Good for Norway

Paleocon · Jun 14, 2015

William Rea said:
Britain has only one state religion which is headed by the Monarch.

Incorrect. England and Scotland have different official religions.

How we are organised

Christian 'truth' isn't beside the point, it is the point that religions tend to claim truth and it is not the job of the State to decide which is 'true'.

Which assumes Christianity is false. If Christianity is true, then everyone has a duty to discern that it is true (since this is, itself, a tenant of Christianity, as it is with most religions).

Secularism should show no favour, the State should be neutral in matters of faith, that is by far the most moral and egalitarian state of affairs.

How is this moral? If I have a claim to a piece of property, is it just for the state to remain neutral about this?

My morality is superior to that demonstrated by the Christian god but, that is probably not for this forum section.

It is of course, not possible to be better than God.

Those eleven provide unsupported, tenuous and anecdotal evidence, at best. Again, probably not for this forum section but, I have started a thread elsewhere for you.

Whether Chrustianity is true and whether God exists are related but separate questions. Be can prove the latter without proving the former simultaneously. Additionally, their evidence is hardly anecdotal.

William Rea · Jun 14, 2015

Paleocon said:
Incorrect. England and Scotland have different official religions.

How we are organised

Which assumes Christianity is false. If Christianity is true, then everyone has a duty to discern that it is true (since this is, itself, a tenant of Christianity, as it is with most religions).

How is this moral? If I have a claim to a piece of property, is it just for the state to remain neutral about this?

It is of course, not possible to be better than God.

Whether Chrustianity is true and whether God exists are related but separate questions. Be can prove the latter without proving the former simultaneously. Additionally, their evidence is hardly anecdotal.

No, it assumes that Christianity is a religion and that it claims 'truth', if you want ME to accept that it is true then provide evidence, it is your positive assertion. It may be the duty of Christians to discern 'truth but, it is not the job of the State to decide which is true.

The State does remain neutral about property rights. The law sets out the basis for property rights and it attempts to enforce those rights without favour. The analogy to what you are proposing would be for the State to decide that only people with blue eyes are allowed to have property. There is no rational, moral or evidential basis for doing that just as there is no rational, moral or evidential basis for prescribing Christianity as the true religion.

Like I said, my morality is far superior to that which describes your god in the Bible.

It is not for me to tell you what your theology is but, sure, you could prove a god exists without the need for him to be the god of Christianity, sounds like a bit of a gamble on your part though. The problem is that there is no evidence for god and, without god, all you have is a book and that is why religions have to twist themselves into intellectual knots with apologetics.

Ahlevah · Jun 14, 2015

Paleocon said:
We certainly didn't "have to". We should have enshrined the true religion.

Yeah, but which one? Christianity is not one monolithic religion, but is broken up into many different sects/denominations. Some believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the Holy Trinity, and so forth, and some, such as Unitarians, don't. I wouldn't suggest telling a Unitarian he isn't a Christian.

Paleocon said:
The existence of God is provable, but that's beside the point.

Well, no, it's not beside the point. You're telling us that we're obligated to follow "truth," but, as I said, we're not obligated to follow "truth" that exists merely as an assumption. So if there's proof that God exists and that Christianity is the one, true religion then by all means proceed, or, at least, point us in the right direction. And I don't mean by telling us to read the Bible.

Paleocon said:
We're assuming for the sake of argument that Chrsitianity is true.

You're assuming that Christianity is true. I'm assuming we can't prove that and that religion is a matter of conscience.

Paleocon said:
Now, with that, can you explain why secularism is better?

I've already said that as a system of moral philosophy or as a matter of conscience I don't. But when it comes to government, religion and politics don't mix because then you get things like the propagation of error, witch and heresy trials, wars, mass expulsions, genocide, etc.

Paleocon said:
Eleven people, all at once?

I'm not impressed with numbers. If you ask eleven or even one thousand muftis what is the one true religion they won't tell you it's Christianity. Besides, where did you get eleven from? Did all of Jesus' disciples leave written depositions? Or is the number of written accounts really four (as in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John)?

