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 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 161
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    ]I don't seem to be making that claim,
    So this statement you made is an opinion? “Regarding justice, I would say that Christianity 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?”
    The core principles of orthodox Christianity are: “The basic tenets of Christianity, typically referred to as the core doctrines, include the belief that there is only one true God; that God exists in the form of a Trinity, or three gods in one; that God is omnipresent and omniscient; and that God is sovereign and holy. In addition, a core principle is the belief that Jesus was the Son of God but became a man and was sent to earth to save mankind from death and sin.

    Though there are many facets of Christianity and multiple denominations, most adhere to the basic tenets and strive to live their lives by the inherent principles of the religion.The belief that God is holy, just, true and forgiving informs the true believer's approach to daily life. The sinful nature of man dictates actions to overcome this premise and gain entrance to heaven based on accepting salvation as a free gift from God to those who accept Jesus Christ. Those who do so receive forgiveness of sins and live eternally after death. However, humans who do not subscribe to this are doomed to eternal damnation and an afterlife in hell. Christians believe that Jesus plans to return to the earth, that the dead will be raised, and that a final judgement day is coming when Satan is thrown into a lake of fire and God creates a new heaven and earth.”
    https://www.reference.com/world-view...b7887453a0ec7#


    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".
    My comment “ 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” simply points out that you and I and most people are clueless of what happens to a person (soul) in heaven when we make our transition from this world, and thus we are clueless of how divine justice operates in heaven -- unless, of course, you want to consider people who claim to have gone to heaven and come back. Let me know if you want to discuss that. However, you seem to know what is happening in heaven and that Christianity, according to you, lacks justice in heaven. How do you know heaven lacks justice? How can you support this? In order for you to make this claim and support it, I would presume that you have found this information in scriptures or perhaps you have some in debt information about heaven that most don’t have. If this is the case, can you please share it on this thread?

    Please explain what you mean, provide support that it exists
    God loves justice. Justice is referenced throughout the Bible.

    “For I, the LORD, love justice, I hate robbery in the burnt offering; And I will faithfully give them their recompense And make an everlasting covenant with them.” Isaiah 61:8
    If one doesn’t know how justice works in heaven, does that mean it doesn’t exist as you seem to be claiming?

    It isn't an assumption or a belief. The common definition of justice
    Are you assuming that the limitation of human common language definitions on earth are also common in heaven?

    You appear to be using a different definition of justice - "God's justice"?
    I have not submitted any definitions. You made statement: “Christianity lacks any form of justice” how are you defining justice?

    How did you determine that we can't apply our reasoning to evaluate the fairness of situations involving the deity which you claim exists?

    Well for one, God’s gives us some hints about the difference between the heaven world and the physical world in a few places in the Bible:

    For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. Isaiah 55:8-9

    "My kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36

    It actually makes sense if you think about it objectively. What seems just and fair to man is limited to the laws of the physical world -- the evidence we can observe or detect. God has no such limitation and however divine justice works, God knows all the cards, not just the physical cards. So what may seem unjust to man (who can only observe the limits of physical causes) may not be unjust for God who know all the causes; and what is just for God may seem unjust to man. So how do we apply human reasoning subject to only physical causes to understand God’s justice who knows all the cards?
    Last edited by eye4magic; November 24th, 2016 at 03:13 AM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    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
    We have an agreed-upon definition of justice which is currently in use and supported for the purposes of this discussion, but the fact that the question of "what is just" is constantly being discussed and debated is actually a good thing, as it means we are able to adjust and improve upon our justice system. Also, nobody's dictating or defining what is justice to the deity which you claim exists, which makes sense, since you haven't supported that the deity exists, has any of the characteristics you listed, or did any of the things you claim it did.

    Your response has nothing to do with my statement:
    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?"

    And you still haven't answered the key questions:
    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 eye4magic View Post
    So this statement you made is an opinion? “Regarding justice, I would say that Christianity lacks any form of justice…”
    The full sentence was "I don't seem to be making that claim, I am making that claim," and was only intended to correct the confusing statement you made when you said, "You seem to be making a claim that," but then quoted my claim verbatim.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The core principles of orthodox Christianity are ....
    You pasted quite a bit from that website which isn't directly related to the question I asked, so I pulled out what appears to be related:
    The sinful nature of man dictates actions to overcome this premise and gain entrance to heaven based on accepting salvation as a free gift from God to those who accept Jesus Christ. Those who do so receive forgiveness of sins and live eternally after death. However, humans who do not subscribe to this are doomed to eternal damnation and an afterlife in hell.
    So, your answer is that, Yes, being forgiven for sins and going to heaven is a principle of Christianity? Please confirm.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    My comment “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” simply points out that you and I and most people are clueless of what happens to a person (soul) in heaven when we make our transition from this world
    Again, you are making a claim that there is something happening of which we are clueless and which has not been supported. Please support or retract this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    thus we are clueless of how divine justice operates in heaven
    Again, you are referring to something other than the justice which has been established in this thread, and again without providing the clarification which has repeatedly been requested: what is this "divine/God's justice", how did you determine that it is just, and what support can you provide which demonstrates that it exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    unless, of course, you want to consider people who claim to have gone to heaven and come back. Let me know if you want to discuss that.
    Until anything more substantial than just their claims is provided, there is nothing to discuss. If you are forwarding their claims as the basis on which you hold beliefs in "God's justice", then you must provide support for those claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    However, you seem to know what is happening in heaven and that Christianity, according to you, lacks justice in heaven. How do you know heaven lacks justice? How can you support this? In order for you to make this claim and support it, I would presume that you have found this information in scriptures or perhaps you have some in debt information about heaven that most don’t have. If this is the case, can you please share it on this thread?
    Being saved and avoiding punishment by going to heaven is not in concordance with justice as it has been defined ("the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals"). Note that it doesn't include "- provided they don't just ask to be forgiven" at the end. There is no claim here to know what is happening in heaven, nor is it required. By definition, not being punished and going to heaven is not justice as it has been defined.
    So if you're claiming that there is some justice in heaven, then it must be some other kind of justice, which hasn't been defined or supported.
    What is that, how did you determine that it is just, and what support can you provide which demonstrates that it exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    God loves justice. Justice is referenced throughout the Bible.
    Referencing something is not support that it exists. Also, referencing something is not an explanation, either, especially considering justice as currently defined contradicts what is accepted as a principle of Christianity.
    Please explain what you mean by "God's justice", provide support that it exists, and explain how you determined that it is 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    If one doesn’t know how justice works in heaven, does that mean it doesn’t exist as you seem to be claiming?
    Since the existence of it has not been supported, then the belief that it exists cannot be rationally justified. And again, you're referring to "justice in heaven" which, by definition, is not justice and has not been supported. Please support what you mean by "justice in heaven", and explain the basis on which you determined that it is just.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Are you assuming that the limitation of human common language definitions on earth are also common in heaven?
    It appears you're essentially saying that our language cannot possibly define that which exists in heaven. Please confirm, as this would be yet another implicit claim of something which exists but has not been supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I have not submitted any definitions.
    I know, which is why I've repeatedly asked you to do so every time you have referred to something which has not been defined nor supported. This penchant you have for smuggling in undefined and unsupported terms/claims while continuously ignoring requests for clarification and support of them is the main reason we aren't getting anywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. Isaiah 55:8-9
    "My kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36
    1. Please provide support or retract that what the speaker said is true.
    2. It appears your only support for why we can't apply our reasoning of fairness to the deity you claim exists is that the deity you claim exists said so. Nice. Disregarding - for now - the usual "divine edict" issues with that, isn't it somewhat circular?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    It actually makes sense if you think about it objectively. What seems just and fair to man is limited to the laws of the physical world -- the evidence we can observe or detect.
    No, it's limited to what has been supported, and anything which has not is dismissed. So it's not thinking objectively that's required for it to make sense, it's thinking irrationally.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    God has no such limitation and however divine justice works, God knows all the cards, not just the physical cards. So what may seem unjust to man (who can only observe the limits of physical causes) may not be unjust for God who know all the causes; and what is just for God may seem unjust to man. So how do we apply human reasoning subject to only physical causes to understand God’s justice who knows all the cards?
    More unsupported claims and undefined terms, which are all dismissed until you provide the support and clarification as requested.

