that faithful Christians no longer address out loud - instead, they say things like "all you have to do is believe" or "all you have to do is accept the gift". What they no longer talk about is what happens if you don't believe or do not accept the gift.

Hellfire. Damnation. Eternal Torment.

But don't worry about that, kid....all ya gotta do is take this pill and none of that will happen....

The simple fact is that in these belief systems those who do not conform are condemned. Salvation is a private club and you better know and use the secret knock to get in.

Once you have a private club, you have a control mechanism - conform or burn.
And that leads to a sense of prestige and superiority over the non-club members.

The basic psychological driver for this type of religious belief is ego gratification - the need to feel superior, which the knowledge of and use of the secret knock grants.

Religion is not morality - religion is psychology.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jun 2 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

Quote

i have to go to work but let me ask this first.. i'll try to find time to answer you more specifically.. in your opinion, does the content of a true belief enter the causal chain leading to behavior, or does it not?

I have no opinion on this as I have never considered it - but now I will try.

It would make sense to me that the content of a true belief could enter in a causal chain leading to behavior.

Now, let me re-ask my question - why is it that someone like me, with no formal training at all, can understand the problems with Plantinga's arguments, while someone like yourself, presenting yourself as studied in logic, seem to have difficulty grasping the flaws as presented in the critique?

i don't know how far i'll get in addressing some of the posts over the last few days, but i'll try... this is the first (that i saw), so i'll start here... ok winston, that's why i asked what i did (and thanks for your answer)... if you recall, richard's main criticism (if i understood him) was based on that found in the link he posted - the R value in plantinga's argument..

his argument consists of 3 main terms, N (naturalism), E (evolution), and R... plantinga defined R (paraphrasing) as the reliability of our cognitive faculties

he states that beliefs can only affect you and me (in an evolutionary sense) to the extent they affect our behavior... now your answer above seems to indicate that a true belief does affect our behavior, but plantina then asks "what about untrue beliefs?"... what he's asking in effect is, if beliefs (true or untrue) can affect our behavior, can no beliefs at all do so? and if beliefs do affect behavior in a naturalist worldview, are they neurally hard-wired (ie., a product of evolution)? what percentage of our beliefs would have to be true, given your thought above, for man to have adapted enough to survive?

in spite of the link provided by richard, most philosophers who object to plantina's argument do so on the grounds that all it proves is that neither theism nor naturalism would matter, both are equally apt to lead to error... this, to me, is a far more valid criticism (but that's just me)... that's because it lowers the threshold for true beliefs to lead to adaptive behavior and, it is said, does away with one of plantinga's major strengths - the idea of 'defeaters' for the reliability of our faculties

now there's a whole other set of objections from those who hold an opposite view to yours - that beliefs per se are a casual chain towards behavior... plantinga has answered all criticisms, and much better than i could ever hope to... if it really interests you, read some of those and then just believe what you want

TimG, on Jun 3 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 3 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

my grandson (who we are raising) has baseball games and/or practice (practice tonight, i leave in 10 minutes), i work and do other things... i'll try to work on getting my priorities straight

I did not mean to imply that you owed a response. You have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this topic and a lot of time posting in this thread. And, I was looking forward to reading your response to my post. I felt kind of silly checking this thread so quickly upon my return. I meant the post merely as an admission of that interest, not as a demand upon anyone's time.

i didn't mean to imply that i took it as a demand, you have good questions, thoughtfully stated with no personal attacks (which is the way it should be, imo)

Quote

Is the complaint that Richard (and others) have a predisposition not to believe in the super-natural?  Or, that we have a predisposition not to believe specifically in the Christian super-natural?

not so much a compliant (although of the choices you give i would say christianity gets the most criticism - and i understand why) but simply a statement seeking agreement that we all have presuppositions

Quote

I do not doubt that you believe in the tenants of Christianity.  But, I do not believe there is evidence to support your beliefs; I deny the Christian God.  I don't deny your beliefs, I just think you are wrong!

i know you do, i wish you didn't but believe me when i say i know why you do... but we won't get into that

Quote

I have not heard any convincing argument for the existence of God, either.  I believe the onus of proof is on those who believe in the existence of God rather than on those who do not believe.

most arguments for God's existence (the christian God) that i use are, as richard asked and i affirmed earlier, based on the fact that the explanations posed by other worldviews for the existence of things lead to irrationality... iow, the proof of the christian God boils down to the impossibility of the contrary... now i do know the arguments against that view, i've debated people who use all sorts of arguments... when debates are refereed by those qualified to do so, the results might not be what you suspect (this is apart from whether or not the "audience" is persuaded of the rightness of either position, by the way)

the late greg bahnsen had many very famous debates, you can probably find a few either in print or on youtube, you be the judge... i could never hope to hold my own against some of those against whom he debated... as for your last sentence in the above quote, let me just say that it isn't only the side taking the affirmative that must prove a thing... for example, if you and i were debating "does a belief in the existence of abstract entities presuppose the christian God?" you would be expected to hold up your end of the struggle (and no, i'm not offering nor challenging - i doubt i'd have enough time to do a debate justice)

Quote

You are still avoiding the question regarding the virgin birth.

i'm sorry, i couldn't find the question... if you asked whether or not i believe it, the answer is yes... if you asked whether or not i can prove it, the answer is no... if you're asking whether or not i take it on faith, the answer is yes

one more thing to note, i don't presume to speak for all christians or to hold beliefs in common with all (or even a majority) of them... i believe what i believe, they believe what they believe, and that's pretty much where it stands... it might not seem so, but i do respect your views and even more your right to them... if anything i've written implies otherwise, point it out and i'll retract it

[TimG]

luke warm, on Jun 4 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

i'm sorry, i couldn't find the question... if you asked whether or not i believe it, the answer is yes... if you asked whether or not i can prove it, the answer is no... if you're asking whether or not i take it on faith, the answer is yes

My questions were:

TimG said:

luke warm said:

what he, and i suppose you and ken, are lending credence to is the "... virtually NO..." part of his sentence... there is every bit as much, if not more than, historical evidence regarding the new testament as there is regarding other things we accept as true about the ancient world... for him to say what he did is to admit to arbitrarily accepting some more than others, with nothing but presupposition as the reason... now i know we all have those presuppositions, but the intellectually honest amongst us at least acknowledge that

Where is the non-Bible historical evidence that Jesus was born to a virgin mother or walked the earth after his death?

What other ancient-world, super-natural events do we accept as true?

I don't think that most atheists are biased against Christianity (any more than other religions), it's just that in our society the theist position is most often taken up by the Christian. I don't think there is any intellectual dishonesty associated with lumping the virgin birth in with stories of Odin or Zeus or any number of other stories that Christians would call myths. It's just that because the theist position is most often taken up by a Christian, Christianity comes under fire more often than other religions. At least in our society, perhaps there are those in Islamic or Hindu societies who are having similar discussion and think their religion is taking the brunt of the criticism. (Yes, I realize this forum has no religious boundaries, but I think the generalization is appropriate.)