Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 161
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,659
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As an overview it currently stands (before the remainder of your post)
    As
    1) Call to support the existence and nature of the "justice" appealed to indite Christianity.

    Then in response to the answer of #1

    2) Anyone who accepts your argument is following a fallacious line of reasoning.
    Conflating the ideas of what it means to be "good" and "moral".
    Appealing to an arbitrary standard of "happiness".
    Having an ill defined standard of "happiness".
    And taxi cabbing their standard when the outcome is not liked.

    If everyone in the world believed as you do, they would be practicing mass delusion with the threat of violence as it's base justification.
    I hear what you are saying but I asked you to identify your central argument and you haven't done that. How am I to know if your criticisms support your central argument if I don't know what your central argument is?

    At this point, my best guess for your central argument is "FB/Mican's standard of justice is invalid and therefore their criticism of Christian justice is invalid since they have no presented no valid basis for criticism."

    Does that sum up your argument? If so, I will address your criticisms (since I agree that they are relevant to the above argument. If not, then please directly state your central argument. Please highlight or bold it or say something like "My central argument is..." when stating it.

    I will respond to the rest of your post when I know for sure what your central argument is.
    Last edited by mican333; November 6th, 2016 at 01:09 PM.

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I hear what you are saying but I asked you to identify your central argument and you haven't done that. How am I to know if your criticisms support your central argument if I don't know what your central argument is?
    I thought my 1 & 2 summed up my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Anyone who accepts your argument is following a fallacious line of reasoning.
    Conflating the ideas of what it means to be "good" and "moral".
    Appealing to an arbitrary standard of "happiness".
    Having an ill defined standard of "happiness".
    And taxi cabbing their standard when the outcome is not liked.

    If everyone in the world believed as you do, they would be practicing mass delusion with the threat of violence as it's base justification.

    /end summary
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    At this point, my best guess for your central argument is "FB/Mican's standard of justice is invalid and therefore their criticism of Christian justice is invalid since they have no presented no valid basis for criticism."
    I think that is a a correct understanding for my summary. I am honestly confused at the perception of a need to guess at it.
    I guess my summary was a bit backwards with the conclusion coming first. Also I suppose that I didn't come out and state that because the justification for justice was invalid(according to my argument) thus the statement regarding justice and Christianity was invalid or at least correctly dismiss able. I suppose I took those as obvious or simply overlooked stating them.

    I'll try to be more clear.
    To serve man.

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,659
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    First off, let me state my argument in the form of a logic chain.

    1. ACCEPTED PREMISE - it is good for people to be happy.
    2. FACT - all else being equal, people are happier when the justice system's rules correspond with what people believe is just.
    3. THEREFORE - all else being equal, it is good when the justice system's rules correspond to what the people of the society believes is just.
    4. FACT - People generally agree that justice requires people who do commit crimes receive punishment for their crimes.
    5. THEREFORE - It is good when the justice system punishes people who commit crimes.

    That is my argument and likewise the argument that you must show is invalid to support your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no reason to base an idea of justice on happiness, one could with equal justification choose some other measure, such as survival of the fittest, or overall productivity etc.
    My argument does not say that justice is based on happiness. It's saying that when societal justice corresponds with people's beliefs in justice, that is a good thing. Exactly how the rules are made is not part of my argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think you should re-read my objection to this point.
    What I did was offer a more accurate explination as to what elections are determined by. Namely force or threat of.
    Again, if an election is held, and the loser doesn't like the election can be negated by force. Thus proving that elections are not true by popularity, but by force.
    Further, there is no reason an election can not be determined by the lower vote.
    That doesn't prove that elections are not based on popularity. If someone is elected President by popular vote and someone else stages a coupe and overthrows that democratically-elected President, it does not change the fact that the President won the election because of the popular vote.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your refering to the mathmatical understanding of arbitrary. I am refering to the more philisophical versions of.. basically 1-2.
    So, there is no law or statue that states "it's good to be happy." So that statement is based on your personal whim, your arbitrary decision that it is so.
    No, it's not based on a whim. Note that my argument starts with a premise that you accept - it's basically a moral truism, not a whim. You and I didn't just decide "Y'know - it's good that people if people are happy" on a whim. It's something that we've always believed. And the rest of my argument stems from this moral truism.

    You can argue that the points that follow the accepted premise don't follow but the basis of the argument is not arbitrary.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your claiming a straw-man fallacy here. Why?
    Is there not a distinction between "good" and "moral"?
    Is justice in regards to what is "good" or in regards to what is "Moral"?
    I'm claiming straw-man fallacy because you are not challenging any argument that I have made.