Paleocon · Jun 14, 2015

William Rea said:
No, it assumes that Christianity is a religion and that it claims 'truth', if you want ME to accept that it is true then provide evidence, it is your positive assertion. It may be the duty of Christians to discern 'truth but, it is not the job of the State to decide which is true.

Which last statement is explicitly contrary to Christianity. So you are assuming it to be false.

The State does remain neutral about property rights. The law sets out the basis for property rights and it attempts to enforce those rights without favour. The analogy to what you are proposing would be for the State to decide that only people with blue eyes are allowed to have property. There is no rational, moral or evidential basis for doing that just as there is no rational, moral or evidential basis for prescribing Christianity as the true religion.

That's not what "neutral" means. If you were to invade someone else's house against their will, you would find in short order that the state was not at all neutral with regard to their property rights.

Like I said, my morality is far superior to that which describes your god in the Bible.

What morality? What possible basis could you have for a moral system?

It is not for me to tell you what your theology is but, sure, you could prove a god exists without the need for him to be the god of Christianity, sounds like a bit of a gamble on your part though. The problem is that there is no evidence for god and, without god, all you have is a book and that is why religions have to twist themselves into intellectual knots with apologetics.

The existence of God is a metaphysical rather than an empirical question.

Ahlevah said:
Yeah, but which one? Christianity is not one monolithic religion, but is broken up into many different sects/denominations. Some believe in things like the Virgin Birth, the Holy Trinity, and so forth, and some, such as Unitarians, don't. I wouldn't suggest telling a Unitarian he isn't a Christian.

The issue of which religion is true is a separate question from the issue of the proper relations of the state to said religion. Your continual conflation of these two has not gone unnoticed.

Well, no, it's not beside the point. You're telling us that we're obligated to follow "truth," but, as I said, we're not obligated to follow "truth" that exists merely as an assumption. So if there's proof that God exists and that Christianity is the one, true religion then by all means proceed, or, at least, point us in the right direction. And I don't mean by telling us to read the Bible.

It is beside the point, as the subject is what the relations between truth and state should be. You atheists have no problem having the state act on your metaphysical beliefs, I'm simply demonstrating that it is similarly reasonable for those with other metaphysical beliefs to want the state to act on them.

You're assuming that Christianity is true. I'm assuming we can't prove that and that religion is a matter of conscience.

Christianity holds that it is provable, such that all are obliged to accept it. So by asserting that it isn't, you're asserting that Christianity is false.

I've already said that as a system of moral philosophy or as a matter of conscience I don't. But when it comes to government, religion and politics don't mix because then you get things like the propagation of error, witch and heresy trials, wars, mass expulsions, genocide, etc.

You're making moral claims so yes you are. And those things happen much more in secular states.

I'm not impressed with numbers. If you ask eleven or even one thousand muftis what is the one true religion they won't tell you it's Christianity. Besides, where did you get eleven from? Did all of Jesus' disciples leave written depositions? Or is the number of written accounts really four (as in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John)?

The intellectual dishonesty is getting tiresome. I didn't say that eleven people believed in the Ressurrection, I said that eleven people were witnesses to the Ressurrection. Big difference.

And the eleven are the Apostles, who Jesus appeared to after he was raised from the dead.

Ahlevah · Jun 15, 2015

Paleocon said:
It is beside the point, as the subject is what the relations between truth and state should be. You atheists have no problem having the state act on your metaphysical beliefs, I'm simply demonstrating that it is similarly reasonable for those with other metaphysical beliefs to want the state to act on them.

First of all, I'm not atheist. Nowhere in this thread have I even intimated as much. I just don't think the state has any business telling people how to manage matters of conscience. I mentioned Roger Williams earlier. Remember him? A short history lesson: Williams was a Puritan. Unfortunately, his Puritanism was a little too pure for the powers that be in Massachusetts. So he was tried as a heretic and banished from the colony. He then went on to found Providence and was a founder of Rhode Island and THE (literally) First Baptist Church in the U.S. He's noted for making Rhode Island a place where people could practice religion freely, without interference from the state. He concludes his A Plea for Religious Liberty thus:

PEACE. Some will here ask: What may the magistrate then lawfully do with his civil horn or power in matters of religion?

