Theists cannot debate objectivly........

Originally posted by jusmeig
I would argue that atheists and agnostics are the only members of sciforums that can take a step back and look at religion as a whole....rather than letting their faith effect their judgement. I invite you to prove me wrong.........

Jus
Click to expand...

1. Atheists Vs Theists - Both are parties to the dispute - of the existence of God.

2. One party cannot be the judge for the other party's argument.

Hence Atheists' judgement on Religious disputes cannot be acceptable to the Theists.

"Deers cannot judge the tastes of Lions and Tigers"
 
Firstly Jan,

I have had a similar arguement with you before in a post. You have called me a fool and someone who is ingnorant, I seem to recall that our last debate met with a similar end. For a man who is not religious, I do not openly abuse people in my posts. If my point of view or posts do not agree with yours, that does not give you cause to attack me. You break my posts down into 1 lines and half sentences. By doinf this you can almost make me say whayever you want. Read the entire post as a whole and respond in a similar fashion, as you would in a debate.

The fact you get so abusive and worked up over my posts shows that you are very insecure in your faith and belief, otherwise you would dismiss me as a "bisbeliever" and not see the reason in my point anyway. This is my point. Take this situation

A Christain and a Islamic are arguing about the treatment of women in Islam. There are 3 observers of the row. 1 christian and 1 islamic, and an Atheist. HERE IS MY POINT:

The Christian will say it is backward Islamic law and religion.

The Islamic will state that western/christian communities have the same problems and a higher rate of abuse of women.

The Atheist will say that both instances show that men abuse women, not religion. Is it written in either religion, abuse thy women. No it is not. These are problems of society. They would occur regardless of religion. This is the objective opinion I am getting at. The followers of a religion tend to find that their god will support any act THEY want to commit. Had this Atheist have been a member of either religion he would be forced either onto the defensive or once again engage in petty bickering.......CAN ANYONE SEE MY POINT? (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT THROW UP LINES AND LINE OF BIBLE/KORAN TEXTS.....PLEASE)
 
Originally posted by jusmeig
I have had a similar arguement with you before in a post. You have called me a fool and someone who is ingnorant, I seem to recall that our last debate met with a similar end.

I did not call you a fool in our last encounter or this one;

Quote;

"If I have an argument about my favourite color of car my opinion and actions will be affected by my inherent like of the color blue."

That is you, but you cannot say everybody is like that without coming across as a fool.

If you judge everybodys actions from the way you act, especially in regards to personal choices, then you would undoubtedly be foolish, but i did not call you a fool.
Ignorant is a different matter, and by your own admission you are ignorant of the oness of religion, but you choose to discuss it as if you know what it is.

You break my posts down into 1 lines and half sentences. By doinf this you can almost make me say whayever you want. Read the entire post as a whole and respond in a similar fashion, as you would in a debate.

The reason i break down your posts is because it needs to be broken down. You make all kinds of accusations such as theists cannot be objective, that they only have blind faith, plus other things, and you talk as though it is a foregone conclusion paying no regard to the people to whom you are making this propaganda.

The fact you get so abusive and worked up over my posts shows that you are very insecure in your faith and belief, otherwise you would dismiss me as a "bisbeliever" and not see the reason in my point anyway. This is my point. Take this situation

As far as i know i do not get worked up over your posts, i am simply responding to them in a manner that suits your ignorant claims.
What do you know about my faith and belief that you can judge whether i am insecure, this is a prime example of your devicive and ignorant prattle.
Why don't you want to talk about the religion itself which incorporates scritptoral reference?
If i was debating with someone about the theory of evolution and said don't point me to any links or books regarding the subject, just talk from your own experience, how long do you think that debate would last.

The Christian will say it is backward Islamic law and religion.
The Islamic will state that western/christian communities have the same problems and a higher rate of abuse of women.

This is not religion, it an argument between two people who happen to be religous, if a similar argument took place between an office worker and a factory worker, what label would you give it?

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena

If i was debating with someone about the theory of evolution and said don't point me to any links or books regarding the subject, just talk from your own experience, how long do you think that debate would last.
Click to expand...

With me a few weeks.
 
Jan,

If I am ignorant then expalin this. Every believer of the Christian faith is reading a version of the bible composed by Saint Paul + friends. It is well known that the truth was badly twisted. Here are some facts:

There is almost no reference to the Romans in the New Testament. Despite the fact they played a key role in biblical events, and were the ruling power. One might say that the new bible was written so it could be easily integrated into roman society...as it did not attack it at all as it should have.

Jesus was not born in Bethlem, he was almost certainly born in Nazerath.

There was no Roman cencus around the time Jesus was born, hence the reason for his families trip from Bethlem. (Roman records clearly show this.)