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    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
    I don't think anyone is dictating anything to God. We have been told what God's morality is and one can question that. I know we are capable of doing that or otherwise Futureboy's post could not exist. Since we are capable of doing that, if one assumes that God made everything, then God made beings that are capable of questioning such things.

    Nor do I think it's necessarily an accepted premise that God actually exists and/or the morality under question is indeed God's morality (but I'm not saying that premise is incorrect either). Again, it's what we've been told. Some believe it to be true and others do not. So is one questioning what God has indeed put forth or are they questioning some moral position that religious people have incorrectly attributed to a deity?

    Either way, one has the ability to question these things and to shut it down with "It's God's morality and cannot be questioned" is to forward a premise that has not been accepted. BTW, if the premise is accepted, then you are right that it makes no sense to question the issue. But again, I don't think Futureboy has accepted that premise and therefore can question it.

  4. #44
    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
    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.
    I didn't say it was a straw man argument, only that you were constructing one. I'll break it down and show you how.

    Future: X is devoid of justice because of forgiveness.
    Hyde: How does forgiveness invalidate justice?

    And here's where you started to gather straw:

    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?

    The first sentence and question we can accept as is. The first is an observation, and the question that follows is pretty clear. BUT, you immediately follow that with the beginnings of a straw man with you second question (a loaded one at that). By asking why I'm not petitioning to change the law, you're question relies on me having to have given an affirmative answer to the preceding question. If I haven't answered that initial question, then your second question is at best a loaded question and at worse the beginning of a straw man argument. I'm shutting it down before it gets to that point.

    And like I said before, what I believe is irrelevant here. I'm asking YOU a question, a fairly simple one at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    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?
    I ask because your definition here doesn't even make sense. Look at it again:

    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?

    You assert that you're not claiming justice exists outside the bible. Then you go on to use a nonscriptural definition for justice. So either 1 of 2 things must be true here already: 1) you are claiming justice exists outside the bible or 2) that your common definition doesn't actually exist. You're already conflicting with yourself. And we can even read this further as a self defeating statement. Because if you're NOT claiming that justice exists outside the bible, then it's irrelevant what the common definition is because you're not claiming that the common definition of justice IS justice...it's just words that doesn't mean anything or have any bearing on the discussion at hand. So again, either you're making a claim you insist you aren't making, or you're not and your provided definition is irrelevant. Which is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    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.
    Again, if you're not claiming that justice exists outside the bible, then we can ignore your provided definition as being nonexistent. Which, again, makes your statement here look really bizarre because this is how it reads:

    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 [invisible standards I'm not claiming exist], and for you to question why implies that you think X is [the same non-thing I'm totally NOT saying is real] for some reason, or that you disagree with [what I'm not actually saying at all] .


    If you're not arguing that justice exists separate from scripture, then that paragraph is useless as it looks right there. Because without the claim that justice exists separate from scripture, your provided definition of justice is meaningless since you're defining something you won't even acknowledge exists. And even if you DID make the claim that justice exists independent of scripture, and that your provided definition is accurate, you STILL need to define what "fairly judging" is because right now, I may think someone with a sincere heart asking forgiveness living with the guilt of their crime may be punishment enough, and based on your definition, that fits all the criteria you've given for making that result justice, in which case you've actually conceded that yes, forgiveness CAN be justice and defeated your own argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Question to opponent.
    How do you define justice, and how did you determine that it is just?
    I don't define justice and I don't determine what's just. Again, I'm not forwarding a claim here; I'm disputing your potentially existing claim which, again: Either exists and you have to define your terms or else admit you beat yourself OR you're not forwarding a claim here in which case the crux of your argument is irrelevant and you've STILL beaten yourself.
    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

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I didn't say it was a straw man argument, only that you were constructing one. I'll break it down and show you how.
    I can see now that the problem you're having is that you've picked up on and are trying desperately to read into something I said in response to another post, which was to illustrate a specific point applicable to that post specifically.

    When I said I didn't claim that justice exists outside the bible, I was responding to MT's post: "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."
    So when I said I didn't make the claim he said I did, that's exactly what was meant, and nothing more.
    From the very beginning, when using the word "justice", the common definition has applied: "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals". It is also the only definition which has been forwarded and supported thus far.
    By definition, when we perform the process or cause the result referred to in the definition, we are fulfilling justice as it is defined, and it therefore exists.

    Since that definition contains absolutely no mention of religious texts or deities, no claim that justice exists outside the bible is required. It doesn't need to be made in any way to refer to justice as defined. Justice exists as defined by "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals". That's the claim. There's absolutely no need for "outside the bible", which is why I corrected MT in the way that I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I don't define justice and I don't determine what's just. Again, I'm not forwarding a claim here; I'm disputing your potentially existing claim which, again: Either exists and you have to define your terms or else admit you beat yourself OR you're not forwarding a claim here in which case the crux of your argument is irrelevant and you've STILL beaten yourself.
    I'm sorry, but I thought you were trying to illustrate a Straw Man, or at least the beginnings of one. You instead spent all that time trying to explain why what you misunderstood about a simple statement necessarily leads to it cancelling out another statement, which is not a Straw Man. Unfortunately, it appears that all your efforts have resulted in your very own Straw Man.

    If you'd like, we can now have an actual discussion about justice, what it is, how we determine what it is, and what the issues are with regard to Christianity and justice.
    But to do that, you need to answer:
    How do you define justice, or what definition of justice do you employ when considering the justice or fairness of a situation?
    If you consider justice to be just, then how did you reach that conclusion, ie: how did you determine it to be just?
    Last edited by futureboy; November 24th, 2016 at 02:01 PM.

  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    From the very beginning, when using the word "justice", the common definition has applied: "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals". It is also the only definition which has been forwarded and supported thus far.
    By definition, when we perform the process or cause the result referred to in the definition, we are fulfilling justice as it is defined, and it therefore exists.
    Well, when you forget where the conversation has come from, and what exactly is being attacked and defended, you get to a place like this where you prove the original point but some how think your contradicting it.
    So lets go back to what started this line...

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE 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.
    To which I responded...
    Quote Originally Posted by MT POST #6
    You are going to have to establish a separate existence of justice and it's source if you intent to start a criticism there.
    According to you, your statement way back in post #5 is false. Because there is a law and a process etc etc..
    How it ends, no matter how contradictory or unliked is irrelevant (according to your use).

    So. Iether
    1) your origninal statement is false.
    or
    2) You must establish an objective measure of justice. (which you have not).


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE POST 29
    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.
    Here again you contradict yourself and speak in circles. You said there is only one definition of justice that is being used. yet here you clearly use it in two different ways.
    In one way it is the written process, but then you say that process may have parts that are "unjust".

    You have yet to define the second version you are clearly appealing to. Which is what I pointed out you would have to establish.

    your argument is thus circular and invalid when it comes to justice.

    *note.. other responses in this thread need to be made, and I am behind, and may have easily missed a relevant response.
    will try to get to it. If there is some thing relevant not considered here I apologize and feel free to draw attention to it.

    ---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    Wow.. the biggest hand wave ever.
    Your not debating the points, you are simply ignoring the points away that you don't like. You don't even bother supporting that they are not relevant.. you know with some kind of reasoning.
    Hey if you don't want to address my argument, you could simply not respond, because filling pages of posts with hand waving is not really better. It's a waist of our time...especially mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, pretty much all of your relevant claims are unsupported
    This is horribly, horribly false.
    That you think it is true in the face of a bullet pointed response(each with a support section that you fail to address in anyway), is sad.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    I am confused how you take my challenges to #1 as an acceptance of it.

    Just for the record, I challenged your primes and argument on multiple points. Which you hand waved off as irrelevant.

    I have attacked the form or your argument. The relevance of each point, and more, in a fairly coherent fashion. You have actually claimed that I didn't support certain points that were supported in my post. As you have chosen to hand wave my argument away. I leave it as it stands.
    Unattributed.

