Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Let's start with a definition of dogma. The definition is mine, it's what I mean when I use the word. Having published the definition anyone of average intelligence should understand what I am saying when I use it. To paraphrase the mathematician Charles Dodgson "When I use a word it means what I want it to mean, neither more nor less. It's a question of who is the master: me or the word."

dogma - a set of beliefs held by members of a hierarchy, originating with those at the top of the hierarchy and passed down to those members of lesser rank who are expected to accept them without question on pain of expulsion from the hierarchy or other punishments, possibly even death.

There is no atheist hierarchy, ergo, there is no atheist dogma. Mr. Rosenberg certainly is not at the top of this non-existent hierarchy, ergo, I do not "need to begin" with Mr. Rosenberg or any other person, including Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett, Dillahunty, the late Mr. Hitchens, et al.

Wow! Appropriate, the poster who complains constantly about going down rabbit holes, literally goes down the rabbit hole.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Labels, labels, labels. Scientism is nothing more than a pejorative invented by science deniers. There is no such thing as scientism.

More accurately...by identifiers of science fiction that is trying to pawned off as real science by scientism's high priests.

My trusty M-W dictionary has as one definition of "scientism" an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation...

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Socrates said "the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." When he said that he did not mean that the beginning of wisdom is to grab a dictionary, nor did he mean that you should limit yourself to defining words that you yourself have coined. Rather, Socrates realized that many words have multiple meanings, e.g., the word light can mean a source of illumination or it can mean something that does not weigh much. The function of language is communication. To that end Dodgson was right on the mark. Words are our tools, not our masters. To define a word precisely, to have it mean exactly what you wish it to mean, no more, no less, is to enhance communication. Of course one could choose some verbalization not in common usage and define it as having the meaning you need. For instance one could use the verbalization "tanj" instead of "dogma" but this is not common practice, and the reason it is not common practice is that the more common term has a usefulness derived from the fact that most people will have at least a hint of what the word means and will accept and understand an author's more precise definition. Thus, "dogma" gives the author and the reader a common ground whereas "tanj" means nothing (except to some readers of science fiction).

If both sides in a discourse are honest they will accept an author's definition of a term, and they will also accept a request to define a term. To do otherwise is a form of equivocation. An author is unlikely to define every word he uses, particularly in an informal discourse not intended for a wide audience. For a reader to demand a definition from a dictionary is a kind of Gish gallop. The exact definition an author has in mind is unlikely to be in a dictionary. Or the reader may choose a definition and impose it upon the author, metaphorically drawing a chalk outline of a dead body on the floor and demanding that the author lie down in it.

Speaking of equivocation, boxcar committed a blatant form of it early in the Religion I thread when he asked me whether pain was a good thing. I replied that the function of pain is to signal to the brain that the body is being damaged and in that sense it is good. boxcar then replied that inflicting pain upon a person must be a good thing. That is equivocation since boxcar equated (equivocated) signaling damage with inflicting damage. Anyone with an iota of intelligence knows the difference.

boxcar has accused me of being an equivocator. I have given an example of boxcar's equivocations. I challenge him to produce an example of mine. I don't think he can. If he cannot then he has committed the fallacy of tu quoque, i.e., you too. Having been caught in an offense his defense is to accuse his accuser of the same thing. Obviously, the burden of proof is his.

Back to my definitions, the definition of "dogma" (not "dogmatic") in M-W is very close to mine. Since the two are not exactly the same I think it imperative that I state that the definition is mine.

Labels, labels, labels. Scientism is nothing more than a pejorative invented by science deniers. There is no such thing as scientism.

Complete and total b.s. I am not going to waste my time addressing all you b.s., just a few highlights.

FYI about pain and suffering, have you heard of the Stoics, people like Julius Caesar?

Humpty Dumpty's statements are not confirmation of Socrates thoughts, besides Socrates, by your standard Socrates did not exist.

However, you are like Humpty Dumpty, after your last few posts your credibility, in this thread, has taken a great fall and all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put your credibility together again.

