What is strongest argument for Theism?

[Old Things]

but to others, they require more than this.

So?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

They don't most the time.

Tomás de Torquemada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Old Things]

They don't most the time.

Tomás de Torquemada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you think that invalidates Christianity, you are crazy. It does not even do anything to the argument of whether Christianity is a force for good or not.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If you think that invalidates Christianity, you are crazy. It does not even do anything to the argument of whether Christianity is a force for good or not.

it does make it difficult to believe that being a christian makes you a better person

 

[Black Rose]

why do people insist on converting others?

because they think they change them

or change others seeing them trying to convert them

so the agenda is just to promote God,

which is good but people can do so in all manner of toxic ways

people see theists behaving poorly and they think that is how God is

it is why I no longer go to certain churches or hang out with certain persons

when people ask me questions I cannot answer,

or when I ask questions they cannot answer,

I believe that is the time for me to stop.

 

[Old Things]

If you think that invalidates Christianity, you are crazy. It does not even do anything to the argument of whether Christianity is a force for good or not.

it does make it difficult to believe that being a christian makes you a better person

What about hospitals and colleges and mass education and science and slavery being against the law? Surely these are good things, right? And you have Christianity to thank for that.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What about hospitals and colleges and mass education and science and slavery being against the law? Surely these are good things, right? And you have Christianity to thank for that.

hardly


In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.


Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spread of Human Rights

Cyrus the Great, the first king of Persia, freed the slaves of Babylon, 539 B.C.
From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. There the concept of “natural law” arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things.

 

[Black Rose]

Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things.

Romans believed in crucifixion.

Because of Christianity, we no longer do this.

 

[Old Things]

What about hospitals and colleges and mass education and science and slavery being against the law? Surely these are good things, right? And you have Christianity to thank for that.

hardly


In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.


Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spread of Human Rights

Cyrus the Great, the first king of Persia, freed the slaves of Babylon, 539 B.C.
From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. There the concept of “natural law” arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things.

So you have an example of one individual, so what? I could bring up Gregory of Nyssa (see here: https://www.intpforum.com/threads/christianity-and-justice.29158/). Where did his beliefs come from? Did they come from some other religion? Or from himself? Christianity teaches things about the worth and dignity of every person. So you can have stories of some remarkable people who went against the grain. It's about what the prevailing narrative is about certain belief systems.

 

[dr froyd]

slavery being against the law

yes as history goes, in the american civil war the north was religious and the confederacy were big fans of enlightenment-era ideals of human rights... Or was it the other way around?

 

[sushi]

eternalism if you believe in it
the only thing eternal and immune to oblivion seems to be god

infinite and zero, nothing both concepts seemed impossible to comprehend.
how something is created and emerged from absolute nothingness. (creatrion arguement)

 

[EndogenousRebel]

eternalism if you believe in it
the only thing eternal and immune to oblivion seems to be god

infinite and zero, nothing both concepts seemed impossible to comprehend.
how something is created and emerged from absolute nothingness. (creatrion arguement)

The first one is a good one.

The second I don't know. The brain is an idea generating machine. Pattern recognition to boot. Its pretty easy to imagine infinite food for example, even if it's unrealistic.

 

[Old Things]

slavery being against the law

yes as history goes, in the american civil war the north was religious and the confederacy were big fans of enlightenment-era ideals of human rights... Or was it the other way around?

Started in England.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I am getting a deja vu from this thread.

I think all people are actually right in some sense here.

First of all Id state the obvious, its impossible to disentangle modern society from Christian values when most of it is still Christian, and for 1500 years Christianity had monopoly on all of society.

Like we cannot objectively put two different religions in Europe and compare notes, how advanced and how deprived the others were.

@LOGICZOMBIE points to obvious thing that outside of Christianity there are nice people.

I think we cannot approach Christianity in some objective comparative here.

Like we can say Christians did this or that, good or bad, but I actually do believe in some sense of agency in people, that do good and bad.

Maybe the real question is how much agency we as people have apart from our inherent cultural programing.

Maybe it comes down to the old "would you be a Nazi if you were born in Germany?"

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I mean. You can convert the Greeks into Romans, and Romans into Catholics. Too much credit is given to the dominant ideology's of the time, but these don't just emerge from a vacuum.

These were economic centers of the world where pro social behaviors actually were beneficial.

You'd be hard pressed to find people that are from one region. People usually are mixed with something else besides the dominant ethnicity for example.

Humans are naturally curious and exploratory compared to every other animal.