    I think you should take a moment and re-read my previous post and try to consider it a bit more fully. You have made some glaringly false statements regarding support(and I challenge you to show that you have not... HA! beat you to the punch). Your failure to see the support offered(and I challenge you to show that it was not.... Ha.. again.. too slow) and respond to it accordingly before dismissing makes me disinclined to seriously consider any of your calls for support, and frankly question your seriousness about discussing this topic.
    To serve man.

  7. Likes Mr. Hyde liked this post
  8. #47
    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
    I can see now that the problem you're having is that you've picked up on and are trying desperately to read into something I said in response to another post, which was to illustrate a specific point applicable to that post specifically.
    I'll take that at face value. You insist you were responding to MT and that's fine. Let's look at what you were responding to:

    MT's 1st post in the thread.

    That brings up a good point, what is your evidence that Christianity promotes blind obedience, submissiveness, and not to seek justice.
    O, and why in the world are you conflating justice with revenge?

    You responded in your 1st post :

    Blind obedience & submissiveness: Proverbs 3:5, Deut. 11:1, John 14:15, John 15:14, Luke 11:28, Colossians 3:22, Genesis 2:18, 1 Peter 2:13, 1 Peter 3:1-6, 1 Corinthians 11:9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, EDIT: Genesis 22:1-19!
    Revenge: Matthew 5:39
    Justice: 1 Peter 2:18-19

    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.

    That last portion there is the portion I have been disputing. Now, to be CLEAR, you continue here to say that:

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    When I said I didn't claim that justice exists outside the bible, I was responding to MT's post: "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'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing here is whether or not you actually DID make the claim MT is arguing you made. And if we go back to your last post BEFORE you responding to MT's statement you're quoting, we see this:

    MT: You are going to have to establish a separate existence of justice and it's source if you intent to start a criticism there.
    Future: I could, but as Dionysus pointed out, whether there is another source of justice is not relevant to the fact that Christianity lacks justice of any kind, so I don't really have to.

    That marked the second time in the thread when you charged that Christianity lacks justice based on the concept of mercy. The 1st time NO ONE had said anything for you to be disputing. You simply introduced the concept in the thread that Christianity lacks justice based on the concept of mercy. MT called you on it, and you later repeated the same sentiment as before, that it lacks justice. So again, just to be clear here, I never disputed you SAYING you aren't making the claim. What I'm disputing is whether or not you ACTUALLY made that claim, and if so, the implications of said claim. It's been shown here, twice now, that you DID actually make that claim given that the first time you mentioned it NO ONE had said otherwise, meaning it wasn't a refutation of anything, it couldn't logically be in response as a counter to anything, or anything else of the like. It was you making a claim. You not wanting to believe it doesn't make any less real than it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So when I said I didn't make the claim he said I did, that's exactly what was meant, and nothing more.
    From the very beginning, when using the word "justice", the common definition has applied: "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals". It is also the only definition which has been forwarded and supported thus far.
    By definition, when we perform the process or cause the result referred to in the definition, we are fulfilling justice as it is defined, and it therefore exists.
    This is also wildly inaccurate at best or lying at worst. You didn't even mention that definition until post #24 of this thread. Point of fact, when MT challenged you to define it or show some external version of justice beyond the Bible, you argued (as I quoted above) that you didn't have. You didn't define justice initially, you didn't when challenged the first time, and only did so in post #24 where you ACTUALLY went as far as to say 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.

    And that's quite a few things right there. 1) It's you admitting you made the very claim I've been arguing you made, that you are now denying you made. Make up your mind. Either you made the claim and you need to support it, or you didn't and we'll pretend it was never said at all. 2) You're claiming there (your words, not mine) that you were claiming christianity lacks justice based on the common definition of justice, when the initial claim you made was: 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. Which is a vastly different one since THAT claim only requires that a murderer be spared death for it to invalidate justice, which is itself contradictory to the later clarification (if we're generous) that provided which would allow for instances where a murderer gets X amount of years and gets released, or gets a life sentence, etc.

    So far, you've contradicted yourself on what justice is and what invalidates it, whether or not you made a claim, and what your potential claim actually was.

    Then you go on to state here that you're the ONLY one to offer support for a definition of justice...when Mican did it way back in post #13. So again, you are mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Since that definition contains absolutely no mention of religious texts or deities, no claim that justice exists outside the bible is required. It doesn't need to be made in any way to refer to justice as defined. Justice exists as defined by "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals". That's the claim. There's absolutely no need for "outside the bible", which is why I corrected MT in the way that I did.
    You're missing the forest for the trees here, Future. The claim you made is a non-scripture-based claim regarding justice. Okay? The definition you provided, we BOTH AGREE, is not at all rooted in scripture or based on any religious belief or affiliation. We agree on that. MT challenged you to support your claim that justice exists outside the Bible. THE DEFINITION YOU PROVIDED IS AN EXTRABIBLICAL DEFINITION OF JUSTICE and therefore AUTOMATICALLY falls under the category of "justice outside the bible". You literally did what he asked you to do (mostly) while vehemently denying that you did it.

    I mean, for goodness sake man, you're doing it RIGHT THERE in that quote WHILE arguing that you're not even doing it!
    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

  9. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Referencing something is not support that it exists.
    If the Bible is not something that supports Christian belief and theology, (some of which embraces the principle that God loves justice) then your claim, "I would say that Christianity lacks any form of justice…” is not supported by anything that exists.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  10. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Wow.. the biggest hand wave ever.
    If you mean that I'm blowing off your rebuttals, I am. And if I didn't explain why clearly enough, let me be succinct. They are all essentially straw-men arguments that do not relevantly address my points. If you disagree, then explain how they do show that my point, which is "It is good for people to be happy" is INCORRECT. Any argument that shows that the notion that it's good for people to be happy is incorrect has to argue its opposite - that it's not good for people to be happy.

    That's not to say that your arguments have no relevance to the debate at hand. But they do not rebut point 1. If you argue that they do then please show me how any of them indicate that it's not good for people to be happy. And bear in mind that you don't even need to support your opposing conclusion but you do have to coherently state your opposing conclusion in order to challenge point 1. You do have to say that it's not good for people to be happy. But then you have said that you agree with the premise - you agree that it's good for people to be happy. So why not accept point 1 and move on. Really, I'd suggest that you just accept the entirety of my logic chain argument (so just accept the conclusion) and then make your arguments.

    But I'm not going to consider retracting point 1 until you actually present an argument showing that it is wrong - that it is NOT good for people to be happy.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your not debating the points, you are simply ignoring the points away that you don't like. You don't even bother supporting that they are not relevant.. you know with some kind of reasoning.
    Again, the only relevant rebuttal is one that says that point 1 is wrong and therefore argues that it's not good for people to be happy. From my assessment, not a single argument of yours attempted to argue that it's not good for people to be happy. If I am incorrect about this, please correct me and show me which argument that I blew off did indeed argue that it's not good for people to be happy or challenged the assertion that it is good for people to be happy.

    And please don't guess at my motives. I didn't blow them off because I didn't like them. I blew them off because I believed that they were all straw-men and if I'm wrong then it's an honest mistake and not me just ignoring arguments because they were too tough or whatever. So consider this a challenge (although not an official support-or-retrace) type of challenge.

    Show me any of your arguments that DID say that it's not correct that it's good for people to be happy and I PROMISE that I will respond to it and will attempt to show how the argument is wrong in its argument that it's not good for people to be happy.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am confused how you take my challenges to #1 as an acceptance of it.
    You didn't accept it in the most recent post. You accepted it in post 20 - response #9. Directly copied and pasted below.

    From Post #20:

    Mind Trap: "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."


    This is not a "No" statement. It's a "yeah, but..." statement. And there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But "yeah, but" is still "yeah".

    And I think it is your general argument, even in your most recent post (without the "I accept part"). You aren't really challenging the notion that it's good for people to be happy. You are saying that the notion is not a valid basis or whatever. That's fine for you to argue but Premise 1 not being a valid basis IS NOT the same thing as Premise 1 being incorrect.

    Again, your arguments are not completely irrelevant to the debate at hand, they are just irrelevant to whether Premise 1 is correct or not. I bolded that because I think that is the basis of your confusion (assuming that I'm correct about there being confusion).

    Again, I think you should accept my logic chain and therefore accept the conclusion of it and then make your arguments. I think they probably do relevantly address the conclusion of the logic chain. But I'm not going to retract the conclusion of the logic chain in the face of arguments that don't actually show that it is wrong.

