Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "The New Culture Forum"
channel.
-
@peterc4082
"I don't think I'm wrong."
And yet you are!
"I think that popularity of a religion has little or nothing to do with its truth value."
The discussion was about whether being convinced by something has anything to do with it being true. We weren't discussing popularity.
"... (some or many of) the teachings of Christianity are so ingrained in European culture that people take them for granted and take them as obvious default positions. I don't think I'm wrong."
No, you're not wrong on that. That is definitely correct (except that I'd refer to Western culture, not European culture).
"2. Some religions have failed."
True.
"Christianity hasn't failed - to fail Christianity we'd need to find the bones of Jesus Christ."
True.
"Christianity unlike all other religions can be proven false empirically."
In principle, i.e. it's falsifiable. But it can't be proven false empirically because it's true.
"2. Christianity even so, has no targets."
You mean targets that it has to meet? I disagree, but if you mean numerically-specified targets, yeah, perhaps. But Christianity does have the target to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." And you could argue that "all" is a numerically-specified target. But I agree that it doesn't have the sorts of targets that you give as examples.
"Anyway I hope you see the OP said something nonsensical."
No, I don't see it, although there's not much information in his comment to go on. I don't really have an opinion on that.
"Happy Easter."
He is risen!
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"No, You are being obtuse on purpose."
False. You're avoiding addressing the evidence. And avoiding admitting that words can have more than meaning, despite me giving you evidence.
"The context which everything we have talked about is pretty obvious."
You think that "religion" doesn't include atheist religions. I'm pointing out that it can, and that atheist religions are one of the biggest problems. Further, when I mentioned atheist religions, you didn't reply by specifying that you were only talking about theistic religions even though I explicitly asked which religion(s) you were talking about. Rather, you simply denied that such a thing could exist, and that words can possibly have more than one meaning.
"Once again, You are the religious version of the person that can't answer "what is a women"?."
I got a notification that you'd made a comment about that, but the comment doesn't exist. But of course, being a Christian, I can answer it. A woman is an adult human female, one of the two sexes in which God created mankind.
"Making everything subjective is not providing anything."
I'm not making everything subjective. You're the one who brought up subjectiveness.
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. That is the definition."
No, that is one of the definitions.
From Merriam-Webster:
1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2a(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2b: the state of a religious [e.g.] a nun in her 20th year of religion
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
"Marxism is a political philosophy, not a religion, it has nothing to do with gods,..."
Actually, being atheistic, it does say something about gods—that they don't exist. Further, as I pointed out The United States Supreme Court has declared atheism to be a religion. You ignored that.
"... more to do with socioeconomics."
Socialism is the economic part. The socio part is to do with morals and ethics, just as religion is. Although some/most religions (including Christianity) are to do with all of life, including economics.
"Conflating the two is absolutely illogical."
You also ignored that Secular Humanism's founding document described it as a secular religion.
"If marxism and atheism are religions, than all ideas are religious. All you are doing is broadening the definition to fit your argument."
On the contrary, what you're doing (even if unconsciously) is narrowing the definition to suit your argument. Atheism and theism both have something to say about God, origins, morals, etc. If you prefer the word, they are categories of worldviews (and everyone does have a worldview). If you want to use 'religion' to refer to just pro-God worldviews and ignore no-God worldviews, you're being arbitrarily selective. I prefer to use 'religion' to refer to worldviews, per definition 3 above: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"Marxism has nothing to do with faith."
Marxism is atheism, and believes that God doesn't exist. Can you empirically prove that God doesn't exist? If not, then that view is held by blind faith.
"Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion."
First, if you're going to quote someone else, it's polite to acknowledge the source.
Second, How does that work? How can a protection of religion protect atheism if atheism is not a religion?
Third, your source is an atheist one, and atheists have have no basis for telling the truth (which does not mean that they don't necessarily tell the truth, just that they have no basis for it), and they sometimes do lie.