    As far as your questions go, they are questions, not arguments. If you want to make a point regarding this, please state your argument directly.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not sure your objection here is a distinction with a differance.
    Sure you worded it "it's good for people to be happy".
    That to me implies that your standard of justice is what makes people happy.
    You even used examples of people being made unhappy by some other circumstance, leading to them to seek happines through being a refugee to a new place. Presumably one that would make them happy.
    You asked me to define what it means to "make people happy". Again, my argument does not include "make people happy" so I have no burden to explain what makes people happy in order to defend my argument.

    And I assume that we have a pretty good understanding of what "happy" and "happiness" is. I really don't want to have to engage in arguing over terms that everyone pretty much understands already.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Fair enough. I do accept that it is good to be happy.

    My objection is that such a premise is unrelated to justice, and chosing it over other also premises is arbitrary.
    I've supported why it's a valid standard for justice. And just bringing up other standards does not reveal any arbitrariness.

    For one, you have not shown that any of these other standards are valid. I see no argument for them that is similar to the one that I forwarded. So you have absolutely no basis to say that an equal or better standard exists and could easily replace that one that I forwarded. You will need to present another standard AND support that it's equal to or better than mine before this argument can even begin to have any traction.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I said you equated the terms. Your applying the term "good" when the term "moral" is what is needed.
    Justice is a function of morality, not goodness.
    Again, that is a straw man. I didn't argue that justice is a function of goodness so saying that it's not does not address any argument that I'm making. My argument is nothing more or less than the logic chain at the top of this post.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Actually, your a long way from establishing this idea and how it relates to justice.
    Who's happiness matters the rapist or the rapee?
    In terms of my argument, it's society as a whole that matters, not any particular individual. And obviously people want rape to be illegal so people overall are happier when it is. The fact that individual rapists will be unhappy when they are punished does not change the fact that overall society is happier when rape is illegal.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right. To be clear the objection is based on the assumption that you would find the germans treatment of the Jews leading up to the time of war "unjust".
    In that time, they were declaired non-person. They were the object of institutionalized racism, and the object of destain and scorn from the population at large.

    It is beyond question that the majority of germany were very happy in their hatred of the Jews. The German people of the time were highly racist.

    Your taxicab fallacy is due to the illedefined idea of "significant portion". It appears to be based on what you would like to be true about Germany at that time. It does not appear to me to be the product of understanding Germany at the time.
    Suddenly, the political process of elections don't count, and the "significant portion" even though they are a minority and your argument is based on an appeal to the majority.
    Ie Taxicab. The majority serves your purpose until it doesn't so its' discarded.
    I don't discard the majority (and any accusation that I did do that is a baseless accusation so I hold that your are wrong about the taxicab fallacy). I just factor in everyone else as well. And there is a difference between being racist and actually wanting "those people" to be exterminated en masse (which is what your argument was about) so I don't accept that the vast majority of the German people were actually happy with the killing. And I'm also factoring the degrees of happiness and unhappiness. The unhappiness of a person being tortured and murdered by the state is much greater than the happiness someone who is alright with it happening.

    And besides that, I'm arguing generalities so exceptions don't really harm my point. IN GENERAL, people are happier when their society's system of justice correspond to the people's belief in justice. If this is true in 50 countries but not true in 1, it is still generally true.

  4. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  5. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't see Blind Obedience, and look for you to support that point.
    Proverbs 3:5, Deut. 11:1, John 14:15, John 15:14, Colossians 3:22, 1 Peter 2:13, 1 Peter 3:1-6, Genesis 22:1-19, Hebrews 13:17
    There are many instances when submissiveness and obedience overlap.

    If you claim that Justice exists outside of the Bible, then you need to support that as I do not recognize it or know of it.
    I did not claim that justice (why capital "J"?) exists outside the bible. I claimed that the religion lacks justice based on the common definition of justice ("the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals"), when someone can escape Christian punishment by being saved.
    You appear to be using a different definition. On what basis did you determine that "Justice" as you defined it is the only form of justice, or that it's actually just?

    Don't be lazy and steal the parts of the bible you like in order to try and throw it out.
    ????

  6. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    There are many instances when submissiveness and obedience overlap.
    "Blind obedience" is what was forwarded.
    Further some of your examples seem to not be overlap at all.
    Like 1 peter3:1-6. The Obedience is not the submission of the wife. That is not a case of "overlap".

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    I did not claim that justice (why capital "J"?) exists outside the bible. I claimed that the religion lacks justice based on the common definition of justice ("the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals"), when someone can escape Christian punishment by being saved.
    You appear to be using a different definition. On what basis did you determine that "Justice" as you defined it is the only form of justice, or that it's actually just?
    That doesn't make any sense. Even under our own justice system we have Pardons (which is what your appealing to as I understand it). Isn't a pardon exactly like what you are complaining against?
    If that makes our system unjust, then why should we use it to judge the bible?