"Christian values" is just code for cultural expectations from people who are Christians

 

[ZenRaiden]

"Christian values"

I actually don't know what those are. I listened to priest on funerals and saw some TV sermons televized from church.
I cannot make heads or tails from it.
Basically if go real raw, murdering people, screwing someone elses wife, bad mouthing, etc. are kind of universal behaviors with minor clusters of outliers who have their own thing.
Sure there polygamous things, and even poly menous things, but essentially Christianity is just a blue print with few quite sensible regulation, not even that hard to follow.

Like I cannot think of many alternatives to not murdering others.
Also golden rule and stuff, eye for eye tooth for tooth or even the whole get smacked and take it up the ass, sound pretty cool, but these things are stuff one can figure would be common.

Buddha got spat on and took it with a smile? Is he Christian? Nah he just was none violent.

SO the real question is what values set things apart from normative expectations of human civil society.

Can we have society with murder?
Sure we can. Duels in 17th century to death were not Christian invention, but society did not crumble just cause two horny cocks shot or stabbed each other ritualistically.
Christianity did not prevent necessarily stupid behaviors either.

SO would I agree with the Christian base line of values, probably be dumb if I did not.
For example if I take random version of 10 commandments, for give me, apparently people still cannot agree on translation and authentic version of this....


.... then...

4 number is reasonable provided they are not abusive asshole that did intentional harm to you.
5 makes sense.
6 makes sense, having honest relationship is healthy and easier, its actually surprising people don't have honest relationships, since they are easier to do, and much more beneficial.
7 I did steal some stuff, not in a serious way, just in can I do it way, I did it and its not worth it, no one punished me for it, but I just did not feel like stealing is that important for me, had better things to do. SO I agree society works 10 times better without theft.

8 I think we should not lie about stuff in general not just in case of neighbors.
9 I am not sure what they mean covet, but if I see a good looking woman I will feel desire to bang her, but I do agree people should have enough self control not to actually do it.
10 That is redundant its theft.

So I find the 10 commandments useful in that 7 make sense, and I intend to follow them, but honestly not sure I need some bible to tell me this. Guess I was just raised right or something?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Christianity teaches things about the worth and dignity of every person.

unless you're living in jericho

or you violate the sabbath

or you are a slave beaten half to death, but don't actually die before the third day

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

yes as history goes, in the american civil war the north was religious and the confederacy were big fans of enlightenment-era ideals of human rights... Or was it the other way around?

bingo

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Where did his beliefs come from? Did they come from some other religion?

all religions

"come from a person"

 

[dr froyd]

slavery being against the law

yes as history goes, in the american civil war the north was religious and the confederacy were big fans of enlightenment-era ideals of human rights... Or was it the other way around?

Started in England.

no idea what that means, but my point is this: im sure that a certain interpretation of the bible yields moral imperatives that e.g. forbid slavery. The problem is - faith-based stuff is subject to interpretation, which is how confederates used the bible to justify slavery.

europe existed for a 1000 years in a feudal system with the church as the autocrats and basically everyone else as serfs. Strange how they didn't think of enforcing those noble christian human-dignity ideals for such a long time?

western human-rights and human-dignity ideals ultimately grew out of the enlightenment, after a 1000 years of darkness. That movement was not based on religion - it was based on reason.

 

[Old Things]

That movement was not based on religion - it was based on reason.

Nope. Name a father of modern science who was not a Christian from the 1500s to the 1700s. I will wait.

 

[Puffy]

Yeah, support what dr froyd is saying in this thread.

Having been Christian and non-Christian, I think something Christians sometimes find hard to recognise is how pushy they come across. If Christians weren't pushing their beliefs on other people, they wouldn't get resistance and push-back from people who don't like that. People wouldn't give a shit and would let them just do their Christian thing.

But if people incessantly post about Christianity, you're going to get people pushing back against it as it's simply really annoying. I honestly wish we could just drop the topic and move on to discussing something else. No one's ever budged in their position in the discussion of it, it's a waste of time for everyone involved.

I'm happy that some people derive meaning in their life from Christianity, my own Mother included, but the reality is that other people derive meaning in their lives from other things too and both of those things are okay.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Nope. Name a father of modern science who was not a Christian from the 1500s to the 1700s. I will wait.

Some notable Arab scientists from the period of 1500 to 1700 include Taqi al-Din, Al-Kashi, and Al-Birjandi.

 

[Old Things]

Yeah, support what dr froyd is saying in this thread.

Having been Christian and non-Christian, I think something Christians sometimes find hard to recognise is how pushy they come across. If Christians weren't pushing their beliefs on other people, they wouldn't get resistance and push-back from people who don't like that. People wouldn't give a shit and would let them just do their Christian thing.