    But again, I think your "yeah, but" arguments are likely relevant to the conclusion of my logic chain, so maybe think about applying them there. But with point 1, once you say "yeah", the point is accepted and all "buts" are irrelevant to that (as they don't make the "yeah" a "no")



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think you should take a moment and re-read my previous post and try to consider it a bit more fully. You have made some glaringly false statements regarding support(and I challenge you to show that you have not... HA! beat you to the punch). Your failure to see the support offered(and I challenge you to show that it was not.... Ha.. again.. too slow) and respond to it accordingly before dismissing makes me disinclined to seriously consider any of your calls for support, and frankly question your seriousness about discussing this topic.
    Actually, the burden is yours to show me these things. I stand by my assessment and I believe I have explained my reasoning more fully here. If I missed something or misinterpreted something, it's an honest mistake on my part and the only way that I will be corrected is if you show me that your argument(s) did indeed show that premise 1 was incorrect. Just telling me to take your word for it is not a rebuttal. So either show me which argument of your shows that my premise that it's good for people to be happy is incorrect or make a new argument to that effect.
    Last edited by mican333; November 25th, 2016 at 07:21 AM.

  11. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    If you mean that I'm blowing off your rebuttals, I am. And if I didn't explain why clearly enough, let me be succinct. They are all essentially straw-men arguments that do not relevantly address my points. If you disagree, then explain how they do show that my point, which is "It is good for people to be happy" is INCORRECT. Any argument that shows that the notion that it's good for people to be happy is incorrect has to argue its opposite - that it's not good for people to be happy.
    Your assertion that I must show it "false" or "incorrect" is not the only way to attack an argument.
    I attacked it on several fronts, and you don't have to address them, and I am fine with leaving my rebuttal as it stands. However I'll try to explain a little more further down.
    One of those fronts was noting the categorical error of the line. (IE your argument is about establishing value judgments, when justice is a moral issue).
    Also, the point about appeal to popularity fallacy, because just because people believe a certain way, doesn't automatically make it true. (examples given).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You didn't accept it in the most recent post. You accepted it in post 20 - response #9. Directly copied and pasted below.
    Yes, yes I did.
    My problem is that we do not arrive at #1 the same way. So my objections can be taken as to say that your #1 is false.
    Yes, I personally agree that it is good to be happy.
    However, on naturalism and atheism or any other source other than what I come from.
    I see no reason to accept the truth of #1

    .. because.
    It is arbitrary, one could easily say that to be in pain is good. To kill is good. To enact as much vengeance as possible is good. They would all be equally as true as your #1 due to it's arbitrary nature. Good for ants to be productive. etc.( point was made already).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, the burden is yours to show me these things
    supported below.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT POST 25
    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.
    on point B I would add, that it could be true that it's "good" for people to be happy, but ultimately be "unjust" for people to be happy.
    Such would be the case for a community of rapers. Majority happy, but unjust. (Kinda like sharks). Or community of murderers, again happy but unjust.

    That is a far cry from the ******** "take my word for it" assessment you have described it as.
    Why is your #1 and whole argument not a categorical error?
    Why is it not arbitrary?
    Why is not a fallacious appeal to popularity?

    Why are those points irrelevant to the validity of #1 especially as to why we should think it is true?

    Those questions are not the argument so please don't give me that ******** again. Those questions are what your unsupported claim that they are irrelevant beg.
    I have supported that it is so the burden is now yours to answer... or not and we can let the rebuttal stand unopposed.
    To serve man.

  12. Likes Someguy liked this post
  13. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your assertion that I must show it "false" or "incorrect" is not the only way to attack an argument.
    Showing that an argument is wrong is not a way to attack an argument, it's the goal of the attack. You can attack an argument a wide number of ways but if they don't attempt to show that the argument they are attacking is incorrect, then they are not a relevant attack on the argument. If I say "X is true" and you seek to rebut it, your argument has to attempt to arrive at the conclusion that my argument is wrong and therefore "X is not true".

    So no, if your argument does not seek to show that my argument is wrong, it's not a relevant rebuttal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I attacked it on several fronts, and you don't have to address them, and I am fine with leaving my rebuttal as it stands. However I'll try to explain a little more further down.
    Again, I saw no arguments that attempted to show that my argument (it's good for people to be happy) was incorrect and asked that you repost any prior arguments that were a relevant attack on my argument. I don't see any prior arguments. So no, I don't think you actually attacked my argument in any relevant ways. You just commented on it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    One of those fronts was noting the categorical error of the line. (IE your argument is about establishing value judgments, when justice is a moral issue).
    It shows no error that makes my argument wrong. If you want to say that my argument is correct but isn't relevant to the issue of justice, that's fine. We can debate that. But whether you are correct about that or not has no bearing on whether the points are correct and whether they support the conclusion. Again, you have not shown that any points were incorrect nor showed that they failed to logically lead to the conclusion.

    Now, in THIS post I do see some relevant attacks on point 1 which is why I will address them directly instead of not responding due to irrelevance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, the point about appeal to popularity fallacy, because just because people believe a certain way, doesn't automatically make it true. (examples given).
    The point doesn't say otherwise so this appears to be a straw man argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, yes I did.
    My problem is that we do not arrive at #1 the same way. So my objections can be taken as to say that your #1 is false.
    My #1 does not indicate how one arrives at that conclusion so your objection is irrelevant. If you agree that it's good for people to be happy, then you agree with #1 and it's an accepted premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, I personally agree that it is good to be happy.
    However, on naturalism and atheism or any other source other than what I come from.
    I see no reason to accept the truth of #1
    And point 1 is not based on naturalism or atheism so you have no reason to reject it on that basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is arbitrary, one could easily say that to be in pain is good. To kill is good. To enact as much vengeance as possible is good. They would all be equally as true as your #1 due to it's arbitrary nature. Good for ants to be productive. etc.( point was made already)
    But point 1's correctness is not based on arbitrariness. It's correctness is based on all parties in the debate (you and I) agreeing that it's good for people to be happy. And I hold that my personal agreement on this issue is not arbitrary and I doubt you think your agreement with it is based on arbitrariness since I have to imagine that it's ultimately rooted in your moral viewpoint and your moral viewpoint is not based on arbitrariness.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    on point B I would add, that it could be true that it's "good" for people to be happy, but ultimately be "unjust" for people to be happy.
    Such would be the case for a community of rapers. Majority happy, but unjust. (Kinda like sharks). Or community of murderers, again happy but unjust.
    Your scenarios are hypotheticals so they do not show that it's actually not good for people to be happy in the real world. And of course my statement speaks in a general sense and finding some small isolated examples of it being wrong for a certain person or persons being happy (such a guy who enjoys killing others) does not show that it's incorrect that it's good for people to be happy.

    And before you forward any "taxi cab", I am referring to as large a sample as can be found - which is the whole human race throughout recorded history. I'm not getting off the cab at any point.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is a far cry from the ******** "take my word for it" assessment you have described it as.
    I didn't describe the argument you made in THIS post as "take my word for it". I'm referring to what you said in your last post - you asked me take your word for it that you had made arguments that attacked point 1. I asked you to show me such arguments and I noticed you haven't. But I will say that you did make some relevant arguments in THIS post.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why is your #1 and whole argument not a categorical error?
    Why is it not arbitrary?
    Why is not a fallacious appeal to popularity?
    All questions answered above.
    Last edited by mican333; November 25th, 2016 at 11:03 PM.

  14. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Showing that an argument is wrong is not a way to attack an argument, it's the goal of the attack. You can attack an argument a wide number of ways but if they don't attempt to show that the argument they are attacking is incorrect, then they are not a relevant attack on the argument. If I say "X is true" and you seek to rebut it, your argument has to attempt to arrive at the conclusion that my argument is wrong and therefore "X is not true".

    So no, if your argument does not seek to show that my argument is wrong, it's not a relevant rebuttal.
    O geez.. no.. no and no.

    First, I meant that showing the PREMESISE wrong is not the only way to show that the ARGUMENT is wrong.
    You can have all true premesis and the argument fail because of form.