    I think your cherry picking which parts of our laws to apply. As well as cherry picking which ideas of justice.




    ----------
    ---------


    @ mican, most of my other points which you responded to, will have a response built into my response to your logic chain.
    So, to shorten the post I won't be responding to each point, I'll respond to those that directly apply to any of my points below, so you won't have to repeat yourself.
    Should be able to keep the responses organized. If I miss one, just make the note.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, let me state my argument in the form of a logic chain.

    1. ACCEPTED PREMISE - it is good for people to be happy.
    2. FACT - all else being equal, people are happier when the justice system's rules correspond with what people believe is just.
    3. THEREFORE - all else being equal, it is good when the justice system's rules correspond to what the people of the society believes is just.
    4. FACT - People generally agree that justice requires people who do commit crimes receive punishment for their crimes.
    5. THEREFORE - It is good when the justice system punishes people who commit crimes.

    That is my argument and likewise the argument that you must show is invalid to support your argument.
    The problem starts with #1
    A: It is an arbitrary starting point.
    #1 is plucked out of your personal opinion without cause or reason, and with considerable bias. One could with equal justification choose any number of other #1's as a starting point. (repeated/later) Such as It is good for ants to build and eat. (To point out your unjustified species bias)
    B: It is a value measure not a moral measure.
    Justice is a moral point between what is right and wrong, and what duties one has. That something is good does nothing to establish it's moral value or it's "justness". So if a person gets their idea of justice based on what is good, then they are making a categorical error in their thinking. Which is exactly what your whole argument does
    C: It does nothing to establish what "justice" is. Which is what the original challenge is.
    It is irrelevant to what follows when the basic justification for "justice" (the point that is to be supported as to what it is) is an appeal to popularity. In other words, once you say that what the majority(or society, or whatever the vague undefined gelatinous group you wish to point to) then the reason is not relevant. Some may reach the same idea of justice through what makes them unhappy. Or the opposite based on the same idea, or anything based on any other arbitrary measure. That is the problem with appealing to arbitrary things.


    Point #2
    A: Fallacy of question begging, because it does not describe what justice actually is or justify how it comes about. Conceivably when a "society" (another vague term) decided to rape, kill, and enslave some group (obviously not deemed persons by that society) you would be forced to recognize it as "just". To stay consistent and all.
    B: Appeal to popularity fallacy. Or else, #2 doesn't logically follow from #1. People could plausibility be unhappy, but as long as the majority thinks it's just... then it is just and #1 is again shown to be irrelevant.

    Point #3
    A: Fallacious - Appeal to popularity
    First, the #1 idea of why it is "good" (value statement) is based again on popular opinion. Which is not the same as my idea so our "why" is significantly different.

    Second, What people "believe" is not equivalent to "what is". Which means your entire argument does not support the claim that "X is just, or X is unjust". It only supports a claim regarding belief or states of mind. That is a categorical fallacy. If at this point the original claim is amended or clarified to mean "People think X is unjust", then I don't object but note that it is dismiss-able as an opinion statement, and is thus dismissed. One is not obligated to care about the states of mind of another.

    Third, it leads or tends to lead to equating what is currently legal as being the definition of justice.
    B: Point to clarify
    At this point in the argument, one could easily say
    "It is not good when the justice system doesn't correspond to what people believe is just"
    However this statement would not be a support for if the system is in fact just or not.

    Points 4 & 5

    Repeat the fallacy of #3. In that it may be support for if the current system is "good", but not if it is "just".
    As the question is about what Justice is, and what it's basis is, the entire argument concludes with a categorical error.


    ----Conclusion-----

    Your argument can be summed up as
    When a justice system is in line with the peoples opinion, the people are happy with that system of justice and think it is just. This state of affairs is good.

    This argument does not answer the fundamental question of "What is justice?" (The topic of discussion). Thus your entire argument even if true is a categorical error.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    No, it's not based on a whim. Note that my argument starts with a premise that you accept - it's basically a moral truism, not a whim. You and I didn't just decide "Y'know - it's good that people if people are happy" on a whim. It's something that we've always believed. And the rest of my argument stems from this moral truism.

    You can argue that the points that follow the accepted premise don't follow but the basis of the argument is not arbitrary.
    That #1 is true is not, is not what makes it an arbitrary starting point.

    I quoted the definition of arbitrary earlier. Please see that definition and ask if there is any confusion that I may try to clarify.
    To serve man.