"That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion,..."
Despite the spin that the atheists put on it, what the court actually said doesn't match that spin.
From the court: "The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion." Note that they said that "the problem" was that the prison didn't treat atheism as a religion. Which implies that they consider that it is.
Also, "Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
"And that's only on the U.S."
True. Also, it was considered religion for a specific purpose. But that only supports my earlier point that it depends on how you define 'religion'. It can mean different things in different contexts.
I have given you several reasons for saying that there are atheistic religions. I have 1) cited U.S. Supreme court decisions, 2) given you actual examples of atheistic religions (see also below), 3) explained from dictionary definitions why it's legitimate to say that there are atheistic religions, and 4) cited an example of an explicitly-atheist group that declared itself to be a secular religion. You have only now tried to address No. 1. You have also disputed the status of one of the examples of No. 2. But apart from those, you've done nothing but ignore or deny.
And by the way, the U.S. Supreme Court also said (in a different case), "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"The difference in believing in God and believing in natural answers is that the answers science gets are based on repeatable experiments that result in the same outcomes."
Up to a point. But science is not the only source of answers. The scientific method involves observation, measurement, testing, and as you said, repeatability. And that's great for studying how things are. But you can't observe, measure, test, nor repeat unique past events, such as the origin of things. To know what happened in the past, we rely a lot on history, i.e. records made at the time or soon after.
Second, science can only deal with the natural, not the supernatural. So its inability to scientifically study God is no evidence whatsoever against God's existence.
Third, science is predicated on God's existence. It was Christians who founded science, based on their understanding of God, and some of that understanding still underpins science.
"you don't think politics have to do with religion even though it has to do with political philosophies?"
Incorrect. I didn't say that politics has nothing to do with religion. I said that politics isn't religion. And that was a generalisation. For some people, it could be. As can evolution. Atheist evolutionist professor of philosophy Michael Ruse: “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint ... the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
“… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”
"the consequences are a reduction in survivability. Ex: if you kill a tribe member, the less chance your tribe has of surviving."
So? What makes that a bad thing (under your view)? After all, perhaps the tribe is a bad tribe.
"having multiple meanings does literally make something subjective."
Please justify that statement. Yes, multiple meanings can allow for equivocation, but that's not subjectiveness.
"You subjectively picked a definition to fit your flawed argument."
No, that wasn't subjective. And my argument is not flawed.
"Essentially expanding it to fit all word views that have nothing to do with worshipping a deity."
Most people accept that things like Scientology, Confucianism, and Zen Buddhism are religions, even though they have nothing to do with worshipping a deity. Which means that they are using definition 3.
"...what's the difference between modern science and ancient science..."
It depends on how you define science. I used the term 'modern science' in order to exclude things like the discoveries of Ancient Greece, China, etc. Sociologist Rodney Stark puts it this way about those societies: “...progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence, the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam of China, ... do not constitute science...”
"...which one of those gave us more inventions..."
The Christian one.
"ice cream and sports can require ardor and faith as well."
You're citing only part of the definition, omitting the first part: " a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
"That's how the context of that 3rd definition is usually used."
Which definition fits with Secular Humanism being a religion?
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"right, so every thing is religious in your train of thought."
No. Unless you don't actually mean "every thing".
"what is "the Christian one"?"
The science founded by Christians.
"and what are those discoveries that those "ancient sciences" find?"
Gunpowder. The size of the earth. I don't have a complete list.
"Buddhism, Scientology and Confucianism all have supernatural properties attached to them."
Such as? And I notice that you didn't mention Secular Humanism.
"e·quiv·o·ca·tion
noun
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication."
So you can look up a dictionary! Other than revealing that, what's your point? Equivocation is still different to subjectiveness.
"science WAS predicated on god's existence and a lot of it was wrong."
Evidence please (that "a lot of it" was wrong).
"We put Earth in the middle of the universe because of God's existence. That was so wrong."
