Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[Kulindahr]

"If God himself was not able to render human nature sinless, what right had he to punish men for not being sinless?"

The first clause is contingent on whether what it says is true or not. So it can hardly, of itself, be false, deceptive or ignorant unless one ignores the "If". And sure a mother, who warns her child not to stick its hand in boiling water and then allows it to be scalded for making the wrong choice, is not only punishing the child but would be a sadistic monster.

The "If" here is not a hypothetical, it is an introduction to a premise from a given system of thought. It thus must be judged on the basis of that system of thought. Hence, it is false, because the system of thought to which it serves as an introduction says so.

This is demonstrated further by the fact that the second clause relies entirely on an assessment of that same system of thought.

Retreating from the context of the challenge in order to defend it is another way of being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Kulindahr]

Given that the image depends on a certain system of thought, it has to be constrained by that system. Within that system of thought, the proposition is not only not "funny", it is obvious: atheists are already on the demons' side, so why should demons bother to possess them?

Seriously, didn't anyone here learn to address logical arguments in rigorous fashion? The first rule for trying to show a problem in a system of thought is sticking to that system's rules. The image above depends on imposing outside rules on the system.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's historically false: movements against slavery arose from religion, beginning with Christianity in its first few centuries and continuing with all the Papal, patriarchal, and council pronouncements banning slavery over the centuries.

It took the rest of culture quite some time to catch up -- indeed, it did not do so until slavery had already become economically nonviable.

So in secular terms, what the ending of slavery shows is that humans only take moral positions once they find them economically advantageous.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Your argument fails because it depends on changing the rules of someone else's system of thought. The same source from which the claim of creating something from nothing comes also describes the something as an integrated system that is a whole, and has to be dealt with as a whole.

Further, the same system of thought describes the Creator of that something as one Who follows His own rules, and since He set up the Creation as a system with rules, He cannot violate it.

Any attempt to show a contradiction in a system of thought by importing outside rules and ignoring the rules of that system of thought is not onl void but intellectually dishonest.

The "If" here is not a hypothetical, it is an introduction to a premise from a given system of thought. It thus must be judged on the basis of that system of thought. Hence, it is false, because the system of thought to which it serves as an introduction says so.

This is demonstrated further by the fact that the second clause relies entirely on an assessment of that same system of thought.

Retreating from the context of the challenge in order to defend it is another way of being intellectually dishonest.

Given that the image depends on a certain system of thought, it has to be constrained by that system. Within that system of thought, the proposition is not only not "funny", it is obvious: atheists are already on the demons' side, so why should demons bother to possess them?

Seriously, didn't anyone here learn to address logical arguments in rigorous fashion? The first rule for trying to show a problem in a system of thought is sticking to that system's rules. The image above depends on imposing outside rules on the system.

Conceptual rigor isn't arbitrary.

 

[Kulindahr]

Conceptual rigor isn't arbitrary.

From the three posts I just responded to, some people here plainly think it is.

 

[johaninsc]

Seriously, didn't anyone here learn to address logical arguments in rigorous fashion? The first rule for trying to show a problem in a system of thought is sticking to that system's rules. The image above depends on imposing outside rules on the system.

Probably not. A great many of us were too busy enjoying and living our lives...socializing and fucking in a rigorous fashion instead of living like a hermit in a house full of dusty old books with no one to talk to but a dog.

 

[zoltanspawn]

From the three posts I just responded to, some people here plainly think it is.

Maybe they're employing a different "system of thought" from your own.

 

[Kulindahr]

Probably not. A great many of us were too busy enjoying and living our lives...socializing and fucking in a rigorous fashion instead of living like a hermit in a house full of dusty old books with no one to talk to but a dog.

And skipping school????

I know, schools haven't cared about critical thinking for years now.

 

[Kulindahr]

Maybe they're employing a different "system of thought" from your own.

That's a meaningless statement. They have to work with the system of thought they're addressing, or admit they're just making noise.

If I want to criticize the coherence of Confucianism, I have to study Confucianism and treat it on its own merits. Since I haven't studied it, I have no place criticizing its coherence.

 

[zoltanspawn]

On the one hand, Kulindahr, you suggest that claims must be evaluated by their own "system of thought".

On the other hand, you make many claims that you characterize as "objective."

How can claims be objective that are ONLY verified by their own systems of thought?

Don't objective claims need need to be substantiated by either review or logic?

There is nothing about a "system of thought" which guarantees the truth of its statements.

 

[Kulindahr]

On the one hand, Kulindahr, you suggest that claims must be evaluated by their own "system of thought".

If it's a claim about the consistency of that system, which the points I addressed were, then yes -- they have to be; there's no other basis. One may as well claim there's no such thing as a right angle because certain systems of geometry exclude them.

On the other hand, you make many claims that you characterize as "objective."

How can claims be objective that are ONLY verified by their own systems of thought?

Don't objective claims need need to be substantiated by either review or logic?

Logic depends on the axioms used. The axioms of one system cannot be applied to another -- for example, one cannot decide the validity of a British law by appealing to Islamic jurisprudence.

Similarly, the claims of one system of thought have to restrict themselves to what can be determined by their own rules -- for example, science can't comment on the existence of God, because it makes no claim to measure spirit.

There is nothing about a "system of thought" which guarantees the truth of its statements.

Internal validity is not the same as truth, so this is irrelevant.

 

[zoltanspawn]

They have to work with the system of thought they're addressing, or admit they're just making noise.

Well, according to my "system of thought" :
a) a unicorn is born
b) every time I fart.

I just farted.

Therefore a unicorn was born.

Work with that "system" or admit you're making noise, Kulindahr.

 

[star-warrior]

Reductio ad adsurdum.

 

[Spensed]

The "If" here is not a hypothetical, it is an introduction to a premise from a given system of thought. It thus must be judged on the basis of that system of thought. Hence, it is false, because the system of thought to which it serves as an introduction says so.

Mumbo jumbo. "If" means if.

This is demonstrated further by the fact that the second clause relies entirely on an assessment of that same system of thought.

Retreating from the context of the challenge in order to defend it is another way of being intellectually dishonest.

You would know. The fact remains that primitive theism doesn't sustain scrutiny. To use your image, a mother who doesn't stop her child from being scalded to preserve her notions of free will makes little sense. If I remember correctly, the Bible can't even agree on what day Christ was crucified, not to mention all the anti-women and pro-slavery garbage. Hence, the anti-religious humor. If your objections to it were presented with less peevishness and sanctimony, they might be more persuasive. Just saying.

 

[Spensed]

Logic depends on the axioms used. The axioms of one system cannot be applied to another -- for example, one cannot decide the validity of a British law by appealing to Islamic jurisprudence.

Similarly, the claims of one system of thought have to restrict themselves to what can be determined by their own rules -- for example, science can't comment on the existence of God, because it makes no claim to measure spirit.

Internal validity is not the same as truth, so this is irrelevant.

External legal systems (including Islamic jurisprudence) are persuasive in English law, in particular, if English law in itself can't dispose of the issue. That doesn't mean that Islamic principles trump English law, but they could be used to support an argument under English law in certain circumstances.

Whether fascism or lunatic thinking are internally valid or not by their own rules is only one part of any assessment of fascism or lunacy. Either way, it's external moral values that have to be used to determine both internal validity and its truth.

I respect religious thought presented with humility and skepticism. However, it's funny to me that what you demand of other folk's thinking, you fail to apply to your own. Those who want to find anti-religious pictures funny are perfectly clear on their own internal logic. They don't share your sacred cows. On your stated principles, instead of trying to apply your own external thinking to them, you should give them gold stars for internal validity and move on. Happy to be of service.

 

[SpikeSpiegel]

Wow, this thread is a mess!

I see the thrust of pushing the claim that "your religion has been insulted" as a way of silencing others who don't share your religious view under the guise of outrage. Religions are belief systems, set of ideas, and they ought to be challenged if they run contrary to common sense or common decency. Throughout history the power of the religious classes meant any challenge to their privilege is met with persecution, and it still goes on today. Blasphemy is an outrage to the freedom of human life and enquiry and preserves the privilege of institutions that use their might to crush anyone who challenges those ideas.

Criticisms about the ideas a religion contains is not to be taken as an insult, but as a way to change the fundamentally bad ideas in those sets of ideas that pervade and get protected because they're a part of that religion. For example, we don't use the bible to justify slavery anymore, because it is a bad idea even though the good book says you can keep slaves so long as you treat them well. Unlike challenging ideas, racism maligns people for being something they can't change even if they want to, and thus it is fundamentally flawed to compare racist acts deeds and words with criticism of religion. People can choose which faith they belong to, but not their own dna.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, according to my "system of thought" :
a) a unicorn is born
b) every time I fart.

I just farted.

Therefore a unicorn was born.

Work with that "system" or admit you're making noise, Kulindahr.

That's just repeating the error people are making: imposing an outside system on something different.

Why do you find a repetition of an error to be something worth posting?

 

[Kulindahr]

Reductio ad adsurdum.

If you mean that zoltan just demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy most people here are displaying, yes -- he showed the idiocy of criticizing a system by using the rules of a different one.

 

[Kulindahr]

Mumbo jumbo. "If" means if.

No, it doesn't. "If" is a word that serves a number of grammatical functions. In the case above, it was introducing a proposition in a given system of thought. Any conclusion which follows must function within that system of thought.

This is why doctoral dissertations get written on the functions of the smallest words in a language -- they do not have a single narrow meaning.

You would know. The fact remains that primitive theism doesn't sustain scrutiny. To use your image, a mother who doesn't stop her child from being scalded to preserve her notions of free will makes little sense. If I remember correctly, the Bible can't even agree on what day Christ was crucified, not to mention all the anti-women and pro-slavery garbage. Hence, the anti-religious humor. If your objections to it were presented with less peevishness and sanctimony, they might be more persuasive. Just saying.

To pursue your departure from the point in question, your use of the scalding illustration indicates that you regard all humans as children incapable of learning.


As for slavery, there's only "pro-slavery garbage" if you take things out of context. That's a favorite of fundamentalists, and should be beneath you. Early Christians recognized that slavery was contrary to the Bible, and that recognition continued as demonstrated by numerous decrees by popes, patriarchs, and councils banning slavery as incompatible with Christianity. Historically, the first indication of tolerance of slavery by Christians came after the Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, which resulted in multitudes of Christians-of-convenience who treated their new religion the same as they'd treated the old: something to honor in social terms and ignore in the rest of their lives.

"Anti-women"? Jesus and Paul were radical feminists for their day. Jesus dared to treat women as social equals, and Paul instructed all women to comport themselves as nobles (that's what the veiling business in Corinth was about; a bare-faced woman was considered common, a veiled woman was a woman of status), appointed women as deacons and elders, and even listed some as apostles.


If I am peevish, it is because consistently in the FARIP thread and now here ignorance has been exalted and objective critique dismissed, responses to my statements being based on prejudice and subjectivity. The hypocrisy of that is immense, since the existence of the FARIP thread was sanctimoniously defended as it being critical examination of religion, when posts based on false information and thus ignorance abounded -- and "discussion" based on false information is not critical examination, it isn't examination at all.

And the hypocrisy of the system was demonstrated when I supplied parallel examples of the exact thing being done in many FARIP images, except with race instead of religion involved, and those got deleted, thus establishing firmly that the moderators approve of insults to religion despite the Code of Conduct. We never even got to find out whether I was correct in asserting that people who think it's fine to trash religion based on false information and prejudice would object to the same exact thing being done on the basis of race.

 

[Kulindahr]

I respect religious thought presented with humility and skepticism. However, it's funny to me that what you demand of other folk's thinking, you fail to apply to your own. Those who want to find anti-religious pictures funny are perfectly clear on their own internal logic. They don't share your sacred cows. On your stated principles, instead of trying to apply your own external thinking to them, you should give them gold stars for internal validity and move on. Happy to be of service.[/COLOR]

When a post is presented as criticism of a system of thought, based on that system of thought, it doesn't get to drag in external rules -- that's the problem. This began with exactly that sort of post, which claimed to be showing an internal contradiction to a particular religion. No appeal to any other consistency is valid at that point, as the criticism is supposedly entirely based on the religion in question.

So I do apply to my thinking the same thing I apply to those: I don't get to drag in my own rules, and they don't either. If they're going to maintain that a system is illogical, they have to argue from the premises of that system. My "external thinking" is irrelevant. And that, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is why I have little to say about images concerning other religions: I don't know as much about them. I'm in the position of an astronomer in a discussion of science when the topic of evolution comes up: the astronomer, not being trained in evolutionary science, is going to have little to offer, though when astronomy is discussed he will have a great deal to say.

At any rate, no, they don't get "stars for internal validity" when what they're doing is based on a supposed contradiction in the system they're criticizing. Nor do they get such stars when images are based on false information or illogic -- unless, of course, ignorance/falsehood and illogic are considered virtues in their system.