  7. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Not a conspiracy, at least not in modern times or in any point in our known history.

    It implies that Christians are willfully lying about the truth claims of their faith, and while some individual Christians may do that, I don't think organized Christianity is based on that.

    Were the founders of the religion in mind to be conspiratorial? I don't think so. The early church was pretty explicitly non-political in the sense that early Christians didn't seek political authority. It was a convert who was already in politics that turned the Christian Chruch into the catholic church proper and gave it authority in the political realm.

    We know next to nothing about those who started the Christian faith other than the accounts in the bible (which I personally do not believe are especially historical). Since that is the only account, and there is nothing conspiritorial about it, and no evidence of an alternate account exists which suggests a conspiracy, I see little to no reason to think it is.

    The best you can do is say it could be, but that ain't much to stand on.

    Now you might be able to go after some branches of christianity as conspiritorial. I think a decent case can be made the Anglacan church started as a sort of conspiracy with a specific political aim and was succesfull. I'm not sure you can say that continues to this day, it was more a conspiracy of time and place and once accomplished settled into being a fairly normal branch of chistianity and has little conspiritorial content today.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,659
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    First off, let me make my argument even clearer. First let me present it again


    1. ACCEPTED PREMISE - it is good for people to be happy.
    2. FACT - all else being equal, people are happier when the justice system's rules correspond with what people believe is just.
    3. THEREFORE - all else being equal, it is good when the justice system's rules correspond to what the people of the society believes is just.
    4. FACT - People generally agree that justice requires people who do commit crimes receive punishment for their crimes.
    5. THEREFORE - It is good when the justice system punishes people who commit crimes.

    If the chain works as it should.
    1. Is accepted as valid premise (and you have already said that you agree that it's good for people to be happy so it considered accepted).
    2. Is accepted as factual correct.
    3. points 1 and 2, once accepted, logically lead to this point so it's accepted since it logically flows from points 1 and 2.
    4. Is accepted as factually correct
    5. points 3 and 4, once accepted, logically lead to this point so it's accepted since it logically flows from points 4 and 5.

    And that is the test for each of the points. So the only relevant issue regarding point #1 is is whether it is an accepted premise and any relevant rebuttal to it must deny that it is not an accepted premise (one does not agree that it's good for people to be happy).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem starts with #1
    A: It is an arbitrary starting point.
    The only relevant problems with point 1 will have to show that the premise, that it's good for people to be happy, is not accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    #1 is plucked out of your personal opinion without cause or reason, and with considerable bias. One could with equal justification choose any number of other #1's as a starting point. (repeated/later) Such as It is good for ants to build and eat. (To point out your unjustified species bias)
    First off, pretty much all of your relevant claims are unsupported. You have not supported that it was plucked out without cause or reason. You have not supported that one could pick other things with as much justification. But you are correct that it was chosen with bias. Yes, I intentionally picked a premise that would support the argument that I seek to make, no different than if I choose a particular fact based on the bias that that fact would help support my argument. And that has no significance in whether there premise is accepted or not.

    But regardless, this is all irrelevant to the pertinent issue with point 1, whether it is an accepted premise or not. Whatever problems you may have with me presenting this particular premise, you have not reversed your prior statement and rejected the premise. So the premise stands.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    [INDENT]B: It is a value measure not a moral measure.
    Justice is a moral point between what is right and wrong, and what duties one has. That something is good does nothing to establish it's moral value or it's "justness". So if a person gets their idea of justice based on what is good, then they are making a categorical error in their thinking. Which is exactly what your whole argument does
    C: It does nothing to establish what "justice" is. Which is what the original challenge is.
    It is irrelevant to what follows when the basic justification for "justice" (the point that is to be supported as to what it is) is an appeal to popularity. In other words, once you say that what the majority(or society, or whatever the vague undefined gelatinous group you wish to point to) then the reason is not relevant. Some may reach the same idea of justice through what makes them unhappy. Or the opposite based on the same idea, or anything based on any other arbitrary measure. That is the problem with appealing to arbitrary things.
    And it also doesn't iron and fold your laundry for you. It doesn't do all of those things because it's not meant to do those things. The ONLY thing that point 1 does is establish the premise that it's good for people to be happy. That's it.

    And you have accepted the premise and none of your arguments even come close to making a coherent argument for rejecting the notion that it's good for people to be happy.

    So point 1 stands. And if you are going to argue that it doesn't, then you must actively reject and disagree that it's good for people to be happy. I assume you don't reject the premise so it stands.