    Second, I don't have to make the opposite claim, all I have to do is show that you have not provided a reason to accept X as true.
    you have the burden to support your claim first and foremost. I have no burden to make another claim and thus shift the burden to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, I saw no arguments that attempted to show that my argument (it's good for people to be happy) was incorrect and asked that you repost any prior arguments that were a relevant attack on my argument. I don't see any prior arguments. So no, I don't think you actually attacked my argument in any relevant ways. You just commented on it.
    Your repeating the flaw pointed out above. It's pretty serious and is blinding you to legit argumentation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The point doesn't say otherwise so this appears to be a straw man argument.
    I do not understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My #1 does not indicate how one arrives at that conclusion so your objection is irrelevant. If you agree that it's good for people to be happy, then you agree with #1 and it's an accepted premise.
    Dude, read that line again.
    You can take my objections as to say your #1 is not accepted. If I were an athiest, I wouldn't accept your premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And point 1 is not based on naturalism or atheism so you have no reason to reject it on that basis.
    What is it based on?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But point 1's correctness is not based on arbitrariness. It's correctness is based on all parties in the debate (you and I) agreeing that it's good for people to be happy. And I hold that my personal agreement on this issue is not arbitrary and I doubt you think your agreement with it is based on arbitrariness since I have to imagine that it's ultimately rooted in your moral viewpoint and your moral viewpoint is not based on arbitrariness.
    On naturalism and athiesm it is and would be.
    If it is not based on naturalism and atheism then there are hidden assumptions that you have not shared that are very relvant to the debate and the validity of your argument.

    Further, if it is based on agreement.. then I do not agree and thus your argument fails.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Your scenarios are hypotheticals so they do not show that it's actually not good for people to be happy in the real world. And of course my statement speaks in a general sense and finding some small isolated examples of it being wrong for a certain person or persons being happy (such a guy who enjoys killing others) does not show that it's incorrect that it's good for people to be happy.

    And before you forward any "taxi cab", I am referring to as large a sample as can be found - which is the whole human race throughout recorded history. I'm not getting off the cab at any point.
    First of all, the argument is not "hypothetical", beause there are examples in history of "societies" being murderers and rapists etc and generally engaging in things you would personally think are unjust.
    Me pointing out that they were actually unjust despite the society (or at least my ability to recognize that).
    Showes, #1 in what way I disagree with your argument as it makes such a situation "just".
    #2 That your argument as a whole is wrong, if you are able to recognize other "societies" as unjust.
    #3 If you do recognize them as wrong, but hold to your arguments truth,then you are commiting the taxicab fallacy.

    Society and people is "the whole world"?
    That seems arbitary as well further it is confusing on several levels.

    So I should read your #3 like this?

    1. ACCEPTED PREMISE - it is good for the whole world to be happy.
    2. FACT - all else being equal, the whole world is happier when the justice system's rules correspond with what the whole world believe is just.
    3. THEREFORE - all else being equal, it is good when the justice system's rules correspond to what the whole world believes is just.
    4. FACT - The whole world 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.


    First, the world doesn't have a justice system.
    second, I see no reason to accept that the whole world is the only body that could be considered a "society", especially as there are numerous autonimous "justice systems" in that world that never appeal to the whole world, and among which there are certainly some that offend the rest of the world.
    Third, say "whole world" but I'm sure you mean majority. So america's laws are all unjust becaus China doesn't like them(when china doesn't like a law)?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    All questions answered above.
    I feel that you gave it an honest go, and I appreciate your efforts.


    ---- ----
    Why I feel my objections to #1 still stand. And a little refinement for clarity.

    -Arbitrary. Your self identified the point as resting on the agreement of others. People can plausibly disagree, so the point is indeed arbitrary. (Outside of some reason that would compel or persuade people to agree).

    -Value measure. It is indeed a measure of value, and as such the value people place on something doesn't necessarily equate to it's moral status. The example of a single happy murder is a valid example of this fact, so is larger "unjust" societies that are generally happy.

    -doesn't establish justice. - This point goes back to the original exchange in this thread. Which cudo's to you for trying to answer the challenge of establishing some external source (from the bible) for morality.
    Even if your argument is true and accepted as valid. I don't see how it would establish in the end that Christianity or the bible doesn't contain justice.

    -Vague and unjustified use of "society" and "people". Specifically to what level of what is commonly understood as society is being referred to. My guess is to avoid pesky situations where a majority of a given society do something you personally feel is unjust. (This may be better suited directed at another point of your argument like #3 or #4)

    --As ultimately an appeal to popularity, it is reject-able as a valid basis of "justice" based only on opinion. So back to original point. (assertion of the argument) Society X feels the bible, Christianity is unjust? (Valid response) I reject that because i don't feel they are right. /end That is the extent of the power of the argument, and the limitations of all arguments based on a fallacious appeal to popularity. (see arbitrary, and understand the merit of that objection, it builds an argument on sand)
    To serve man.

  15. Likes Someguy liked this post
  16. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    MT, I think maybe there's a bit of confusion on where the lines are drawn in regards to the logic chain (or maybe not) but it seems that there are particular focuses on the chain that have inhibited the debate from gaining traction with me not directly responding to certain points for their lack of relevancy to the specific point you are addressing (although they do have general relevance to the debate at hand). But still, I'm not going to concede point 1 in the face of arguments that, I think, don't relevantly attack it even if they points are of interest in general.

    But I think the debate really did gain some traction at the bottom of your last post so I moved your last part of the debate to the top of this post and then put a line to indicate when I'm addressing the first part of the debate. It's perfectly fine with me if you don't respond to any or all of the points that follow the line. Just do what you want in regards to those.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First of all, the argument is not "hypothetical", beause there are examples in history of "societies" being murderers and rapists etc and generally engaging in things you would personally think are unjust.
    But it is not supported that these societies were happier than societies that weren't run by murderers and rapists. As a micro-example, if you have a household where the father really enjoys beating up his family, you have a household with one happy person and three miserable people. I doubt one could argue that that family is generally happier than a family where there is no domestic abuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Me pointing out that they were actually unjust despite the society (or at least my ability to recognize that).
    Showes, #1 in what way I disagree with your argument as it makes such a situation "just".
    #2 That your argument as a whole is wrong, if you are able to recognize other "societies" as unjust.
    #3 If you do recognize them as wrong, but hold to your arguments truth,then you are commiting the taxicab fallacy.
    Actually, your argument fails because you are committing the taxicab fallacy. You are pointing out the happiness of murderer and rapists that control the wheel of justice in a society but "get out of the cab" before you arrive at their victims (and I'm pretty sure in unjust societies the victims outnumber those sick individual who actually enjoy doing harm - the victims of Nazi Germany numbered in the millions). Or even if you were to find a society that was unjust but happy (and I doubt you can), you are getting out of the cab before you arrive at all of the unjust and unhappy societies and all of the just and happy societies.

    As I said, the way to avoid the taxicab fallacy is to look at the whole world throughout history and ignore none of them. So even if you can find an example of an unjust society that actually could be considered "happy" (and I doubt you can), you have to also include all of the other unjust societies that clearly weren't happy and then compare them to the societies where people are relatively happy. And I'm quite sure that if you were to compare EVERY society, you will find a direct correlation with people agreeing with the form of justice that the society has and the happiness of the people. And finding a specific deviation does not show that the general pattern is incorrect.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Society and people is "the whole world"?
    That seems arbitary as well further it is confusing on several levels.
    No, it's NOT arbitrary. When looking at the data to determine something, clearly the best way to achieve results is to look at ALL OF THE DATA. So it isn't some arbitrary whim to suggest that one looks at all of the data. It is LOGICALLY the best method to get the most accurate results. Picking and choosing which data to look at is what's arbitrary.