TRUTH. His horn not being the horn of that unicorn or rhinoceros, the power of the Lord Jesus in spiritual cases, his sword not the two-edged sword of the spirit, the word of God (hanging not about the loins or side, but at the lips. and proceeding out of the mouth of his ministers) but of an humane and civil nature and constitution, it must consequently be of a humane and civil operation, for who knows not that operation follows constitution; And therefore I shall end this passage with this consideration:

The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion and worship which his conscience is persuaded is true, and upon which he ventures his soul; or else that and those which he is persuaded are false.

Concerning the first, if that which the magistrate believeth to be true, be true, I say he owes a threefold duty unto it:

First, approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem and honorable testimony, according to Isa. 49, and Revel. 21, with a tender respect of truth, and the professors of it.

Secondly, personal submission of his own soul to the power of the Lord Jesus in that spiritual government and kingdom, according to Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 5.

Thirdly, protection of such true professors of Christ, whether apart, or met together, as also of their estates from violence and injury, according to Rom. 13.

Now, secondly, if it be a false religion (unto which the civil magistrate dare not adjoin, yet) he owes:

First, permission (for approbation he owes not what is evil) and this according to Matthew 13. 30 for public peace and quiet's sake.

Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his subjects (though of a false worship), that no injury be offered either to the persons or goods of any....

...The God of Peace, the God of Truth will shortly seal this truth, and confirm this witness, and make it evident to the whole world, that the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is most evidently and lamentably contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus the Prince of Peace. Amen.

Roger Williams: A Plea for Religious Liberty

How's that for truth?

Paleocon said:
Christianity holds that it is provable, such that all are obliged to accept it. So by asserting that it isn't, you're asserting that Christianity is false.

No, I'm asserting that people have the right to believe it's false if that's their choice. There's a difference.

Paleocon said:
The intellectual dishonesty is getting tiresome. I didn't say that eleven people believed in the Ressurrection, I said that eleven people were witnesses to the Ressurrection. Big difference.

:doh And that's why I asked if you had depositions of the disciples/apostles. (Same people by name, with one notable exception, although I suppose if you want to get technical they were no longer students once their teacher left his physical body and ascended to heaven.) Normally, a deposition is something you do to a witness. Of course, I was being flip, but the point was we really only have four witness accounts (the Gospels), not eleven, and, really, even in a legal setting a deposition is only worth the word of the person making it. So what it comes down to is whether the reader believes the accounts written in the first four books of the New Testament.

Paleocon · Jun 15, 2015

Ahlevah said:
First of all, I'm not atheist. Nowhere in this thread have I even intimated as much.

Oh. Arguing against the existence of God can tend to give people the wrong impression in that regard.

I just don't think the state has any business telling people how to manage matters of conscience. I mentioned Roger Williams earlier. Remember him? A short history lesson: Williams was a Puritan. Unfortunately, his Puritanism was a little too pure for the powers that be in Massachusetts. So he was tried as a heretic and banished from the colony. He then went on to found Providence and was a founder of Rhode Island and THE (literally) First Baptist Church in the U.S. He's noted for making Rhode Island a place where people could practice religion freely, without interference from the state. He concludes his A Plea for Religious Liberty thus:

How's that for truth?

It's absurd. Note that he doesn't make any argument for his position, he just declares it to be so.

No, I'm asserting that people have the right to believe it's false if that's their choice. There's a difference.

Christianity asserts that rejection of the faith is wrong, not right.

:doh And that's why I asked if you had depositions of the disciples/apostles. (Same people by name, with one notable exception, although I suppose if you want to get technical they were no longer students once their teacher left his physical body and ascended to heaven.) Normally, a deposition is something you do to a witness. Of course, I was being flip, but the point was we really only have four witness accounts (the Gospels), not eleven, and, really, even in a legal setting a deposition is only worth the word of the person making it. So what it comes down to is whether the reader believes the accounts written in the first four books of the New Testament.

Whst is your theory then, that the eleven just accidentally devoted their lives to a system they knew to be false? And ten of them died, horrendously, for said system, none of them ever gaining anything materially?

Tazmanian Devil · Jun 15, 2015

LowDown said:
Norway repeals blasphemy law, in response to Charlie Hebdo murders.