    So now moving on to point 2 and likewise, all it does is establish a particular fact - that people are happier when the justice system's rules correspond with what people believe is just. And any counter-argument will state that it's not true that people are happier when the justice system's rules correspond with what people believe is just (you don't even have to support it at this point - you just need to say that this fact is false and you've challenged it).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Point #2
    [INDENT]A: Fallacy of question begging, because it does not describe what justice actually is or justify how it comes about.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that not describing what justice is or comes about means that it's begging the question.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Conceivably when a "society" (another vague term) decided to rape, kill, and enslave some group (obviously not deemed persons by that society) you would be forced to recognize it as "just". To stay consistent and all.
    Even if you are correct about that, it does not constitute a challenge to the factuality of the statement that people are happier when the justice system's rules correspond with what people believe is just. You are merely pointing out "disturbing ramifications" whose hypothetical existence has no bearing on the factuality of the statement.

    So this argument does not invalidate point 2 since it does not indicate that it's not true that people are happier when the justice system's rules correspond with what people believe is just.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    B: Appeal to popularity fallacy. Or else, #2 doesn't logically follow from #1. People could plausibility be unhappy, but as long as the majority thinks it's just... then it is just and #1 is again shown to be irrelevant.
    #2 doesn't logically follow form #1. It's a fact that stands on its own. And you have not said that this particular fact is incorrect. So it stands as correct until you state that it's not correct (and while don't have any burden to support your rejection, don't just reject it for the sake of being contradictory - there should be a modicum of sincerity in your disagreement). If you sincerely agree that people are happier when the justice system's rules correspond with what people believe is just, then please don't challenge it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Point #3
    A: Fallacious - Appeal to popularity
    [INDENT]First, the #1 idea of why it is "good" (value statement) is based again on popular opinion. Which is not the same as my idea so our "why" is significantly different.
    Wrong. It's based on an accepted premise. Accepted premises and appeal to popularity are not the same thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, What people "believe" is not equivalent to "what is". Which means your entire argument does not support the claim that "X is just, or X is unjust". It only supports a claim regarding belief or states of mind. That is a categorical fallacy. If at this point the original claim is amended or clarified to mean "People think X is unjust", then I don't object but note that it is dismiss-able as an opinion statement, and is thus dismissed. One is not obligated to care about the states of mind of another.
    Point 3 in no way is based on the notion that one is obligated to care about the states of mind of others. So this argument is basically a straw-man and definitely does not show that point 3 is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Third, it leads or tends to lead to equating what is currently legal as being the definition of justice.
    I don't see how but even if that's right, it does not change the fact that point 3 stands as it logically follows from the prior 2 points.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    B: Point to clarify
    At this point in the argument, one could easily say
    "It is not good when the justice system doesn't correspond to what people believe is just"
    However this statement would not be a support for if the system is in fact just or not.
    If you say so. I don't see how it has any bearing on the validity of my logic chain so I have no comment.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Points 4 & 5

    Repeat the fallacy of #3. In that it may be support for if the current system is "good", but not if it is "just".
    As the question is about what Justice is, and what it's basis is, the entire argument concludes with a categorical error.
    My argument doesn't address those issues. And its validity is not based on whether it addresses those issues.

    You have not challenged the factuality of point 4. And you have not challenged that point 5 logically flows from the prior points.

    So you have not even argued that any particular point is incorrect. So my argument stands.

    If you want to accept point 5 and then say that it's true but...(whatever argument you might want to make), you can do that. But until you show that any point is actually incorrect (it's not good for people to be happy, people are not happier when the justice system corresponds to their beliefs in justice, point 3 does not logically flow from points 1 and 2, etc), my argument, and point 5, stands.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your argument can be summed up as
    When a justice system is in line with the peoples opinion, the people are happy with that system of justice and think it is just. This state of affairs is good.
    Yep. That's right. Good job (sincerely, not sarcastically).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This argument does not answer the fundamental question of "What is justice?" (The topic of discussion). Thus your entire argument even if true is a categorical error.
    If you want to accept my argument as valid, I am willing to move on to this issue. But not before.

    So either accept point 5 or show that one or more of the points in my argument are incorrect.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That #1 is true is not, is not what makes it an arbitrary starting point.

    I quoted the definition of arbitrary earlier. Please see that definition and ask if there is any confusion that I may try to clarify.
    I believe that pertinent definition is "decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute."

    If I argue that the premise is valid because I say so, then I agree that it's arbitrary. But the premise is not valid because I say so. It's valid because you agree with it. In other words, both you and I accept it as valid and therefore it is a premise (something that is recognized as true by all relevant parties) which is more akin to a law than a personal decree.