    If you are going to extend the definition of arbitrary to the point where we "arbitrarily" want to use a method that will get the most accurate results, then "arbitrary" has no definition that makes it something that invalidates one's beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, the world doesn't have a justice system.
    second, I see no reason to accept that the whole world is the only body that could be considered a "society", especially as there are numerous autonimous "justice systems" in that world that never appeal to the whole world, and among which there are certainly some that offend the rest of the world.
    Third, say "whole world" but I'm sure you mean majority. So america's laws are all unjust becaus China doesn't like them(when china doesn't like a law)?
    What I'm talking about is looking at every INDIVIDUAL society and their justice systems and the happiness of the people within that society. And really, it would include every body of people who establish a rule of law that they live under, even a hippy commune in California that has a set of rules on how people should treat each other and how to handle interpersonal conflicts would qualify. And my five points supports that, on average, all of these societies will be happier if the rules correspond to the rules that people agree with then if it has rules that people don't agree with.

    And logically it also predicts that that will be the case. So of course if you can show that it's not true that, on average, people are happier when the rules correspond to the rules that they want, then I would say that you have indeed successfully attacked my conclusion without attacking the premises. But then you have not done this. You have not show that overall people are not happy when the rules correspond to rules they agree with. I don't think you've provided one valid example (it's generally recognized that Nazi Germany was not a happy society even if certain individuals within the society were happy) and even if you did, that doesn't apply to every society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Arbitrary. Your self identified the point as resting on the agreement of others. People can plausibly disagree, so the point is indeed arbitrary. (Outside of some reason that would compel or persuade people to agree).
    But the basis of whether a premise is accepted is not arbitrary. If all parties in a debate agree that something is correct, then it is an accepted premise - that is a RULE, not an arbitrary standard. And even it is arbitrary, that does not mean that it is incorrect. So I would say, even if it is arbitrary, so what? If your acceptance of it is based on arbitrariness, it's still accept and therefore still a valid premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Value measure. It is indeed a measure of value, and as such the value people place on something doesn't necessarily equate to it's moral status. The example of a single happy murder is a valid example of this fact, so is larger "unjust" societies that are generally happy.
    And while I would say this argument has relevance to the debate in general (as in it would be a relevant rebuttal to the CONCLUSION of the debate) it has absolutely no bearing on whether point 1 is correct or not. So even if I were to accept this argument in total, I see no reason to disagree with the notion that it's good for people to be happy.

    So to repeat, this argument is not irrelevant in general, but it is irrelevant to the issue of whether point 1 is correct or not.

    But to address this argument in the larger context (I don't want to blow it off just because it's not relevant to whether point 1 is correct), you seem to be engaging in the taxicab fallacy to make your point. We can focus on the happiness of the murderer but if we don't get off the cab before we get to his victims, we will see that the murderer overall makes people unhappy since his happiness is surely outweighed by the pain he causes his victims, those who personally care about his victims, and even people who hear about the murders although they don't even know any of the people involved (such as you being unhappy when you hear about a murder of some innocent child on the news).

    If you don't limit your focus to what makes your argument, I would say you can't show that people doing bad things generally makes people happier.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    -doesn't establish justice. - This point goes back to the original exchange in this thread. Which cudo's to you for trying to answer the challenge of establishing some external source (from the bible) for morality.
    Even if your argument is true and accepted as valid. I don't see how it would establish in the end that Christianity or the bible doesn't contain justice.
    This is a valid argument but it doesn't really rebut point 1 or the conclusion. But I certainly think it's a valid "moving forward" of the debate so I will definitely respond to it. Even if my entire logic chain is accepted, this is a valid response to it.

    My logic chain does not establish any justice but sets a bar for what a "good" standard of justice is. I would maintain that the US has a good standard of justice based on the observation that people generally agree with our justice system being based on the notion that people have inalienable rights and that the system more or less effectively protects them. So again, the chain doesn't establish anything like the constitutional justice system but it holds that it's a good justice system and sets criteria for determining if it's good.

    As far as a Christian justice system, I guess that would have to be one that is based on Christian law. As far as I can tell, the only way to look at such a thing is to look at historical Christian theocracies (none exist today as far as I know) and we can also look at religious-based laws in this society (there used to be some although not many today - I think some laws restricting alcohol sales are religious based - I remember not being able to buy alcohol on Christmas night one time and that didn't make me happy, btw). And while I am no history expert, I get the distinct impression that such systems lead to less happiness than what we have today. There seemed to be such things as punishment for not being of the Christian faith (spanish inquisition), punishment for forwarding scientific theories that contradict Christian theology (think Scopes Monkey Trial and punishing those who forwarded the heliocentric theory) which is also unjust (IMO anyway) but hampered scientific progress which likely made people less happy when compared to a society where scientific progress is not hampered. Now, that's not to say that ALL religious laws were bad but it seems that the good ones (like don't murder) are present in our current constitutionally-based legal system and almost certainly would exist if Christianity as a religion never existed.

    So both constitutional law and religious law are an established form or justice. And my logic chain would indicate that, in the constitutional law is superior which ties into the fact that most people prefer that system of justice to one based strictly on religion. And from what i can see, the facts correspond to this - we are happier when the laws correspond to what we want instead of what a particular religion forwards.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    -Vague and unjustified use of "society" and "people". Specifically to what level of what is commonly understood as society is being referred to. My guess is to avoid pesky situations where a majority of a given society do something you personally feel is unjust. (This may be better suited directed at another point of your argument like #3 or #4)
    First off, I never appealed to my personal sense of justice so that is not a valid issue in this debate. My standard is whether the people in a given society are happy and how happy they are compared to other societies that have a "better" system of justice.

    And this is not a "pesky" issue for me because I have not seen anything on your part that shows that people in generally are happier living under a system that they fell is unjust. You are assuming a certain argument of yours holds up and it does not (so far anyway).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    --As ultimately an appeal to popularity, it is reject-able as a valid basis of "justice" based only on opinion. So back to original point. (assertion of the argument) Society X feels the bible, Christianity is unjust? (Valid response) I reject that because i don't feel they are right. /end That is the extent of the power of the argument, and the limitations of all arguments based on a fallacious appeal to popularity. (see arbitrary, and understand the merit of that objection, it builds an argument on sand)
    But my argument is not based on an appeal to popularity. It's based on an accepted premise - that it's good for people to be happy.

    Whether the majority agree with my argument that it's good for people to be happy does not effect it's acceptability. It's an accepted premise because both parties in this debate (you and I) agree that it's good for people to be happy.

    It's a premise. We both accept it. Therefore it's an accepted premise.

    If you are saying you don't accept it, then continue below the line since it's addressed bellow.



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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O geez.. no.. no and no.

    First, I meant that showing the PREMESISE wrong is not the only way to show that the ARGUMENT is wrong.
    You can have all true premesis and the argument fail because of form.
    If you mean that you can attack the conclusion by showing the premises do not logically lead to the conclusion, you are correct. But you haven't done that either.

    And please bear in mind that my premises SUPPORT the conclusion, not PROVE then conclusion. One can always accept that a conclusion is supported and still attack it from a different angle than trying to show a flaw in the premises. And I think that's probably what you are doing in some of your arguments. In other words you can not challenge the accuracy of the conclusion, "5. THEREFORE - It is good when the justice system punishes people who commit crimes", but attack it from a different angle. And in that respect, your argument that seems to indicate that just because it's "good" does not mean that it's "just" is a valid rebuttal to the conclusion.

    But from what I can see, you've not been attacking the conclusion but my first premise, that it's good for people to be happy, and your attacks generally don't relevantly address it (as in show that the premise is incorrect or unacceptable).

    So seriously, I'd be happy to move on to addressing your "good =/= just" argument but bear in mind that it applies to the conclusion (where it is relevant), not the first premise (where it's not relevant).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, I don't have to make the opposite claim, all I have to do is show that you have not provided a reason to accept X as true.
    you have the burden to support your claim first and foremost. I have no burden to make another claim and thus shift the burden to me.
    Absolutely. And I have done that in regards to the first premise. I have you saying that you agree that it's good for people to be happy. I consider that a very good reason to accept it. And beyond that, I appeal to "well, duh" as in something is so obviously true, it's pretty much self-evident and the only way one can oppose it is for the sake of being contrary or shoring up their debate as opposed to any sincere disagreement.

    OF COURSE we agree that it's good for people to be happy. As far as the reason why this is so, just fill in the reason why you agree that it's good for people to be happy and there's the reason.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I do not understand.
    Nowhere in the premise does it state that the premise' correctness is based on the popular opinion that it is correct. Therefore it is not supported based on an appeal to popularity.