Would that more Americans had the courage to defy the jihadists.

Would that more Americans had the motivation to update their misinformed views of Islam.

Especially since there is now a reliable source of information available and not the usual Muslim propaganda meant to keep us duped.

Political Islam - Islam's ideology about unbelievers, Kafirs

Kobie · Jun 15, 2015

FreedomFromAll said:
I dont believe in souls so therefor a theocracy isnt at all worth it. And those other religions that completely disagree with your take are not going to agree that its worth it either.

The theocrats don't care if you don't believe. Having their faith is not enough; they demand that anything that isn't their faith be completely eliminated by the state.

Ahlevah · Jun 15, 2015

Paleocon said:
Oh. Arguing against the existence of God can tend to give people the wrong impression in that regard.

I'm not arguing against the existence of God. I'm merely stating a fact, which is the existence of God can not be empirically proven. That's why they call it "faith."

Paleocon said:
It's absurd. Note that he doesn't make any argument for his position, he just declares it to be so.

What are you talking about? Williams has a multi-point argument. He mentions all of the Christians ("Protestants and Papists") who died fighting each other in the various religions wars. You argue for truth? How about the Holy Bible? He points out that the Bible is "pregnant" with statements against religious persecution. He references specific passages from the New Testament, with the basic message being that final judgment is no one but God's alone. He points out that civil government is just that: civil government, and its job is not to meddle in religious affairs. He argues that God's will is to be carried out not with the sword, but with the word. In other words, with reason. He points out Jesus' admonition that if you punish a heretic you're likely to harm those who will find their place in Heaven:

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13 KJV

So what truth do you want?

Paleocon said:
Christianity asserts that rejection of the faith is wrong, not right.

As I said, final judgment is God's alone.

Paleocon said:
Whst is your theory then, that the eleven just accidentally devoted their lives to a system they knew to be false? And ten of them died, horrendously, for said system, none of them ever gaining anything materially?

Over the centuries, many people have died horrendously for causes they believed in. Right now we have Muslims who are strapping on suicide belts and blowing themselves up in "martyrdom" operations. No doubt they believe their religion is the true one.

Paleocon · Jun 15, 2015

Ahlevah said:
Over the centuries, many people have died horrendously for causes they believed in. Right now we have Muslims who are strapping on suicide belts and blowing themselves up in "martyrdom" operations. No doubt they believe their religion is the true one.

This fallacy is getting tiresome.

Ahlevah · Jun 15, 2015

Paleocon said:
This fallacy is getting tiresome.

What's fallacious about it? You think the only people who've sacrificed everything for a cause are Jesus' apostles? That adherence to a cause proves that the cause is true? How many people have died supporting, say, fascism?

Paleocon · Jun 15, 2015

Ahlevah said:
What's fallacious about it? You think the only people who've sacrificed everything for a cause are Jesus' apostles? That adherence to a cause proves that the cause is true? How many people have died supporting, say, fascism?

It's equivocation. And it's quite obvious how it's equivocation.

Ahlevah · Jun 16, 2015

Paleocon said:
It's equivocation. And it's quite obvious how it's equivocation.

Okay, they kill themselves instead of someone else killing them. But there's no equivocation when I say they believe to their dying breath that Islam is the one true religion and Muhammad their prophet and messenger from God.

Paleocon · Jun 16, 2015

Ahlevah said:
But there's no equivocation when I say they believe to their dying breath that Islam is the one true religion and Muhammad their prophet and messenger from God.

That is exactly the point of equivocation. They lack first hand knowledge of whether their beliefs are true, the Apostles didn't.

William Rea · Jun 17, 2015

Paleocon said:
That is exactly the point of equivocation. They lack first hand knowledge of whether their beliefs are true, the Apostles didn't.

Special pleading.

William Rea · Jun 17, 2015

Paleocon said:
Which last statement is explicitly contrary to Christianity. So you are assuming it to be false.

That's not what "neutral" means. If you were to invade someone else's house against their will, you would find in short order that the state was not at all neutral with regard to their property rights.

What morality? What possible basis could you have for a moral system?

...

Presuppositional apologetics is the most dishonest form of argument out there. Consider this an end to any rational discussion with you.