    And regardless, I'm not going to play semantic games. The point is that you and I agree that the premise is valid. If you want to attach the word "arbitrary" to it and make some semantic argument that it qualifies for that word ("I don't see it in any rule book so it's arbitrary"), go ahead. But then I don't agree that being "arbitrary" necessarily make the premise invalid so in that case being "arbitrary" does not invalidate it. Again, we both agree with the premise. So it's a valid premise that stands. And that's all that we need to know about it terms of this debate. The premise stands.
    Last edited by mican333; November 8th, 2016 at 10:37 AM.

  9. Likes futureboy liked this post
  10. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,427
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    What is justice?

    It is whatever people decide it is.
    Enacted justice is decided by those in power.
    Percieved justices is an individual judgment, though often informed by social standards (including religious ones).

    I am not a believer in "cosmic" or "divine" justice. I've just never seen it in action (or seen good evidence of it) so I don't think it exists. There are also many good counter examples that illustrate that even if there was some cosmic justice, it seems to fly in the face of any sence of justice we humans have found most agreeable.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. Thanks futureboy thanked for this post
    Likes mican333 liked this post
  12. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That doesn't make any sense. Even under our own justice system we have Pardons (which is what your appealing to as I understand it).
    I thought you only recognized some sort of cosmic justice. Or are you now recognizing the justice system but saying it somehow "flows from God"? Could you clarify and support what you mean when you say justice flows from God?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Isn't a pardon exactly like what you are complaining against?
    I'm not sure, but I think you're saying that:
    A: a murderer being saved and going to heaven, avoiding any punishment for their crime;
    is the same as:
    B: someone convicted of a crime being pardoned
    Could you confirm?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If that makes our system unjust, then why should we use it to judge the bible?
    Of course there may be certain aspects of the justice system which are unjust, but being an actual system, it has the ability to be improved upon. That's what makes the justice system as well as secular morality superior to anything Christianity or any Abrahamic religion could offer.

    Matt Dillahunty put it best with:
    The realization that there’s no reason to expect justice is what ensures that we take steps to impose justice. The realization that good isn’t always rewarded is what drives us to reward it when we see it. The realization that evil isn’t always punished is what drives us to work together as a cooperative society to deal with our problems collectively and individually in a way that encourages real change and that hopefully minimizes harmful actions.
    Realizing that justice isn’t guaranteed allows us to appreciate when it happens and work toward ensuring it on a more regular basis. Your particular God concept/view of justice represents the height of irresponsibility and injustice. Your chosen religion has us born as reprobates, guilty before we’ve even taken a single breath. Responsible for things we’ve never done. It offers instant undeserved forgiveness for the most horrible of crimes and punishes people whose only crime is disbelief. Forever.
    It advocates slavery, denigrates women, curses homosexuals, orders the stoning of unruly children, sanctions wars of extermination, condones human sacrifices, and poisons every mind it touches. It includes only one unforgivable crime, disbelief. Is that just?

    So, I ask again, on what basis did you determine that "Justice" as you defined it is actually just?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think your cherry picking which parts of our laws to apply. As well as cherry picking which ideas of justice.
    I'm not entirely sure what your complaint is. Were examples of obedience, submissiveness, etc., not requested?

  13. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwaters View Post
    Does anyone else have any thoughts on how Christianity might be used to coerce/control people?
    ...by encouraging them to not break laws, pay taxes, and be productive? Lovecraftian levels of horror to be sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Regarding justice, I would say that Christianity lacks any form of justice when a murderer need only be saved before death to be able to get into heaven and avoid justice for their crimes.
    What is inherently unjust about forgiving a crime?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Since we're talking about fairness, and since fairness is an aspect of morality, and since your position on morality flows from God, can you show in the Bible where the concept of 'fairness' is said to contain an expectation that people first establish their basis for any criticism of concepts of justice before forwarding said criticism?
    Wouldn't that fall under the "Judge not or you'll be judged, and by the measure you judge others so too will you be judged" portion of Matthew?
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  14. Likes MindTrap028, Squatch347, Someguy liked this post
  15. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Regarding justice, I would say that Christianity lacks any form of justice when a murderer need only be saved before death to be able to get into heaven and avoid justice for their crimes.
    Why are you assuming there is no justice when someone is saved (forgiven) for let’s say, murder because he repents before he dies? Why are you assuming that when God ‘s grace forgives man/woman for a crime that they sincerely ask for forgiveness, that such grace does not mean justice for the soul will not take place? Just because we may not be aware of how God’s justice plays out when he forgives a soul for a crime doesn’t mean much, except that we’re only aware of a small portion of physical reality. Where in Christian text does it teach that God’s forgiveness removes all consequences (justice) for crimes like murder , rape, etc. if the soul goes into a heavenly kingdom when the person dies?

