(November 19, 2010 at 5:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:One has to wonder why we see so many Christian theologians trying to intepret a Jewish book (Genesis) without ever calling upon the authors (Jews) to get them to explain it.

Frankly, I love it when xtians try to tell jews how to be jews. I think the word "chutzpah" was invented just for them!

We'd only been doing it for 3000 years before that shmuck Jesus arrived...

(November 19, 2010 at 8:15 am)orogenicman Wrote: One has to wonder why we see so many Christian theologians trying to interpret a Jewish book (Genesis) without ever calling upon the authors (Jews) to get them to explain it.

Evidence, please: list for me a few of the "so many Christian theologians" who do this.

orogenicman Wrote:Arcanus, wouldn't it be simpler to ... [snip rest]

I am interested in what is true, not in what is simpler. I'm not afraid of sorting through arguments with informed reason to get at the truth, including scientarded arguments. Moreover, Occam's razor is a heuristic principle, not a criterion for truth, which together with logic renders scientism an incoherent pile of twaddle.

orogenicman Wrote:Judeo-Chistians cling to [God as creator] despite all reason and evidence to the contrary.

If reason and evidence disproved God as creator (i.e., delusion), I would not have left atheism.

orogenicman Wrote:How can you honestly say that this rational behavior?

Delusions aren't rational. But it's one thing to claim that X is a delusion and quite another thing to prove it. "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

orogenicman Wrote:Why are religious people so reasonable and thoughtful about such ordinary things in life ... and yet cannot be bothered to take the time to question what they've been led to believe about their own faith?

I don't know. I have nothing in common with such people, so I cannot answer that. Incidentally, why did you specify religious people? Is it somehow okay for secular people to not bother questioning what they've been led to believe? Or do you suppose maybe it's not just religious people who are guilty?

(November 20, 2010 at 4:05 am)Arcanus Wrote: If reason and evidence disproved God as creator (i.e., delusion), I would not have left atheism.

Can reason and evidence disprove the existance of invisible pink unicorns? Why don't you believe in them?

Quote:Delusions aren't rational. But it's one thing to claim that X is a delusion and quite another thing to prove it.

If I believed (sincerely) in the existance of invisible pink unicorns you could rightfully call me delusional. Can you prove these unicorns are a delusion?

Isn't asking to prove the delusions of the delusional are not true a bit like asking to prove a negative?

Prove there is no God.
Prove there is no Invisible pink unicorns.
Prove there is no Invisible dragon in my garage.

To sincerely believe any of them exist, and you have a personal relationship with any, are all claims of equal validity.

(November 20, 2010 at 8:18 am)Dotard Wrote: Can reason and evidence disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns?

Only if IPUs are defined in a way subject to reason and evidence.

Dotard Wrote:Why don't you believe in them?

For three principal reasons: nothing requires their existence (predication), other than IPUs themselves; no evidence or compelling reason to believe they exist has ever been presented to me; they are characterized in a manner that defies intelligibility.

Dotard Wrote:If I believed (sincerely) in the existence of IPUs, you could rightfully call me delusional. Can you prove these unicorns are a delusion?

As you told me I could rightly call you delusional, so you must also tell me how I could prove they are a delusion. On the other hand, if I am left to speak for myself, I would say that I have no idea whether or not they are a delusion because I have no idea what your IPU-belief consists of.

Dotard Wrote:Isn't asking to prove that the delusions of the delusional are not true a bit like asking to prove a negative?

Essentially a delusion is a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. Thus, unless you can demonstrate that some belief is false using strong contradictory evidence, you should not classify it as a delusion—otherwise you put yourself in the position of trying to prove a negative.

(November 20, 2010 at 9:56 am)Arcanus Wrote: nothing requires their existence (predication), other than IPUs themselves; no evidence or compelling reason to believe they exist has ever been presented to me; they are characterized in a manner that defies intelligibility.

Replace IPUs with god and you have my stance on god/gods.

You seem to believe that you have either evidence or a complelling reason to believe in god, you have probably spelled out these out somewhere, could you please point it out as I am interested in your reason to believe.

(November 20, 2010 at 4:05 am)Arcanus Wrote: Evidence, please: list for me a few of the "so many Christian theologians" who do this.

I believe he was referring to anyone who tries to make sense out of the OT as a framework for their own beliefs. So you could in this include basically any Christian who has actually studied the OT and tried to make sense from it such as priests, lay members, the Pope, etc.

(November 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(November 19, 2010 at 5:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:One has to wonder why we see so many Christian theologians trying to intepret a Jewish book (Genesis) without ever calling upon the authors (Jews) to get them to explain it.

Frankly, I love it when xtians try to tell jews how to be jews. I think the word "chutzpah" was invented just for them!

We'd only been doing it for 3000 years before that shmuck Jesus arrived...

Technically, you did "re-invent" yourself after the Romans took out your temple. For (maybe) 500 years prior to that the priests had concocted a little scam where everyone had to kiss their asses in the temple. Once there was no more temple for them to run their little money-making scheme they had to think of something else.

They did. And they continued to call it Judaism even though it bore little resemblance to what it replaced. I think in marketing they call that "the ole bait-and-switch!"

(November 20, 2010 at 2:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: They did. And they continued to call it Judaism even though it bore little resemblance to what it replaced. I think in marketing they call that "the ole bait-and-switch!"

Hence the reasons Mr Black says that what we're best at is bullshit.

Mr. Black is the best! The heir to George Carlin.

"...but....I have thoughts..."