    And to make it clear (in case there is confusion), I am considering your responses to be an attack on the first premise (it's good for people to be happy) and nothing else. If you are attacking some other aspect of my argument beyond the first premise, please make that absolutely clear.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Dude, read that line again.
    You can take my objections as to say your #1 is not accepted. If I were an athiest, I wouldn't accept your premises.
    Actually, I think an atheist would agree with my premise since it's safe to say that atheists typically agree that it's good for people to be happy. If they were to explain why they think it is so, they may come from a different place than you do but that doesn't change the fact that atheists would accept the premise that it's good for people to be happy.

    Besides that, the issue isn't whether someone else would accept the premise. If YOU and I accept the premise then it's an accepted premise and we should move on. Seriously, once both parties in a debate agree with a premise, it should be accepted as correct and whatever attack one may wage against the conclusion should be focused elsewhere.

    I think you really do have some interesting points to forward regarding my argument in general but it's hampering forward progress in the debate to focus on a premise that should obviously be accepted. How about we move on from premise 1?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What is it based on?
    Our mutual agreement that it's correct (holding that you agree that it's good for people to be happy). As far as what your agreement with the premise is based on, I can't say. You will have to answer that question yourself.

    And that is a question, not an argument but I think answering it may help clear some things up so I think it was a question that I should respond to.

    I really only pull the "that's a question not an argument" response when I think you are trying to make an argument but presenting it as a question which effectively shifts the burden (if I were to answer it, then I would have to support my answer as opposed to you having to support your argument). For example, if I were to argue that the world is flat, but say "Why do you think the world is round?" you are the one giving the answer which I can challenge which puts the burden on you instead of burden being where it belongs - which is me having to support that the world is flat.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    On naturalism and athiesm it is and would be.
    If it is not based on naturalism and atheism then there are hidden assumptions that you have not shared that are very relvant to the debate and the validity of your argument.
    I think they may be relevant to the conclusion of the argument but they are not relevant to whether point 1 is true.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further, if it is based on agreement.. then I do not agree and thus your argument fails.
    But you said that you do agree that it's good for people to be happy and I think that that is what you believe. If you are just saying that now you don't agree with it just to throw a monkey wrench in my argument even though you actually do agree, then you are refusing to accept a premise that is clearly true for the sake of winning the debate. If I'm wrong about you doing it to win the debate, then explain why you don't agree that it's good for people to be happy.

    I mean if we are going to just reject obviously correct premises for the sake of winning the debate then I can just reject whatever premises you forward in order to defeat your argument ("I don't agree with your premise that murder and rape are immoral") and we really don't have a debate.

    So in short, if you are going to reject a premise that is clearly correct, you do need to provide a satisfactory reason (which is not to say that you need to support your reason but the reason must be coherent, not "just because"). If you are going to reject such premises just to make it difficult for me, I doubt I will continue the debate.
    Last edited by mican333; November 27th, 2016 at 02:32 PM.

  17. #54
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    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?
    I think that’s a very good candidate, but as I recall, the “judge not” rule referred more to attacking a person’s character based on observed behaviors - not simply being critical of certain systems of belief for containing unexpected inconsistencies. Nonetheless, what you offered was better than anything else anyone put up, so rep to you!

  18. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But it is not supported that these societies were happier than societies that weren't run by murderers and rapists. As a micro-example, if you have a household where the father really enjoys beating up his family, you have a household with one happy person and three miserable people. I doubt one could argue that that family is generally happier than a family where there is no domestic abuse.
    O.k. you have committed a major error here.
    You have moved from "It is good for people to be happy"
    To
    Some idea of "happiest". If a family of abused children think they are happy.. then that fullfills your #1 and you have no grounds to argue that they really SHOULD be happier.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, your argument fails because you are committing the taxicab fallacy. You are pointing out the happiness of murderer and rapists that control the wheel of justice in a society but "get out of the cab" before you arrive at their victims (and I'm pretty sure in unjust societies the victims outnumber those sick individual who actually enjoy doing harm - the victims of Nazi Germany numbered in the millions). Or even if you were to find a society that was unjust but happy (and I doubt you can), you are getting out of the cab before you arrive at all of the unjust and unhappy societies and all of the just and happy societies.
    No, you said we should appeal to history, and history tells us that the majority does not run the society in most cases. That is really a modern invention.
    It is the strong in the past that have run the societies. further you assume that they are not in fact the majority.

    yes there were millions of Jews that were unhappy, but germany is made up of a vast majority more that were not bothered by the human smoke houses down their streets.
    So i'm not taxicabbing, I'm assuming that the society reflets the majority in most cases. Or don't you think that the majority ever terrorises the minority?

    How about mustlim countries that terroris christians (where they are vastly outnumbered)?
    That is just in their society right?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I said, the way to avoid the taxicab fallacy is to look at the whole world throughout history and ignore none of them. So even if you can find an example of an unjust society that actually could be considered "happy" (and I doubt you can), you have to also include all of the other unjust societies that clearly weren't happy and then compare them to the societies where people are relatively happy. And I'm quite sure that if you were to compare EVERY society, you will find a direct correlation with people agreeing with the form of justice that the society has and the happiness of the people. And finding a specific deviation does not show that the general pattern is incorrect.
    There is no reason to take the whole world over any local "society". They are all societies in their own right and your cherry picking the use to fit your argument.
    In the face of a history of it not being the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, it's NOT arbitrary. When looking at the data to determine something, clearly the best way to achieve results is to look at ALL OF THE DATA. So it isn't some arbitrary whim to suggest that one looks at all of the data. It is LOGICALLY the best method to get the most accurate results. Picking and choosing which data to look at is what's arbitrary.

    If you are going to extend the definition of arbitrary to the point where we "arbitrarily" want to use a method that will get the most accurate results, then "arbitrary" has no definition that makes it something that invalidates one's beliefs.
    No look at what the word means and how it has been applied in all human history. It has rarely if ever been applied to the world scale except for your argument (because you require it to overcome the negatives of a given society that you feel is evil).

    You have no justification to say that Germany wasn't a society or Rome or the Tribs in affrica that sold their fowes into slavery, or the societies of Muslims that torture christians.

    You are turning your point #1 into "It is good for all people to be happy"
    Then appealing to a justice system that doesn't exist, namely a system that applies to every single human on the planet. (#3)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What I'm talking about is looking at every INDIVIDUAL society and their justice systems and the happiness of the people within that society. And really, it would include every body of people who establish a rule of law that they live under, even a hippy commune in California that has a set of rules on how people should treat each other and how to handle interpersonal conflicts would qualify. And my five points supports that, on average, all of these societies will be happier if the rules correspond to the rules that people agree with then if it has rules that people don't agree with.
    Right, then you assume away the prospect that history has had such societies that terrorized the minority.
    Your rules would automtically call that justice, but you know it isn't so you jump out the cab, and jump into the larger argument of the whole world.
    Your switching terms at will to avoid my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What I'm talking about is looking at every INDIVIDUAL society and their justice systems and the happiness of the people within that society. And really, it would include every body of people who establish a rule of law that they live under, even a hippy commune in California that has a set of rules on how people should treat each other and how to handle interpersonal conflicts would qualify. And my five points supports that, on average, all of these societies will be happier if the rules correspond to the rules that people agree with then if it has rules that people don't agree with.
    My point is that happineiss has nothing to do with Justice.
    One is a value statement and the other moral.
    so you can find a society that is perfectly happy with a given immoral act, and that entire society as happy as a clam would be unjust. Even you recognize this so you appeal to the whole world in those cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But the basis of whether a premise is accepted is not arbitrary. If all parties in a debate agree that something is correct, then it is an accepted premise - that is a RULE, not an arbitrary standard. And even it is arbitrary, that does not mean that it is incorrect. So I would say, even if it is arbitrary, so what? If your acceptance of it is based on arbitrariness, it's still accept and therefore still a valid premise.
    If acceptance is arbitrary and thus valid.
    then so is arbitrary rejection, and it is also valid.

    your premise #1 is arbirarily rejected, thus your argument is as validly false as it is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And while I would say this argument has relevance to the debate in general (as in it would be a relevant rebuttal to the CONCLUSION of the debate) it has absolutely no bearing on whether point 1 is correct or not. So even if I were to accept this argument in total, I see no reason to disagree with the notion that it's good for people to be happy.