As dnlgfnk said,"The more you have shed light upon your "Lone Ranger" atheism, the less you have become "dangerous", except to perhaps a "Lone Ranger" Christian, the antithesis of the representative Christian of history."

Have fun playing in the sandbox with boxcar.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What dates were the epistles published? What date were the gospels published? The answer is there.

They were all written within Christ's generation, i.e. before 70 A.D.

But where is all the extra-biblical evidence that Christ never left the tomb? Heck...for starters, wouldn't Josephus have written about that?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Socrates said "the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms." When he said that he did not mean that the beginning of wisdom is to grab a dictionary, nor did he mean that you should limit yourself to defining words that you yourself have coined. Rather, Socrates realized that many words have multiple meanings, e.g., the word light can mean a source of illumination or it can mean something that does not weigh much. The function of language is communication. To that end Dodgson was right on the mark. Words are our tools, not our masters. To define a word precisely, to have it mean exactly what you wish it to mean, no more, no less, is to enhance communication. Of course one could choose some verbalization not in common usage and define it as having the meaning you need. For instance one could use the verbalization "tanj" instead of "dogma" but this is not common practice, and the reason it is not common practice is that the more common term has a usefulness derived from the fact that most people will have at least a hint of what the word means and will accept and understand an author's more precise definition. Thus, "dogma" gives the author and the reader a common ground whereas "tanj" means nothing (except to some readers of science fiction).

If both sides in a discourse are honest they will accept an author's definition of a term, and they will also accept a request to define a term. To do otherwise is a form of equivocation. An author is unlikely to define every word he uses, particularly in an informal discourse not intended for a wide audience. For a reader to demand a definition from a dictionary is a kind of Gish gallop. The exact definition an author has in mind is unlikely to be in a dictionary. Or the reader may choose a definition and impose it upon the author, metaphorically drawing a chalk outline of a dead body on the floor and demanding that the author lie down in it.

Speaking of equivocation, boxcar committed a blatant form of it early in the Religion I thread when he asked me whether pain was a good thing. I replied that the function of pain is to signal to the brain that the body is being damaged and in that sense it is good. boxcar then replied that inflicting pain upon a person must be a good thing. That is equivocation since boxcar equated (equivocated) signaling damage with inflicting damage. Anyone with an iota of intelligence knows the difference.

boxcar has accused me of being an equivocator. I have given an example of boxcar's equivocations. I challenge him to produce an example of mine. I don't think he can. If he cannot then he has committed the fallacy of tu quoque, i.e., you too. Having been caught in an offense his defense is to accuse his accuser of the same thing. Obviously, the burden of proof is his.

Back to my definitions, the definition of "dogma" (not "dogmatic") in M-W is very close to mine. Since the two are not exactly the same I think it imperative that I state that the definition is mine.

Labels, labels, labels. Scientism is nothing more than a pejorative invented by science deniers. There is no such thing as scientism.

And I did not equivocate on pain. In the context of the entire discussion, I asked about pain and whether or not to suffer pain or no pain would be better. The person suffering severe or chronic pain doesn't think that his pain is good because it's sending a signal to his brain! The vast majority of normal people would prefer to not experience pain, and this makes pain undesirable. It makes being pain-free a GOOD thing!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

They were all written within Christ's generation, i.e. before 70 A.D.

What is your evidence?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What is your evidence?

Not very likely that Peter, Paul, John, James and others lived beyond that.

Yeah, yeah...I know your standard lame retort...None of these dudes existed. The entire NT was written anonymously by various Greeks or other Gentiles.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Not very likely that Peter, Paul, John, James and others lived beyond that.

Not that it matters but I thought Christians believed that John died about 100 C.E. If he was a young man, say about 20, at the time of the crucifixion that would make him about 90 when he died. Most scholars date the Gospel of John to around 100 C.E. so that would be consistent. Just saying.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And where Jesus was buried was no secret! Virtually anyone in the Palestine area knew or could have easily found out because he was buried very close to the site where he was crucified.

