26 of 26
26
i am a born again, evangelical christian
Posted: 10 May 2009 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 376 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Quote Placlair:

Occam, were you smokin’ somethin’ when you wrote this? We have powerful arguments to make against theism in general and against some of the Ten Commandments in particular. Unless I’m really missing something, this isn’t among them.

Of course, there are strong arguments, however, it’s usually a waste of time to bother with them.  In this case, an earlier poster suggested that the ten commandments may be useful as a basis for law.  I was merely showing that one that’s highly regarded by christians can easily be interpreted to mean the opposite.  Come on, Paul.  As a lawyer, you should recognize that I was playing games. smile

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2009 03:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 377 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  46
Joined  2009-04-17
PLaClair - 10 May 2009 03:54 AM
Herf - 10 May 2009 03:30 AM

But it still seems to me that when debating philosophical issues, the rules of logical argument are what we follow, not the evidenciary rules of American Law.  Otherwise only American attorneys could have these discussions.

Clearly I’m missing something.

I’m only using the law to illustrate the point that a burden of proof is a function of what’s at stake, among other things. If you can totally accept that my point isn’t about law versus philosophy, then this should follow. (By the way, a burden of proof isn’t an evidentiary rule.)

 

I’d say that in this last post you, “said what you mean”.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.  It all makes sense now.

(And yes I knew it wasn’t an evidentiary rule, but I think I made a stream of consciousness typo there…lol)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2009 05:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 378 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Occam - 10 May 2009 02:20 PM

Quote Placlair:

Occam, were you smokin’ somethin’ when you wrote this? We have powerful arguments to make against theism in general and against some of the Ten Commandments in particular. Unless I’m really missing something, this isn’t among them.

Of course, there are strong arguments, however, it’s usually a waste of time to bother with them.  In this case, an earlier poster suggested that the ten commandments may be useful as a basis for law.  I was merely showing that one that’s highly regarded by christians can easily be interpreted to mean the opposite.  Come on, Paul.  As a lawyer, you should recognize that I was playing games. smile

Occam

Occam, I see too many goofy things on this board to assume anything. Anyway, your humor escapes me. I’m up for a good laugh if you’d care to explain it. On the other hand, if you have to explain your joke . . .

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2009 05:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 379 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Herf - 10 May 2009 03:24 PM
PLaClair - 10 May 2009 03:54 AM
Herf - 10 May 2009 03:30 AM

But it still seems to me that when debating philosophical issues, the rules of logical argument are what we follow, not the evidenciary rules of American Law.  Otherwise only American attorneys could have these discussions.

Clearly I’m missing something.

I’m only using the law to illustrate the point that a burden of proof is a function of what’s at stake, among other things. If you can totally accept that my point isn’t about law versus philosophy, then this should follow. (By the way, a burden of proof isn’t an evidentiary rule.)

 

I’d say that in this last post you, “said what you mean”.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.  It all makes sense now.

(And yes I knew it wasn’t an evidentiary rule, but I think I made a stream of consciousness typo there…lol)

Well done.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2009 05:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 380 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Uhhhhhhh (deep exhale).  OK, the eighth commandment appears to mean one should be ethical and not lie about one’s neighbor.  That’s quite reasonable, and one would expect a “good” christian to follow this commandment.  However, the word “against” when considered precisely, bifurcates the behavior.  The commandment only restricts unethical behavior against a neighbor; it does not restrict unethical behavior in your neighbor’s behalf.  As a lawyer, that may seem so obvious to you that it’s not worth mentioning, however, I assure you that it’s been an upsetting revelation to a number of christians to whom I’ve mentioned it.

OK?

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2009 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 381 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Occam - 10 May 2009 05:52 PM

Uhhhhhhh (deep exhale).  OK, the eighth commandment appears to mean one should be ethical and not lie about one’s neighbor.  That’s quite reasonable, and one would expect a “good” christian to follow this commandment.  However, the word “against” when considered precisely, bifurcates the behavior.  The commandment only restricts unethical behavior against a neighbor; it does not restrict unethical behavior in your neighbor’s behalf.  As a lawyer, that may seem so obvious to you that it’s not worth mentioning, however, I assure you that it’s been an upsetting revelation to a number of christians to whom I’ve mentioned it.

OK?

Occam

With the possible exception of Scalia, a good lawyer would consider that interpretation to be niggling and not in the spirit intended by the law. Anyway, he would still be lying against the other neighbor.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2009 11:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 382 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Sorry, I should have said the victim was an atheist who lived in a different city.  And, hey, I love Scalia’s logic; I just hate his premises and conclusions. LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2009 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 383 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03
Jackson - 03 May 2009 07:34 PM

4. Don’t any of the arguments against other religions also apply to evangelical Christianity?

Cordially, 

Jackson

I had forgotten how long this thread was….
Angelo although I mentioned it as #4 it probably is one of the strongest places to start.  You call youself an evangelical Christian.  A starting point for us is to ask what beliefs of other Christian denominations do you not agree with, and why.  This helps focus on the point that “Christianity” is somewhat self-contradictory and you your-self know it.

Do you understand what Mormons believe and why the claim that an angel visiting Joseph Smith with golden tablets is really suspect.

Where do you disagree with Roman Catholics?

To me, seeing how some very smart people believed in Mormonism (which is an obvious fraud) was really good evidence that the claims of other religions should be viewed skeptically.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2009 07:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 384 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03
Adonai888 - 03 May 2009 05:25 AM

.....

So now to my first question : why are you a atheist, and don’t believe, God exists, despite all the unquestional evidence, first of all the universe ? - since it had a beginning, it had also a beginner - God. From nothing, nothing derives

Angelo

Angelo et al., there is an interesting discussion on the blog Why Evolution is True
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/eric-macdonald-on-bad-design-and-theodicy/

A question back to you and Ray is

What kind of world would convince you that there is no God?

Can you imagine something different about the world, such that if it were true you would not believe in God?

In other words, how would this world be any different from what it is now if there were no God?

Profile
 
 
   
26 of 26
26