But if people incessantly post about Christianity, you're going to get people pushing back against it as it's simply really annoying. I honestly wish we could just drop the topic and move on to discussing something else. No one's ever budged in their position in the discussion of it, it's a waste of time for everyone involved.

I'm happy that some people derive meaning in their life from Christianity, my own Mother included, but the reality is that other people derive meaning in their lives from other things too and both of those things are okay.

From what I understand of your conversion, it seems more like you just dabbled in it and never really went head over heels for Jesus. Maybe that is just me projecting though. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

I think some people do change their mind on things. @Cognisant seems to be open to god now, so that is something. Not like it was my doing, but it is interesting.

 

[Old Things]

Nope. Name a father of modern science who was not a Christian from the 1500s to the 1700s. I will wait.

Some notable Arab scientists from the period of 1500 to 1700 include Taqi al-Din, Al-Kashi, and Al-Birjandi.

Did they impact the West much?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

No one's ever budged in their position in the discussion of it, it's a waste of time for everyone involved.

i've seen a few minds evolve on the topic

and each person has a new spin on it

i find it's a great way to approach epistemology and ontology

which otherwise NOBODY is interested in discussing

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Did they impact the West much?

Ibn al-Nafis made significant contributions to Western science through his work on the pulmonary circulation of blood.

Taqi al-Din made contributions to Western science through his work in astronomy and engineering, particularly in the field of optics and the development of astronomical instruments.

Ibn al-Haytham made significant contributions to Western science in the fields of optics, mathematics, and the scientific method.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

 

[Old Things]

Did they impact the West much?

Ibn al-Nafis made significant contributions to Western science through his work on the pulmonary circulation of blood.

Taqi al-Din made contributions to Western science through his work in astronomy and engineering, particularly in the field of optics and the development of astronomical instruments.

Ibn al-Haytham made significant contributions to Western science in the fields of optics, mathematics, and the scientific method.

I didn't know that, thanks.

Never mind how blasphemous this is, my success rate for prayer is quite a bit above 50%.

 

[dr froyd]

That movement was not based on religion - it was based on reason.

Nope. Name a father of modern science who was not a Christian from the 1500s to the 1700s. I will wait.

can you name any person in europe in that timeframe who was not nominally a christian? it's a bit of a silly question

people like galileo might have been nominally christian, but he was nevertheless persecuted by the church for discovering scientific truths

besides.. all scientific progress in europe in the middle ages and onward was based on rediscovery of texts of ancient greeks - who were obviously not christian. That plus the 10-base numerical system we use today, which was originally made by arabic mathematicians

implying that the bible had anything to do with scientific progress is a bit nuts on many levels

 

[Old Things]

all scientific progress in europe in the middle ages and onward was based on rediscovery of texts of ancient greeks - who were obviously not christian.

Kinda curious how you would defend this.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Lol, just because the Romans/Spanish inquisition conquered and destroyed the culture of everything in the region does not mean they get dibs on the progress other people made. In that case why not give credit to the Jews?

 

[Old Things]

Lol, just because the Romans/Spanish inquisition conquered and destroyed the culture of everything in the region does not mean they get dibs on the progress other people made. In that case why not give credit to the Jews?

Don't think it was the same group of people from the Inquisition and scientific discovery. Maybe I am wrong, who knows? Who doesn't want to give credit to the Jews?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Lol, just because the Romans/Spanish inquisition conquered and destroyed the culture of everything in the region does not mean they get dibs on the progress other people made. In that case why not give credit to the Jews?

Don't think it was the same group of people from the Inquisition and scientific discovery. Maybe I am wrong, who knows? Who doesn't want to give credit to the Jews?

Because you historically have to acknowledge that the Jews started as a small group of people among many who basically had a mixing pot of cultural development in Mecca.

 

[Old Things]

Lol, just because the Romans/Spanish inquisition conquered and destroyed the culture of everything in the region does not mean they get dibs on the progress other people made. In that case why not give credit to the Jews?

Don't think it was the same group of people from the Inquisition and scientific discovery. Maybe I am wrong, who knows? Who doesn't want to give credit to the Jews?

Because you historically have to acknowledge that the Jews started as a small group of people among many who basically had a mixing pot of cultural development in Mecca.

So how do you get from that to where you are going?

 

[Old Things]

can you name any person in europe in that timeframe who was not nominally a christian?

Most of the people who started the scientific revolution were resolute in their faith as Christians. Not sure what gives the opposite impression.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

can you name any person in europe in that timeframe who was not nominally a christian?

Most of the people who started the scientific revolution were resolute in their faith as Christians. Not sure what gives the opposite impression.

About when is this scientific revolution? What exactly did scientist revelated? I would look at explosions of population for signs that there is a revelatory change in the status quo.

I'm under the impression that human populations exploded around/before the industrial age, which began a couple years before America declared its independence.

The industrial evolution happened because for the first time, humans didn't have live with scarce food. You can thank native Americans for making corn and potatoes.

The "Enlightenment" era, which brings forth modernism, is noted as starting in Europe, where rich people who benefited from colonialism and were the first people to have leisure time.

I'm not sure how christian values connects to this. Economics define people's reality not the other way around. Christians and associated religions held us back at least 500 years imo.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I'm not saying your wrong. I'm saying what you are saying is very hard to prove. Christians come from areas that incentivized cooperation. People who cooperated in these trade economies benefited a lot. Then because they were powerful, they were targeted and persecuted. That's a repeating cycle in history.

 

[Old Things]

can you name any person in europe in that timeframe who was not nominally a christian?

Most of the people who started the scientific revolution were resolute in their faith as Christians. Not sure what gives the opposite impression.

About when is this scientific revolution? What exactly did scientist revelated? I would look at explosions of population for signs that there is a revelatory change in the status quo.

I'm under the impression that human populations exploded around/before the industrial age, which began a couple years before America declared its independence.

The industrial evolution happened because for the first time, humans didn't have live with scarce food. You can thank native Americans for making corn and potatoes.

The "Enlightenment" era, which brings forth modernism, is noted as starting in Europe, where rich people who benefited from colonialism and were the first people to have leisure time.

I'm not sure how christian values connects to this. Economics define people's reality not the other way around. Christians and associated religions held us back at least 500 years imo.

I'd say 1543.

 

[Black Rose]

The Renaissance could not have happened without Christianity.

That gave people the opportunity to think differently in the Enlightenment.

Otherwise, with population growth, we should have cars by 492 A.D. in Europe.

And much much earlier in China and India.

 

[Black Rose]

Cars were possible in 200 B.C.

Antikythera mechanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BurnedOut]

The only argument for theism is existing and the argument against it is also existing. I think that the universe is so large and random that seeming patterns of coherence such as life are as coincidental as getting flush of aces in poker. Life itself is quite random. There seems to be arbritrary but coherent rules of physics and science that are only rational insofar are locus is considered in the universe. When you think of our existence, the only probable reason is the existence of a god but then we can go into an ad infinitum argument about the god of gods. Ultimately, gods themselves don't serve any purpose and mere propagation of sentient entities has no rationality. However this is too nihilistic for most people to accept so the same arguments can be used to justify theism because no purpose = unknown incomprehensible purpose. No living entity is capable of any other purpose than survival and proliferation. You can also put a theistic spin on this and say that that is exactly why you need a god because you are only here to survive and proliferate and that there is life beyond just surviving.

In toto, theism is a result of human insecurity and a need to desperately belong rather than any kind of rational choice. Nobody can tell you why they believe in god apart from these ludicrously falsifiable justifications that priests have been barking since the dawn of civilization. Just tooting the old horn of 10,000 years that does not make it a choice but some kind of a forced social component that you have to adhere to fit in. Put all the theists in a jungle for a few years without any resources and ask them if they believe in god anymore

 

[EndogenousRebel]

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

the god of gods

yep

 

[dr froyd]

can you name any person in europe in that timeframe who was not nominally a christian?

Most of the people who started the scientific revolution were resolute in their faith as Christians. Not sure what gives the opposite impression.

you're literally making the argument that being christian causes one to do science, on account of there not being any atheists at the start of the scientific revolution.

you can apply that on anything... the french revolution was caused by christianity because everyone was christian.. the black death was caused by chirstiniaty because everyone was christian.. etc

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

plant mor treez

 

[Old Things]

you're literally making the argument that being christian causes one to do science, on account of there not being any atheists at the start of the scientific revolution.

No, that is not my argument.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

No, that is not my argument.

ok, are you perhaps suggesting that maybe christianity is somehow demonstrably superior to every other belief system known to mankind ?

 

[Old Things]

No, that is not my argument.

ok, are you perhaps suggesting that maybe christianity is somehow demonstrably superior to every other belief system known to mankind ?

That was not my point either. But I do think it is.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Cars were possible in 200 B.C.

Antikythera mechanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

this is fun