How do you know that? I mean if we temporarily set aside "scripture proves nothing" and assume the gospel accounts have some historical value then where does it say the location of the tomb was near the site of the crucifixion?

Something else has always bugged me. Standard operating procedure for the Romans was to leave a crucified body on the cross and let it rot. Why was an exception made in Jesus case? It sounds like something Pilate's superiors back in Rome would not approve of.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How do you know that? I mean if we temporarily set aside "scripture proves nothing" and assume the gospel accounts have some historical value then where does it say the location of the tomb was near the site of the crucifixion?

John 19:41-42
41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid. 42 Therefore on account of the Jewish day of preparation, because the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
NASB

Something else has always bugged me. Standard operating procedure for the Romans was to leave a crucified body on the cross and let it rot. Why was an exception made in Jesus case? It sounds like something Pilate's superiors back in Rome would not approve of.

I'm not sure that Rome would give two flips about the governing authority in Palestine deviating slightly from protocol, if indeed Pilate did. Plus Pilate probably had a degree of discretionary authority, anyway. In Jesus' case, his body was released upon the specific request of Joseph of Arimathea. (Probably not too many people request the bodies of real criminals!) It appears the only thing Pilate was really concerned with was whether Jesus had already died or not. After sending a centurion to find out, Pilate granted Joseph his request upon the soldier's confirmation of Jesus' death (MK 15:43-47).

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not that it matters but I thought Christians believed that John died about 100 C.E. If he was a young man, say about 20, at the time of the crucifixion that would make him about 90 when he died. Most scholars date the Gospel of John to around 100 C.E. so that would be consistent. Just saying.

Even if John lived to be that old, that doesn't mean he wrote Revelation on his death bed.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Jesus presented an abundance of evidence to his disciples. And first century Christianity was not spread by force. Quite the contrary. It was unbelievers (primarily Jews in the first century) who tried to force Christians from spreading the gospel.

This may come as a total shock to you, but the first-century "Christianity" landscape bore little resemblance to the Christianity of today. In fact...the first-century Christian groups were reviled and persecuted into extinction for being "heretical...by the very same Christian churches which reign in the present day. The doctrine of the first-century Christianity wasn't as "homogeneous" as you might think.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This may come as a total shock to you, but the first-century "Christianity" landscape bore little resemblance to the Christianity of today. In fact...the first-century Christian groups were reviled and persecuted into extinction for being "heretical...by the very same Christian churches which reign in the present day. The doctrine of the first-century Christianity wasn't as "homogeneous" as you might think.

Could that have something to do with the progressiveness of divine revelation?

All I know from scripture is that virtually all the persecution of Christians came by the hands of Jews. I don't read very much about fellow Christians persecuting each other in the first century.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Could that have something to do with the progressiveness of divine revelation?

All I know from scripture is that virtually all the persecution of Christians came by the hands of Jews. I don't read very much about fellow Christians persecuting each other in the first century.

You keep emphasizing that no Christians persecuted each other in the "first century"...as if it's acceptable for Christians to be persecuting each other in ANY century! Why did the early "Christian" groups like the Cathars and the Gnostics deserve to be persecuted into extinction by the "mainstream Christians" at ALL? When did it become proper for Christians to become hostile against their brethren who held differing religious opinions concerning their faith?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You keep emphasizing that no Christians persecuted each other in the "first century"...as if it's acceptable for Christians to be persecuting each other in ANY century! Why did the early "Christian" groups like the Cathars and the Gnostics deserve to be persecuted into extinction by the "mainstream Christians" at ALL? When did it become proper for Christians to become hostile against their brethren who held differing religious opinions concerning their faith?

Go back and read what YOU wrote in your previous post. YOU were the one who said Christians were persecuting Christians in the first century.

And I'm still waiting for you to document the alleged persecution of Gnostics (who were not Christians!) by those were Christians. You keep making this claim but offer no supporting evidence.