First, what science did that? (Actually, it was that ancient Greek 'science'. The geocentric view was an ancient Greek idea, not a biblical one.)
Second, there is actually astronomical evidence that Earth is close to the centre of the universe! Well close in the sense that the Milky Way is close to it.
"Using your definition, he's religious. Equivocation though right?"
Wrong. As you said, it's "the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself ". I didn't do that. I made clear which definition I was using, so that it wasn't ambiguous.
"what do you call the absence of god in a system of beliefs?"
Umm, "absence of God"? Or an atheistic or agnostic belief? I don't fully understand your question.
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"athiesm is the absence of god."
It's actually a belief in no God.
"Where is god in athiesm?"
In denial.
"You don't understand, using that definition automatically makes it ambiguous and I gave you a example with sports."
You're overlooking context.
"yes, I do mean everything"
In which case, my "no" answer stands, and I had already given you examples, so you're not arguing in good faith.
"You can make everything religious using your definition and "equivocation"."
I'm not convinced that you understand equivocation. It's to do with using different meanings in the same context. For example, you might be talking to a visitor: "Do you like coffee or tea?" "I prefer tea". "I'm about to make tea, would you like some?", and then you serve them up a meal, because you've eqivocated between the hot drink and the evening meal.
"what is the "science founded by Christians"?"
I thought I'd made this clear, but I can't find it; perhaps it was a different thread.
It's the science we know, founded by Christians around the 16th/17th centuries.
"Secular humanism is...[snipped]"
Yes, I know. That's why I said "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are ... Secular Humanism...", but your response was that "All those religions you listed have to rely on supernatural." But now you're quoting Wikipedia (again without attribution) to support what I said—that it doesn't teach existence in God! And saying that as though you're somehow contradicting me!
"Ancient societies were obsessed with the idea that God must have placed humans at the center of the cosmos (a way of referring to the universe). An astronomer named Eudoxus created the first model of a geocentric universe around 380 B.C. Eudoxus designed his model of the universe as a series of cosmic spheres containing the stars, the sun, and the moon all built around the Earth at its center."
So not science as you implied. You claimed that "science WAS predicated on god's existence and a lot of it was wrong.", and I asked for evidence that a lot of it was wrong. But you've given no evidence.
"The geocentric view was based on god, therefore biblical."
That is one of the worst non sequiturs that I've ever seen! And completely false.
"Concerning the age of the Earth, the Bible's genealogical records combined with the Genesis 1 account of creation are used to estimate an age for the Earth and universe of about 6000 years."
Yes*. So? (*—Not quite. It wasn't an estimate, but a calculation, and it wasn't based on Genesis 1, but the chronogenalogies in later chapters and other time indicators in the Bible).
"Christian Science."
Christian Science is a sect that is neither Christian nor scientific. What's that got to do with this discussion?
1
-
@Jaspergiraffe
"oh, you mean blind faith statements like gods are real?"
First, "god" means supreme being; creator and there can only be one supreme being, so no, there are not "gods" (plural).
Second, no, that God is real is evidence-based faith, not blind faith, like you admitted to in reference to claiming that God doesn't exist. We have evidence for God.
You know, if you're going to argue with a view, it's a good idea to actually understand the view before showing your ignorance.
1
-
@Jaspergiraffe
"I do actually have a very good understanding of my argument."
If that is the case, why did you ask about gods, plural? And why did you misuse the word "faith"?
"Evidence based faith is an oxymoron. If you have evidence you don’t need faith."
No, it's not (as you'd already know if you really do have a very good understanding of your arguments. Clearly you don't).
Biblically, 'faith' is trust in a trustworthy person, and the basis of considering the person trustworthy is the evidence that he is. We have faith in God being correct when He tells us things that we can't check, because the things that we can check turn out to be correct. That is evidence.
It's only an oxymoron when you're using a definition of faith that excludes evidence!
"I admit I cannot prove that people invented ALL gods, any more than we can prove that Santa Clause , Big Foot, Fairies, Leprechauns, ghosts etc, etc, are fictitious."
Admitting that is a start, at least. (And I expect that you known that Santa is based on a real person, and in that sense, is not fictitious, although a lot of modern descriptions of him are.)
Here is a brief overview of the evidence for God (which of course, could be expanded with much more detail):
* The fact that anything exists. Personally, I find the idea that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada, and that as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere, completely nonsensical and without evidence.
* The fact of the 'fine tuning' of the universe, where so many values are extremely precise, such that if they were different by even a tiny fraction, the universe could not exist.
* The information in the genes of living things. Information only comes from an intelligence. The only intelligence before living things must be a supernatural one.
* The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the best-documented event in ancient history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@svilponis
"siamese twins are not always the same sex. There are different methods of creating a siamese twin. Fission and fusion."
False.
Verywell Health: "Because conjoined twins develop from one fertilized egg, they are always identical."
Cleveland Clinic: "Conjoined twins are always identical." and "There are two theories of what causes conjoined twins: Fission: An early embryo, comprising a small sphere of identical cells, splits into two spheres but doesn’t separate completely. The two spheres each develop independently into the conjoined twins. Fusion: An identical twin pregnancy contains separate early twin embryo “spheres” that merge together and join at a random point of connection."
ScienceDirect: "Conjoined twins are the rare identical pairs that are not fully separate from one another."
Wikipedia: "Two possible explanations of the cause of conjoined twins have been proposed. The one that is generally accepted is fission, in which the fertilized egg splits partially. The other explanation, no longer believed to be accurate, is fusion, in which the fertilized egg completely separates, but stem cells (that search for similar cells) find similar stem cells on the other twin and fuse the twins together."
Also, you didn't answer what the third sex is.
"Siamese twins are also a chimera. They are not so rare."
Wikipedia: " Conjoined twins, popularly referred to as Siamese twins ... is a very rare phenomenon,"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonnemo2504
"There is so much, far too much to cover in the couple of minutes I allow myself to type this reply..."
That's okay. I didn't ask for every bit of evidence.
"...essentially, the vastly superior credibility of rigorously tested science over two thousand year old myths."
That's a bald assertion, not evidence, and cites a discipline created on the basis of Christianity (i.e. science) to supposedly disprove Christianity! You'll need to do better than that!
And what's your evidence that they are myths?
"Thunder and lightning are examples of many phenomena we used to attribute to "supernatural gods", i.e. things we could not explain."
I realise that you were not answering me there, but in my case, I asked for evidence in the case of Christianity. Interesting that you didn't provide that answer to me. Is that because you realised that was not the case with Christianity?
"The list of these is becoming shorter and, theoretically, if we survive as a species for long enough, the list may cease to exist, as will religion."
No, it will simply be replaced with an atheistic religion.
"Excellent point, well made."
How is a completely wrong argument an excellent, well-made, point?
So, I'm still waiting for evidence of your claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonnemo2504
"There also seems to be a profound ignorance amongst the religionists that takes no account of the fact that proving a positive should always be possible"
What's your evidence that there is such a profound ignorance?
"(however, on this issue they consistently fail)"
What is your evidence for that? And there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that someone questioning their claim of no God is therefore claiming God exists. gilly5094 claimed that I said that God exists, but I made no such claim.
"Proving a positive, i.e. something that really exists, should always be possible..."
Agreed.
"Proving a negative, however, is not always possible."
Agreed. But there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that even if they claim a negative, they still have the burden of proof regarding that claim.
"...(however, on the issue of the existence of a supreme being, nobody has done this)."
What's your evidence that nobody has?
"Is it reasonable and logical, for example, to believe that there is a magic Grandpa in the sky?"
Probably not. But then we're not talking about a magic Grandpa, but about God.
"For my part, I do not think so."
As far as God is concerned, what is your reason and logic?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1