Do you want a headache?

Current Events Religion
1

Lets see how far you can make it into this video before you want to kill yourself..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCvIO3Tombg

I am not one to look down on people for being religious.. I have a lot of respect for people who devoutly believe there is a higher good in the world, and admire people who are sincerely better at least in some ways because of it.

However, this… blew my mind.. he openly misrepresents every single argument, admits to using circular logic! and he openly discourages reason and logic..

I don’t know.. maybe its because my head hurts so much right now that I’m being overly critical.. but, this has caused a headache like no other..

Time to play some Skyrim…

2

6:00 - “An evolutionist can always come up with what we might call a rescuing device. He can come up with a conjecture designed to protect his world view from what appears to be contrary evidence.”

Headache achieved! Thanks, man.

3

I do my absolute best to respect everyones beliefs…

but, that guy really needs to get a grip on objective reality.. I start to wonder if he knows he is wrong at some points..

4

It’s interesting that he literally states that the laws of logic, nature, and morality do not make sense with an evolutionary worldview.

“Evolutionists can say, ‘Wait a minute, I can use the laws of logic.’” Pastors says, “Well i know, but the fact is, if you’re worldview were true, you shouldn’t. You shouldn’t be able to use laws of logic, because those don’t make sense given your worldview.”

:huh: Nice one.

He’s right about one thing, though: “You can’t defend biblical authority if you abandon biblical authority.”

5

It’s interesting that he literally states that the laws of logic, nature, and morality do not make sense with an evolutionary worldview.

“Evolutionists can say, ‘Wait a minute, I can use the laws of logic.’” Pastors says, “Well i know, but the fact is, if you’re worldview were true, you shouldn’t. You shouldn’t be able to use laws of logic, because those don’t make sense given your worldview.”

:huh: Nice one.

He’s right about one thing, though: " You can’t defend biblical authority if you abandon biblical authority."

Actually going from the conversation I’m having right now with a kid on facebook..

You can’t defend biblical authority even with biblical authority. I mean from Genesis forward.. you set yourself up for failure.. I even did the kids a favor and went with the assumption the bible is right.

I just pointed out that Adam and Eve were expected to know right from wrong before they ate from the fruit.. and the kid is going a round in circles defending it.. I drew a comparison to a blind child being punished for using a red crayon.. And he said it doesn’t make sense XD

Even though without knowledge of right and wrong.. they would have been morally blind and not known it was evil to eat from the fruit…

Also to poorly quote Richard Dawkins “If absolute morality involves stoning people for having sex and murdering children for disobeying, I don’t want absolute morality”

6

I do my absolute best to respect everyones beliefs…

Why? There is a huge difference between respecting the right of others to believe whatever nonsense they choose, and actually respecting their beliefs which are often evil.

7

You can’t defend biblical authority even with biblical authority. I mean from Genesis forward.. you set yourself up for failure.. I even did the kids a favor and went with the assumption the bible is right.

I just pointed out that Adam and Eve were expected to know right from wrong before they ate from the fruit.. and the kid is going a round in circles defending it.. I drew a comparison to a blind child being punished for using a red crayon.. And he said it doesn’t make sense XD

Even though without knowledge of right and wrong.. they would have been morally blind and not known it was evil to eat from the fruit…

Biblical authority means that the bible is the word of god. I don’t know if it says that directly, but it does say something like, “god put these words into my mouth and I wrote them.”

I’m not sure what you mean about the Adam and Eve thing. Absolute morality means that we all know that certain things are absolutely right or wrong. Adam was persuaded by Eve who was persuaded by the devil to eat the forbidden fruit. Then they were punished and felt guilty about it. The point of the story is that humans are weak and get tempted to betray god. :frowning:

8

Biblical authority means that the bible is the word of god. I don’t know if it says that directly, but it does say something like, “god put these words into my mouth and I wrote them.”

And, of course, that begs the question… :glare:

I’m not sure what you mean about the Adam and Eve thing. Absolute morality means that we all know that certain things are absolutely right or wrong. Adam was persuaded by Eve who was persuaded by the devil to eat the forbidden fruit. Then they were punished and felt guilty about it. The point of the story is that humans are weak and get tempted to betray god. :frowning:

You’re missing the point: If Adam & Eve had no knowledge of the concepts of “right and wrong” before they ate the fruit, how would they know it was “wrong” to eat it? Kinda like an ex post facto law.

9

You’re missing the point: If Adam & Eve had no knowledge of the concepts of “right and wrong” before they ate the fruit, how would they know it was “wrong” to eat it? Kinda like an ex post facto law.

You could argue that ‘eating from the tree of knowledge’ is right, and to do otherwise is wrong, but god specifically told them they would die if they ate the fruit. To me, that indirectly means that eating from the tree is ‘wrong’ because it will kill you. This also leads us to another question, did Adam & Eve have any knowledge of disobedience and obedience? Well, they both knew the consequences of disobeying the order (death), and they knew that god (their father) told them not to eat from the tree.

Another good question is, did they have any concept of morality at all when they were ‘born’? I’ve mainly heard it argued one way, that Adam & Eve were new on earth and had the morality of children (meaning that they have to be taught right from wrong). This doesn’t go against absolute morality, but suggests that they needed to be taught how to apply their knowledge in certain situations.

10

You could argue that ‘eating from the tree of knowledge’ is right, and to do otherwise is wrong, but god specifically told them they would die if they ate the fruit. To me, that indirectly means that eating from the tree is ‘wrong’ because it will kill you. This also leads us to another question, did Adam & Eve have any knowledge of disobedience and obedience? Well, they both knew the consequences of disobeying the order (death), and they knew that god (their father) told them not to eat from the tree.