    It seems to me you are assuming Christ forgiveness (being saved) eliminates cosmic justice (consequences for our unwise choices). Where is this assumption supported in the Bible?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  16. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    What is inherently unjust about forgiving a crime?
    Every day there are criminals who ask for forgiveness and are nonetheless tried and punished for their crimes. Are you saying that's inherently unjust? Why aren't you petitioning to change the law to grant full pardons on the basis of asking for forgiveness?
    Also, if you believe justice is served when someone avoids punishment by being forgiven, on what basis did you determine that this is just?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Why are you assuming there is no justice when someone is saved (forgiven) for let’s say, murder because he repents before he dies? Why are you assuming that when God ‘s grace forgives man/woman for a crime that they sincerely ask for forgiveness, that such grace does not mean justice for the soul will not take place? Just because we may not be aware of how God’s justice plays out when he forgives a soul for a crime doesn’t mean much, except that we’re only aware of a small portion of physical reality. Where in Christian text does it teach that God’s forgiveness removes all consequences (justice) for crimes like murder , rape, etc. if the soul goes into a heavenly kingdom when the person dies? It seems to me you are assuming Christ forgiveness (being saved) eliminates cosmic justice (consequences for our unwise choices). Where is this assumption supported in the Bible?
    I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Are you saying that there is still some type of justice if a rapist is saved and "goes into a heavenly kingdom" (whatever that means) upon death? Could you elaborate on what that is?

    Take a simple scenario:
    A priest rapes a child, who then grows up hating the church and everything it represents. That person does not believe, naturally, but endeavours to lead a good life by most standards, and commits no crimes. The victim has a family, successfully raises children who become valuable members of society, and then dies and goes to hell (assuming, for the sake of the scenario, that hell exists) because he/she remained atheistic until death.
    The priest, who quite possibly even gets to rape some more kids, is saved just before death and goes to heaven (again assuming, for the sake of the scenario, that heaven exists).
    Could you explain and provide support for the justice you claim exists in this scenario according to your belief system, and on what basis did you determine that it is just?

  17. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Are you saying that there is still some type of justice if a rapist is saved and "goes into a heavenly kingdom" (whatever that means) upon death? Could you elaborate on what that is?
    You seem to be making a claim that “Christianity lacks any form of justice when a murderer need only be saved before death to be able to get into heaven and avoid justice for their crimes.” Is this a personal option or can you support this with Christian text? If this is your opinion, that’s fine. But then I might suggest restating your sweeping assumption that Christianity, which includes scripture and the teachings in the Bible, lacks any form of justice.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Could you explain and provide support for the justice you claim exists in this scenario according to your belief system, and on what basis did you determine that it is just?
    I am not the one making claims here about Christianity and divine justice. I am asking you why you are assuming that there is no justice when someone is saved (forgiven) for let’s say murder? What did you base this assumption, your belief on? What Christian text supports thiscomment? I would be happy to discuss the matter further, but again you seem to be making a claim about Christianity lacking justice and I ‘m trying to understand is this your opinion or can you support your claim with Christian text?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  18. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    You seem to be making a claim that “Christianity lacks any form of justice when a murderer need only be saved before death to be able to get into heaven and avoid justice for their crimes.”
    I don't seem to be making that claim, I am making that claim. I've already explained it in more detail with: "The religion lacks justice based on the common definition of justice ("the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals"), when someone can escape punishment by being saved before death and goes to heaven."

    Is this a personal option or can you support this with Christian text? If this is your opinion, that’s fine. But then I might suggest restating your sweeping assumption that Christianity, which includes scripture and the teachings in the Bible, lacks any form of justice.
    Being forgiven for sins and going to heaven is one of the core principles of Christian dogma, is it not?

    I am not the one making claims here about Christianity and divine justice. I am asking you why you are assuming that there is no justice when someone is saved (forgiven) for let’s say murder?
    Your statement in post #31:
    Just because we may not be aware of how God’s justice plays out when he forgives a soul for a crime doesn’t mean much, except that we’re only aware of a small portion of physical reality.
    This is an implicit claim that there is somehow justice in God's forgiveness, we just aren't aware of it. You referred to it as "God's justice". Please explain what you mean, provide support that it exists, and explain how you determined that it is actually justice, or just. Please also explain how what you're calling "God's justice" plays out in the scenario I provided, how it is just, and how you determined it to be just.

    What did you base this assumption, your belief on? What Christian text supports this comment? I would be happy to discuss the matter further, but again you seem to be making a claim about Christianity lacking justice and I ‘m trying to understand is this your opinion or can you support your claim with Christian text?
    It isn't an assumption or a belief. The common definition of justice excludes the chance of avoiding punishment by merely asking for forgiveness. You appear to be using a different definition of justice - "God's justice"? Please explain what you mean and the basis on which you determined that it is just.