THEREFORE THE BOOK THAT CHRISTIANITY IS BASED UPON IS FULL OF LIES. But as they say Jan, ignorance is bliss. How dare you call me ignorant. I am the one using these post to better understand religion and keep asking questions. I would be ignorant if I dismissed somebody elses views as idle speculation.

And YES there is such a thing as religious bias. If your religion says something is wrong...and I do it right in front of you, despite the fact it may be perfectly allowed by law....it will effect your opinion of me. If I have no religious belief system then this problem does not arise. This is my point....can you see it???

Jus
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jan Ardena

The Christian will say it is backward Islamic law and religion.
The Islamic will state that western/christian communities have the same problems and a higher rate of abuse of women.

This is not religion, it an argument between two people who happen to be religous, if a similar argument took place between an office worker and a factory worker, what label would you give it?
Click to expand...
I would label it as:
'a conversation between a muslim office worker and a christian factory worker'

because the conversation wouldn't exist otherwise.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
I would label it as:
'a conversation between a muslim office worker and a christian factory worker'

because the conversation wouldn't exist otherwise.
Click to expand...

So an argument about the treatment of women in islam, cannot be had by an office and factory worker?

Why is this?

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
( Luk 2:2; R.V., "enrolment"), "when Cyrenius was governor of Syria," is simply a census of the people, or an enrolment of them with a view to their taxation. The decree for the enrolment was the occasion of Joseph and Mary's going up to Bethlehem. It has been argued by some that Cyrenius ( q.v.) was governor of Cilicia and Syria both at the time of our Lord's birth and some years afterwards. This decree for the taxing referred to the whole Roman world, and not to Judea alone. ( See CENSUS T0000751.)
His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. Recent historical investigation has proved that Quirinius was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the time of our Lord's birth. Cilicia, which he ruled, being a province of Syria. He is called the governor, which he was de jure, of Syria. Some ten years afterwards he was appointed governor of Syria for the second time. During his tenure of office, at the time of our Lord's birth (Luke 2:2), a "taxing" (Revised Version, "enrolment;" i.e., a registration) of the people was "first made;" i.e., was made for the first time under his government.
 
Originally posted by jayterrier
Recent historical investigation has proved that Quirinius was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the time of our Lord's birth.
Click to expand...
Then you should have no trouble citing that proof. One can only hope that you're not referring to Vardaman's idiotic claims. :D
 
Originally posted by jusmeig
Jan,

There is almost no reference to the Romans in the New Testament. Despite the fact they played a key role in biblical events, and were the ruling power. One might say that the new bible was written so it could be easily integrated into roman society...as it did not attack it at all as it should have.
Jus
Click to expand...

have you read the new testament??? I've only read 5 books of it and I know there are lots or references to the romans! Just read Acts (esp. 15-20ish) there are lots of references to the romans telling the Jews to deal with their own problems or throwing Paul in jail............also, they weren't always in Rome
 
The Romans always had problems with grace. If you read the book of Romans, you will see that the whole book talks about grace over and over again. Because of lack of grace, the catholic religion condemns people that sins (be it a Christian or not). For this reason, Catholiscism and Christianism are two completly different religions, since the very core of Christianism is grace, forgiveness of our sins.
 
Fluidity::

When addressing the idea that theism cannot be objective:
The proposition of an argument suggests an objection to a decided opinion between two parties. This makes any argument subjective to the views of the opposing parties involved. You state a simple fact: "Theists cannot argue objectively." The same holds true: "People cannot argue objectively." (Thus including atheists! added by me for clarity of context)
Click to expand...

I think Fluidity floored the whole discussion with this remark. Unfortunately, he did not reply to this remark:


I understand your point. But the ability to argue a point can be objective, hence the reason the word was written into the dicionary?. If there was no solution to every argument then I would imagine we would be still hunting wild animals on the plains. Arguement can also be described as debate....would you apply the same criteria for debate
Click to expand...

So I will...

"The ability to argue a point can be done objectively"

To that remark I ask: Can anything that is perceived not be interpreted? Of course not. Everything that is experienced is done so within a subjective self. One might attempt to seperate his childish resonning and try to 'be objective'... but as of today, nobody has ever come up with definete criterias of what it is to be objective. How do I know this?
What is good behavior and what is bad behavior? Should a man marry one or multiple partners for maximum reproduction in our modern society? Should Isreal leave the Palestinians alone?

The constant in all these questions is that they never can be examined in-themselves and seperated from the world. In other words, all explanations to these questions will be done by incorporating other factors from the state of the world.
ex.: In order to judge if hitting a child is good or bad, I would have to examine the social context, the circumstances etc... I cannot examine the event seperated from the world. If I do, I might be wrong:
ex.:
-Never hit a child.
-Child pulls a gun on me and says he's going to shoot me.

Subjectivity to the self or to the world is everything.

In addition, Heidegger explains that things can never be perceived as seperate things, they are all part of a 'horizon' or context. For example, a hammer for a construction worker is a tool, for a man running from a anciant Roman soldier its a weapon.