Then again, the story is set in a context devoid of ethics (because *ethics* appeared with the knowledge that came with the fruit). Therefore, they knew, at best, a logical sequence of events but would have been completely unable to make any sort of evaluation, a valuable judgement. Otherwise said, everything was amoral before the knowledge from the fruit and anything done or said had equally meaningless value (reminds me of Rand’s Indestructible Robot), so even obedience or disobedience would have had no value to them either way. It was the realm of amorality where nothing, really, meant anything.

11

Then again, the story is set in a context devoid of ethics (because *ethics* appeared with the knowledge that came with the fruit). Therefore, they knew, at best, a logical sequence of events but would have been completely unable to make any sort of evaluation, a valuable judgement. Otherwise said, everything was amoral before the knowledge from the fruit and anything done or said had equally meaningless value (reminds me of Rand’s Indestructible Robot), so even obedience or disobedience would have had no value to them either way. It was the realm of amorality where nothing, really, meant anything.

That is really an interesting way of looking at it. Does amorality imply that everything means nothing? Does amorality mean that a person can’t evaluate a situation and make a valuable judgement? Does it mean that value of any kind can’t exist? I think this is where we differ.

12

That is really an interesting way of looking at it. Does amorality imply that everything means nothing? Does amorality mean that a person can’t evaluate a situation and make a valuable judgement? Does it mean that value of any kind can’t exist? I think this is where we differ.

Amorality means, in this context, that they (Adam & Eve) would have had no frame of reference to determine that eating the fruit, or even dying, was “wrong”. Before the eating of the fruit, “wrong” (or “right”, ftm) didn’t exist.

13

I think the major point I was making, which is they had no frame of reference for what “bad” would be. How were they to know dying wasn’t the best thing since spliced rib woman?

Why? There is a huge difference between respecting the right of others to believe whatever nonsense they choose, and actually respecting their beliefs which are often evil.

Everyone is subject to flawed thinking. I’ve come to realize you don’t really choose what you believe, therefore even if I disagree with it, I should at least respect the fact that they believe it. Otherwise I won’t be able to have a conversation and convince them otherwise. If they refuse to listen to all reason no matter what.. then Its time to move on and let them live in their world.

14

  1. They knew the consequence was death.

  2. “Eve at least understood that death was something to be avoided, for she gave death as the reason why they were not to eat the fruit…” [1]

15

Michele.. that source makes less sense the more I read it.

Children only learn and understand what they are and are not allowed to do by personal experience, and in most cases being punished for doing wrong. It is all about experience, which they would not have had.

16

Everyone is subject to flawed thinking.

People can have flaws and errors in their thinking, but they don’t have too if they are careful by starting with the correct premises and reasoning through them correctly.

I’ve come to realize [people in general] don’t really choose what [they] believe,

This is incorrect and something you might want to research for you’re own benefit. I think you actually know this though, or else your discussions with these people would never be able to change their minds on a given subject. If people actually had no choice in their beliefs. And once again, please note their is a difference between respecting others right to believe anything they choose, and you actually respecting those often incorrect beliefs as such.

17

Michele.. that source makes less sense the more I read it.

That’s why I didn’t use any other quotes from that source. :wink: Either way, the one I used does make sense. They knew that death was something to be avoided, and that their actions would have consequences. You can say “But they didn’t know what ‘wrong’ was!!!” all day but they obviously knew that their actions would have negative consequences..that’s why they didn’t eat from the tree in the first place.

I don’t believe in the Adam and Eve story, so it’s stupid to argue about the details.. But I think it’s important to read the bible and understand what it’s saying before (poorly) attacking it.

18

People can have flaws and errors in their thinking, but they don’t have too if they are careful by starting with the correct premises and reasoning through them correctly.

This is incorrect and something you might want to research for you’re own benefit. I think you actually know this though, or else your discussions with these people would never be able to change their minds on a given subject. If people actually had no choice in their beliefs. And once again, please note their is a difference between respecting others right to believe anything they choose, and you actually respecting those often incorrect beliefs as such.

I can’t give any peer reviewed scientific journals.

I will leave it at this argument. You don’t believe in a flying spaghetti monster. You know matter how much you want to, can’t really believe in such a creature, you can’t choose to believe it because you know it doesn’t exist.

I will concede the point about respecting their right vs respecting their beliefs.

That’s why I didn’t use any other quotes from that source. :wink: Either way, the one I used does make sense. They knew that death was something to be avoided, and that their actions would have consequences. You can say “But they didn’t know what ‘wrong’ was!!!” all day but they obviously knew that their actions would have negative consequences..that’s why they didn’t eat from the tree in the first place.

I don’t believe in the Adam and Eve story, so it’s stupid to argue about the details.. But I think it’s important to read the bible and understand what it’s saying before (poorly) attacking it.

I don’t want pointlessly argue but, I will say this. Being punished for doing wrong and rewarded for doing right is a precondition for everything learning right from wrong, be it children or dogs. If there was no possible way to do wrong before they ate the fruit, then regardless of what Eve said, it would have only been her regurgitating something that she didn’t understand in the first place.

You can leave a tape recorder going in front of a parrot that talks about theoretical physics. If done right the parrot might even be able to repeat information or mention it when it is relevant. That doesn’t mean the parrot understands anything that he is saying at all.

19

Genesis 3:4: “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So for Eve it became a question of God’s word against the serpent’s word. The lessen she eventually learnt was “don’t trust serpents” and “you’d better believe God”, but without any prior knowledge of good and evil and no information or experience about the reliability of the serpent’s word against the word of God, there couldn’t be anything morally wrong in her choice.

20

It’s funny that “the serpent” comes off as much more of an agent for man learning of reason and morality than the “God” in this story.