  19. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    @futureboy

    One of the problems with your position here is the you are applying human standards and definitions of justice to an omnipotent God....and we can't do that
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  20. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    One of the problems with your position here is the you are applying human standards and definitions of justice to an omnipotent God....and we can't do that
    I don't see a problem with using the common definition of justice to determine whether something is just, regardless of what that something is. You appear to be referring to a different kind of justice - could you elaborate a bit on what that is, provide support that it exists, and explain the basis on which you determined that it is just?

  21. #37
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I don't see a problem with using the common definition of justice to determine whether something is just, regardless of what that something is. You appear to be referring to a different kind of justice - could you elaborate a bit on what that is, provide support that it exists, and explain the basis on which you determined that it is just?

    How do you justify applying human standards of justice (the definition of which changes from culture to culture and from age to age throughout mankind) to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, immortal being that created all life and is all powerful and all good?
    Last edited by Someguy; November 23rd, 2016 at 08:44 PM.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  22. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Every day there are criminals who ask for forgiveness and are nonetheless tried and punished for their crimes. Are you saying that's inherently unjust? Why aren't you petitioning to change the law to grant full pardons on the basis of asking for forgiveness?
    Also, if you believe justice is served when someone avoids punishment by being forgiven, on what basis did you determine that this is just?
    You're trying too hard, Future. Let's revisit the exchange so you can see how you're starting to construct a straw man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futureboy in post #5
    Regarding justice, I would say that Christianity lacks any form of justice when a murderer need only be saved before death to be able to get into heaven and avoid justice for their crimes.
    Here, you introduced the concept here that a criminal ought to be punished for there to be justice. I responded to that by asking:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde
    What is inherently unjust about forgiving a crime?
    I'm not making any claim or argument here. I'm just asking you to clarify why forgiveness (mercy) invalidates justice. Not justice for that person, but as you have made clear the entire concept of justice in its entirety within that set of beliefs.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  23. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    How do you justify applying human standards of justice (the definition of which changes from culture to culture and from age to age throughout mankind) to an omnipotent, immortal being that created all life and is all powerful and all good?
    The simple fact that we are able to reason and determine what is just according to our standards is enough to justify doing so. All that is required is to look at something and ask "Is that just, according to what we consider justice?"
    So I ask again, since you appear to be referring to some other kind of justice by implying that it's not even just for us to apply our own reasoning to make evaluations of the fairness of a situation.

    Question to opponent.
    What is the justice you are referring to, and on what basis did you determine that it is just?
    How did you determine that the deity which you claim exists is "all good"?
    How did you determine that we can't apply our reasoning to evaluate the fairness of situations involving the deity which you claim exists?

    =======================================

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    You're trying too hard, Future. Let's revisit the exchange so you can see how you're starting to construct a straw man.
    Please support how it is a Straw Man to respond to: "Why do you think X is not Y?"
    with: "Are you saying X is Y?"
    when "X is not Y" is already established by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I'm not making any claim or argument here. I'm just asking you to clarify why forgiveness (mercy) invalidates justice.
    And I don't understand why you'd ask that, other than because you disagree with the definition of justice in use thus far. Do you?

    If you read the definition carefully, you'll see it clearly doesn't include "- provided they don't just ask to be forgiven" at the end. So X (escaping punishment by being saved) is not Y (concordant with what is considered justice) by definition, and for you to question why implies that you think X is Y for some reason, or that you disagree with the definition.

    I'm just trying to make sense of what you're asking and why.

    Question to opponent.
    How do you define justice, and how did you determine that it is just?
    Last edited by futureboy; November 23rd, 2016 at 06:23 PM.

  24. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    It's pretty silly to think that flawed, biased, mortal humans who can't even agree amongst themselves what is just should be able to dictate and define what is justice to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal being who literally created us and everything else in the universe
    Last edited by Someguy; November 24th, 2016 at 02:52 AM.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

 

 
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 911 Conspiracy
    By PatrickHenry in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 198
    Last Post: June 16th, 2011, 07:52 AM
  2. The philosophy of Christianity and the religoin of Christianity
    By Supaiku in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 5th, 2005, 11:01 AM
  3. Hey I got a conspiracy for you...
    By EscraymCroix in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: April 1st, 2005, 10:27 PM
  4. The Mormon Conspiracy
    By freedom man in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 21st, 2005, 01:24 PM
  5. Conspiracy or cover up?
    By CC in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 14th, 2005, 01:43 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •