Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Richard Dawkins stripped of 1996 Humanist of the Year Award...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    The problem is that you are using a fallacy. Argumentum ad Populum. That because the majority say A is wrong, A must be objectively wrong.
    That is misconstruing that specific logical fallacy. The Argumentum ad Populum [appeal to the people] is often premised on emotional appeals rather than logical reasoning and the fallacy contends that because something is popular [with the people] it follows that it must be true.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Give me one text that would support spousal rape? You can't, and you know how Paul taught husbands and wives to treat each other.
    Paul's comments on sex are interesting. His ideal was a perpetual state of virginity. With regard to marriage his views were decidedly negative and he argued that marriage made both partners slaves to each other's sexual needs leaving them no longer free to devote their energies to "the Lord". He even appears to take a passage from Genesis literally (see I Corinthians 6: 15-17) where he likens marriage to an encounter with a prostitute.

    We also know from his writings that he was very against any form of passion [including in the bedroom]. In I Corinthians 7.3 he writes that that each husband and wife shall give each other their όφειλήν (debt/duty). There is no mention of sexual enjoyment or passion. What he intended by that word can be debated and one interpretation could possibly tie his ideas to the Stoics view of passionless sex.

    However, his language is a far cry from the Song of Songs where two young people are desperate to get their hands on one another's bodies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You mean forcibly converting when they were told not to? Brutally enslaving whole populations in direct contradiction to how we were told to treat our fellow man?

    So are you saying that we got much, much worse before we woke up and started taking Christ's message (at least wrt these things) to heart?
    Are YOU saying that countless generations of Christians deliberately and wantonly acted against biblical injunctions before they finally got things, right? How do Christians know they have got it “right” now – given they had it wrong for so many centuries?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Another fallacy, it doesn't follow that because our moral sense developed over time that therefore universal moral truths don't exist.
    There is no good reason to imagine that universal moral truths exist. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, not alleged divine revelation. .

    So what is your point?
    The point is that Christian slave owners readily justified centuries of human bondage via scripture and this was acceptable to the society of the day – and throughout most of human history.

    Again, not the point. You suggested that Christians generally just go along with the social mores of the day. That is false, is was Christian abolitionists that pushed against the common social views of the day.
    Christians didn't have to "go along with anything. They were the basis of the “social mores of the day”, given that virtually everyone was nominally Christian. And this included the abolitionists who represented the evolving values of society.




    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    Indeed. Humans acting in response to ever evolving social values and adjusting their religious beliefs accordingly.
    You mean forcibly converting when they were told not to? Brutally enslaving whole populations in direct contradiction to how we were told to treat our fellow man?

    So are you saying that we got much, much worse before we woke up and started taking Christ's message (at least wrt these things) to heart?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    Indeed. Humans acting in response to ever evolving social values and adjusting their religious beliefs accordingly.
    What beliefs have I adjusted?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    No. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection and it has demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time.
    Another fallacy, it doesn't follow that because our moral sense developed over time that therefore universal moral truths don't exist.


    Slavery was universally practiced for millennia and accepted in the OT and NT – e.g., Colossians 3:22 – but not today. See above re evolving morality.
    So what is your point?

    Christians owned slaves for many centuries. They also participated in the general movement for the abolition of slavery and other violations of fundamental rights associated with slavery (such as racial discrimination) as per changing social values in the West. Although less so in areas dominated by the Southern Baptist Convention and the Dutch Reform Church of South Africa.
    Again, not the point. You suggested that Christians generally just go along with the social mores of the day. That is false, is was Christian abolitionists that pushed against the common social views of the day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    That is a fallacy. There logically could be universal moral truths even if men did not follow them.
    No. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection and it has demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time.

    This does not make sense. Slavery was a universal institution, scripture doesn't make a moral claim about it (good or bad).
    Slavery was universally practiced for millennia and accepted in the OT and NT – e.g., Colossians 3:22 – but not today. See above re evolving morality.

    Finally, it was Christian abolitionists who lead the way in ending slavery. They were not following social mores they were the ones changing it.
    Christians owned slaves for many centuries. They also participated in the general movement for the abolition of slavery and other violations of fundamental rights associated with slavery (such as racial discrimination) as per changing social values in the West. Although less so in areas dominated by the Southern Baptist Convention and the Dutch Reform Church of South Africa.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Yup. Humans acting like other humans.
    Indeed. Humans acting in response to ever evolving social values and adjusting their religious beliefs accordingly.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    No. What I’m telling you is that morals and ethics evolve and vary from culture to culture over time. There is NO single absolute morality.
    That is a fallacy. There logically could be universal moral truths even if men did not follow them.

    People of faith have a long history of reading the bible so that virtually any perspective on changing social issues – from the denigration of women to slave-ownership - will find some and justification e.g., slavery was justified in Colossians 3:22, (and elsewhere): “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor…”. But slavery is not justified by Christians nowadays and accordingly the bible is interpreted differently.
    This does not make sense. Slavery was a universal institution, scripture doesn't make a moral claim about it (good or bad). Second, according to the NT slave owners were not to treat their slaves harshly or badly (unlike slavery practiced in the West). Finally, it was Christian abolitionists who lead the way in ending slavery. They were not following social mores they were the ones changing it.
    Last edited by seer; 05-04-2021, 07:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    There’s no “tacit admission” by Christians of humans behaving badly except in retrospect based upon evolved social values.
    Yup. Humans acting like other humans.


    Is there any particular reason that you avoided answering my simple question?

    Btw, do yo agree or disagree that Dawkins ought to have been stripped of an award he got a quarter of a century ago?


    Care to take a shot at it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Oh my goodness! Humans acting like ... humans. Doing what they want to do. And a tacit admission that they are behaving in direct contradiction to how we should and were instructed. Who would have ever thunk it
    There’s no “tacit admission” by Christians of humans behaving badly except in retrospect based upon evolved social values.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    All you are telling me Tass is that men are wicked.
    No. What I’m telling you is that morals and ethics evolve and vary from culture to culture over time. There is NO single absolute morality.

    But I will ask again, which NT teachings were they following? It was not the teachings and example of Christ that caused those behaviors, but ignoring them.
    People of faith have a long history of reading the bible so that virtually any perspective on changing social issues – from the denigration of women to slave-ownership - will find some and justification e.g., slavery was justified in Colossians 3:22, (and elsewhere): “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor…”. But slavery is not justified by Christians nowadays and accordingly the bible is interpreted differently.

    But in your world these were no big deal, it is all relative - right?
    …and equally relative in your world. See above.
    Last edited by Tassman; 05-03-2021, 11:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied

    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post

    Why do you think we've seen more people identifying as gay over time? Isn't it because of societal acceptance? How can you distinguish between young people coming out as trans because they believe a path exists for them to transition and be accepted and young people who don't know any better following a fad? If you can't distinguish them, why take the pessimistic view? Also transpeople are significantly more prone to suicide than the average person, so I suspect that's part of the reason there aren't many older transpeople.

    Human sex is binary in that two sexes exist to produce offspring, same as most animals, but it's a spectrum in that genetic and prenatal variation can result in abnormal sex characteristics, whether that's a combination of genitalia or an atypically self-sexed mind. Ignoring rare outliers for the sake of a generalization may seem practical but it's not scientifically accurate.

    "It does not follow that a little girl who likes playing with trucks, climbing trees, and making dens is a boy trapped in a girl’s body anymore than a little boy who likes dressing up in his mother’s evening gown, playing with dolls, or baking cakes, is a girl trapped in a boy’s body. They are simply children doing what children do. "

    I would expect any mental health practitioner involved with transpeople would be rather insulted at the implication that they can't distinguish between tomboys and transmen. This is related to what I was talking about when I wanted to you to consider the alternative to the trans-rights movement's reality, that medical professionals the world over would have to be utterly incompetent at the most basic foundation of their area of expertise for transitioning to be wrong.

    When I say a transwoman is mentally a woman”, that is specifically not me saying "a transwoman is neurologically a woman". Identification is beyond physical brain differences, at least to our current understanding of brain cell functionality. The scientific indication I referred to comes in the form of, for example, correlation of cerebral aspects or twin studies. You agree with me that there is no way to definitively categorize brains into "male" and female", so what's stopping you from reaching the conclusion that brain variance exists beyond a sex binary? Why can't that variance result in trans or nonbinary people? Why isn't a woman-identifying mind justified in participating in women's spaces regardless of their body?

    Within the context of pop-feminism, an idealistic but ignorant liberal might, for example, see powerful women utilizing patriarchal power structures as feminist even though the feminist ideal would be the dismantling of those power structures. My consideration of feminist ideals is context dependent, so while in one context it might be equal pay, in another it would be the elimination of the capitalistic work concept.

    I believe that women perpetuating objectification/patriarchal precepts is beyond the scope of the thread, especially since it's just as common amongst ciswomen as it is transwomen as far as I can tell.

    The problem with not considering transwomen literal women is that you are making that determination with an arbitrary standard. Why is genitalia or chromosomes superior to mental identification? The vilification comes from the needless cruelty of working against trans acceptance by designating people in the most disadvantageous way possible for no suitable reason.
    I have to note that you have not provided any scientific and/or medical data in support of your comments.

    I am totally in favour of trans rights but no trans man will be a man and no trans woman will be a woman. Elliot Page [formerly Ellen] has had his mammary glands removed and feels much more comfortable as a trans man. I am very happy for him. But Elliot will never be able to produce sperm and father a child.


    My original comment therefore holds true we will have agree to disagree on some of these points.

    However, I will make a couple of points. One of my main concerns that trans issues whereby men are saying they are women are now dominating feminist discussions and that as a result other less “trending” and "sexy" topics are being relegated and/or ignored.


    These include dealing with the impact of this pandemic on women who have lost their employment, and/or who have been [very often with their children] forced back into homes that may be abusive, incidents of sexual violence against young women at universities and in schools, police violence against peaceful [female] protesters, more flexibility on working hours which for some include the need for the improved provision of child care.

    It seems that this issue [trans rights] has become [for many - and which I deem the herd] a belief system and that systems appears to be led by fanatics. Anyone who questions their sacred opinions is deemed heretic and will risk being subjected to the most vile language and threats which, according to the perverse logic of that herd, is entirely their own fault.

    Whatever happened to the right to disagree?

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    Well I suggest you look to the multiple generations of church-going Christians who exhibited those behaviors. Were they wrong?
    Oh my goodness! Humans acting like ... humans. Doing what they want to do. And a tacit admission that they are behaving in direct contradiction to how we should and were instructed. Who would have ever thunk it
    smiley hair-fire.gif



    Btw, do yo agree or disagree that Dawkins ought to have been stripped of an award he got a quarter of a century ago?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    Well I suggest you look to the multiple generations of church-going Christians who exhibited those behaviors. Were they wrong?
    All you are telling me Tass is that men are wicked. But I will ask again, which NT teachings were they following? It was not the teachings and example of Christ that caused those behaviors, but ignoring them. But in your world these were no big deal, it is all relative - right?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
39 responses
236 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
305 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X