--
"hence the reason the word was written into the dicionary"
--

Last time I checked, the dictionnary didn't constitute the proof of existence in it. I could use the the same reasonning for the word GOD: 'hence the word was written in the dictionnary... he exist?'

--
"If there was no solution to every argument then I would imagine we would be still hunting wild animals on the plains."
--

Again, a false method. (Even badly formulated... how can a solution be applicable to an argument? Do arguments need 'solutioning'?) But I understand it still.

It is implying that to all problem, we can objectively find an answer. To show the contradiction, all we have to do is look at society and realize all of the unanswerable questions around us:
-Do I exist? (Epistemologically speaking)
-Why do I exist?
-Why something rather than nothing? (Ontology)
-What is happiness?
-What is love?
-What is truth?

Hence, I know that we can't answer everything, yet I'm not hunting beavers in the wild am I?
Finally, it is a personal judgement to think that ignorance necessarily brings man to live as a savage beast.


-
Argueing can also be seen as debate
-

Yes they are synonyms... but this does not strenghten in any way what you are trying to put forth.

Peace:cool:

Prisme
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So an argument about the treatment of women in islam, cannot be had by an office and factory worker?

Why is this?

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...

because you said that this was the argument:
The Christian will say it is backward Islamic law and religion.
The Islamic will state that western/christian communities have the same problems and a higher rate of abuse of women..

then the conversation will go like this:
factory worker : those religious nuts are all idiots, they should blow up iraq. did you see that game yesterday on tv?
office worker: yeah great game. Don't eat the lasagna. It sucks today.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
because you said that this was the argument:
The Christian will say it is backward Islamic law and religion.
The Islamic will state that western/christian communities have the same problems and a higher rate of abuse of women..

then the conversation will go like this:
factory worker : those religious nuts are all idiots, they should blow up iraq. did you see that game yesterday on tv?
office worker: yeah great game. Don't eat the lasagna. It sucks today.
Click to expand...

Of course they would. :rolleyes:

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
they would what?
Click to expand...

The millions even billions of office and factory workers would all question the treatment of women in islam in that way. :rolleyes: :p

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
The millions even billions of office and factory workers would all question the treatment of women in islam in that way. :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...

that conversation will probably go like this:


factory worker : did you hear about how they treat women in muslim countries. They should blow up iraq and afganistan. Did you see that game yesterday on tv?
office worker: yeah great game. Don't eat the lasagna. It sucks today.
 
If somebody [subscribes to some ideology], they agree with the teachings of that [ideology]. This is not in dispute?

As a result of their faith their views and opinions tend to clash with other [ideologies to which they do not subscribe]. This is not in dispute?

Obviously if somebody [subscribes to some ideology], they cannot possibly hope to argue objectivly with [someone who subscribes to some other ideology]?
Click to expand...

Therefore, no one can ever debate objectively. :m:
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jayterrier
Recent historical investigation has proved that Quirinius was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the time of our Lord's birth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you should have no trouble citing that proof. One can only hope that you're not referring to Vardaman's idiotic claims.


__________________
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Herod = "heroic"
1) the name of a royal family that flourished among the Jews in the
times of Christ and the Apostles. Herod the Great was the son of Antipater of Idumaea. Appointed king of Judaea B.C. 40 by the Roman Senate at the suggestion of Antony and with the consent of Octavian, he at length overcame the great opposition which the country made to him and took possession of the kingdom B.C. 37; and after the battle of Actium, he was confirmed by Octavian, whose favour he ever enjoyed. He was brave and skilled in war, learned and sagacious; but also extremely suspicious and cruel. Hence he destroyed the entire royal family of Hasmonaeans, put to death many of the Jews that opposed his government, and proceeded to kill even his dearly beloved wife Mariamne of the Hasmonaean line and his two sons she had borne him. By these acts of bloodshed, and especially by his love and imitation of Roman customs and institutions and by the burdensome taxes imposed upon his subjects, he so alienated the Jews that he was unable to regain their favour by his splendid restoration of the temple and other acts of munificence. He died in the 70th year of his age, the 37th year of his reign, the 4th before the Dionysian era. In his closing years John the Baptist and Christ were born; Matthew narrates that he commanded all the male children under two years old in Bethlehem to be slain.
After the deposition of the eldest son of Herod, Archelaus (who had succeeded his father as ethnarch), Judea was placed under the rule of a Roman procurator. Pilate, who was the fifth, succeeding Valerius Gratus in A.D. 26, had greater authority than most procurators under the empire, for in addition to the ordinary duty of financial administration, he had supreme power judicially. His unusually long period of office (A.D. 26-36) covers the whole of the active ministry both of St. John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ. As procurator Pilate was necessarily of equestrian rank, but beyond that we know little of his family or origin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top