Ahlevah · Jun 18, 2015

Paleocon said:
That is exactly the point of equivocation. They lack first hand knowledge of whether their beliefs are true, the Apostles didn't.

The thing is the accounts in the gospels weren't likely written by the principals. The oldest known gospel is Mark, which is believed to have been written about 70 AD. Until recently the oldest known fragment of that book dated to about 100 AD. The first complete copy of the book dates from about the 4th Century AD. So what we have are not first-hand accounts, but what in essence amounts to hearsay. There's also evidence that Mark served as a source and not independently from the other gospels.

The Story Of The Storytellers - What Are The Gospels? | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

Was oldest gospel really found in a mummy mask?

Paleocon · Jun 18, 2015

William Rea said:
Special pleading.

That's not special pleading.

Ahlevah said:
The thing is the accounts in the gospels weren't likely written by the principals. The oldest known gospel is Mark, which is believed to have been written about 70 AD. Until recently the oldest known fragment of that book dated to about 100 AD. The first complete copy of the book dates from about the 4th Century AD. So what we have are not first-hand accounts, but what in essence amounts to hearsay. There's also evidence that Mark served as a source and not independently from the other gospels.

The Story Of The Storytellers - What Are The Gospels? | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

Was oldest gospel really found in a mummy mask?

That's baloney but still just as much of a red herring as when you first brought it up.

Ahlevah · Jun 18, 2015

Paleocon said:
That's baloney but still just as much of a red herring as when you first brought it up.

Well, you're arguing that the accounts are first-hand knowledge. It's not a red herring for me to respond that they aren't. And just calling my response "baloney" is not a worthy argument. I assume in your efforts to discover truth you've learned about handwriting analysis and carbon dating?

Paleocon · Jun 18, 2015

Ahlevah said:
Well, you're arguing that the accounts are first-hand knowledge. It's not a red herring for me to respond that they aren't. And just calling my response "baloney" is not a worthy argument. I assume in your efforts to discover truth you've learned about handwriting analysis and carbon dating?

The accounts I'm talking about are the Apostles belief in the resurrection generally, they would know for a fact that whether it had really happened.

And I'm not chasing your red herring any further.

Ahlevah · Jun 18, 2015

Paleocon said:
The accounts I'm talking about are the Apostles belief in the resurrection generally, they would know for a fact that whether it had really happened.

And I'm not chasing your red herring any further.

Like I said, you're the one who mentioned the accounts of Jesus' apostles in the gospels as first-hand accounts, but they're not:

According to tradition, the author, Mark is not an apostle himself. Not one of the original disciples, but rather the follower of one of them. Traditionally, he's supposed to be the disciple of Peter .... We don't know exactly where this Mark was or where he actually wrote. However, tradition places him at Rome, but one more tradition also has him located at Alexandria, and it may be the case that the story that we call Mark's gospel, which supposedly derived from Peter, is also an example of this passing on of an oral tradition. It owes its history to Mark, whether Mark is the person who actually wrote it down or not.

The Story Of The Storytellers - The Gospel Of Mark | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

So it's not a red herring to answer directly a point you made. Since modern biblical scholars think the accounts were handed down then the only fact is it's all hearsay and none of it--the virgin birth, the miracles, Jesus' divinity, His resurrection, etc.--would be permitted as evidence in a legal setting. That's a fact.

Ahlevah · Jun 19, 2015

Paleocon said:
And I'm not chasing your red herring any further.

And I accept your :surrender Have a nice day. :2wave:

Paleocon · Jun 19, 2015

Ahlevah said:
Like I said, you're the one who mentioned the accounts of Jesus' apostles in the gospels

No I wasn't. And I'll take your resorting to lying about what I posted as a concession.

You may have the last word.

Ahlevah · Jun 19, 2015

Paleocon said:
No I wasn't. And I'll take your resorting to lying about what I posted as a concession.

You may have the last word.

Come on now. It was a joke. Lighten up. Your invective points to you being intellectually lazy. Any position can be defended. You're just not trying hard enough. Start by tossing out what you learned in Logic and Ethics and focus on why Christianity has endured for more than two thousand years.