    So to repeat, this argument is not irrelevant in general, but it is irrelevant to the issue of whether point 1 is correct or not.
    That is a fair point, no the argument is a catigorical error.

    Going back to that summary statement that you agreed with (thanks for the cudos there, and let me know if anything changes)

    Quote Originally Posted by MT post 25
    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.
    Your entire argument is an (arbitrary) value statemnt and not a justice statement because the people could be happy with an action or law that is unjust and examples of this exist.
    Thus your argument fails to establish Justice outside of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    This is a valid argument but it doesn't really rebut point 1 or the conclusion. But I certainly think it's a valid "moving forward" of the debate so I will definitely respond to it. Even if my entire logic chain is accepted, this is a valid response to it.

    My logic chain does not establish any justice but sets a bar for what a "good" standard of justice is. I would maintain that the US has a good standard of justice based on the observation that people generally agree with our justice system being based on the notion that people have inalienable rights and that the system more or less effectively protects them. So again, the chain doesn't establish anything like the constitutional justice system but it holds that it's a good justice system and sets criteria for determining if it's good.

    As far as a Christian justice system, I guess that would have to be one that is based on Christian law. As far as I can tell, the only way to look at such a thing is to look at historical Christian theocracies (none exist today as far as I know) and we can also look at religious-based laws in this society (there used to be some although not many today - I think some laws restricting alcohol sales are religious based - I remember not being able to buy alcohol on Christmas night one time and that didn't make me happy, btw). And while I am no history expert, I get the distinct impression that such systems lead to less happiness than what we have today. There seemed to be such things as punishment for not being of the Christian faith (spanish inquisition), punishment for forwarding scientific theories that contradict Christian theology (think Scopes Monkey Trial and punishing those who forwarded the heliocentric theory) which is also unjust (IMO anyway) but hampered scientific progress which likely made people less happy when compared to a society where scientific progress is not hampered. Now, that's not to say that ALL religious laws were bad but it seems that the good ones (like don't murder) are present in our current constitutionally-based legal system and almost certainly would exist if Christianity as a religion never existed.

    So both constitutional law and religious law are an established form or justice. And my logic chain would indicate that, in the constitutional law is superior which ties into the fact that most people prefer that system of justice to one based strictly on religion. And from what i can see, the facts correspond to this - we are happier when the laws correspond to what we want instead of what a particular religion forwards.
    I think your making an impossible claim to support.
    Can you really tell me that America is Happier with abortion than without it?
    Or that a state with no Alchole is better than oen with it? (I mean, are you aware of why Alchole was made illegal to start with?)

    There simply is no reason to think that you or anyone else can really place an accurate value on what would make people actually happier. Especially when you get into the weeds of measuring the voilence of either choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, I never appealed to my personal sense of justice so that is not a valid issue in this debate. My standard is whether the people in a given society are happy and how happy they are compared to other societies that have a "better" system of justice.

    And this is not a "pesky" issue for me because I have not seen anything on your part that shows that people in generally are happier living under a system that they fell is unjust. You are assuming a certain argument of yours holds up and it does not (so far anyway).
    Actually you do. You did it with #1 and you did it every time you call something "good".
    That is a value made up from the whems of your personal mindset. Another person of another mindset may say it's bad.
    Such as your appeal to the majoirty. Some may appeal to the enlightened few as being the standard for what makes people truly happy.
    Such as one who would say that one society is "happier" than another.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But my argument is not based on an appeal to popularity. It's based on an accepted premise - that it's good for people to be happy.
    You have made it clear to me that you mean the majority. Such as your abused family example.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Whether the majority agree with my argument that it's good for people to be happy does not effect it's acceptability. It's an accepted premise because both parties in this debate (you and I) agree that it's good for people to be happy.
    Again, arbitrary in nature. What, you just so happen upon another person that agrees with you and thus your argument is valid?
    When your arguemnt relies on the other person agreeing with your arbitrary appeal to value? No you argument is clearly an appeal to popularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's a premise. We both accept it. Therefore it's an accepted premise.

    If you are saying you don't accept it, then continue below the line since it's addressed bellow.
    I think there are some serious flaws above that you need to address first.
    Especially shifting in the use of "society" and the appeal to majority as well as unsupportable claims of "happiest".
    And finally the Categorical error of the whole argument (assuming premises and conclusion is true).

    Happy society =/= just society

    Further your argument does not address levels of happiness which you have appealed to in your responses.
    Such as a happier society is a more just society. (IE a society of domestic abusers has a happiness level of 3, but non domestic abusers are a 3.5 thus the latter is "more just" because they are happier).
    .. that is my best take on what you have argued at points so far.



    ----EDIT-----
    The importance of establishing the reason to accept #1

    This whole thread is an attack on my personal beliefs. (Namely the justice of God among others).
    As your argument is a rejection of that belief, it is not sufficient to appeal to my shared belief on a point, because you are trying to overthrow and debunk my belief.

    Do you see the problem here with stealing from Christianity in order to debunk Christianity?
    Thus it is not enough to appeal to my belief in a prospect based on my Christianity.
    You must show why on atheism I should accept that belief. For if your argument were a success(in destroying my faith), I would then have no basis to accept #1.

    I think I would be more inclined to agree with this guy
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc

    What is best in life?
    Quote Originally Posted by CONAN
    Conan: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
    Which I do not find supportive of your argument and if started as a #1 would lead to a very different idea of justice. One equally true as your argument because your argument is based on an arbitrary value of #1. As stated before.. I'm sure you will address.. so here just focus on the reason you must establish #1 on atheism as opposed to appealing to my christian values to destroy christian justice.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; November 29th, 2016 at 01:13 PM.
    To serve man.

  19. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Like before, I found the best stuff at the end of your post so I moved it to the top. But before I get to that, I think I can define where the "lines" are drawn so I'm going to make a separate argument first and then move on to your points.

    The issue is what is "just" and from what I can tell "justice" is pretty well tied with morality. If one says that it's "just" that a person who harms others receives legal punishment for the harm, they mean that it is morally correct that he is being punished for his crimes. And likewise if a person who does not deserve punishment is being punished, the punishment is not "just" which means the punishment is an immoral act.

    Now, I've forwarded "happiness" and I think it ties in very directly with morality. All else being equal, treating a person in a way that makes them happy is a good thing (and finding an exception does not invalidate this notion - I'm saying it's generally true and I also recognize that sometime long-term happiness requires short-term unhappiness such as punishing a child for his/her own good). Your rebuttals sometimes focused on making oneself happy if they enjoy doing terrible things but my argument was really about making others happy. Obviously a justice system does not make itself happy, it makes others happy or unhappy based on how much they agree with the laws or how they are effected by the laws. So in respects to justice, I think measuring how happy the justice system makes people is a good indicator of how good the justice system is. And likewise how good a person thinks the justice system is is based on how positively moral they find the justice system and that likewise will be based in a large part to how happy the justice system makes oneself and his fellow citizens.

    So to be clear, I'm not saying that a justice system should be based on happiness. I'm saying how happy it makes people is a good indicator of how good the justice system and how moral the justice system is (since people will view the quality of the justice system based on how morally correct they believe the system is).

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

    And now on to your points. And btw, feel free to not respond to any points that you think will require a redundant response on your part or is no longer relevant to the debate. For all I know, the above argument may render the rest of this post redundant and/or irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think there are some serious flaws above that you need to address first.
    Especially shifting in the use of "society" and the appeal to majority as well as unsupportable claims of "happiest".
    And finally the Categorical error of the whole argument (assuming premises and conclusion is true).

    Happy society =/= just society

    Further your argument does not address levels of happiness which you have appealed to in your responses.
    Such as a happier society is a more just society. (IE a society of domestic abusers has a happiness level of 3, but non domestic abusers are a 3.5 thus the latter is "more just" because they are happier).
    .. that is my best take on what you have argued at points so far.
    Close. But I don't say "more just" but "better" (as in "more good"). In other words, I say the latter society is preferable to the former but have not at all forwarded how relatively "just" they are.

    The "just" issue is what we can move on to once my argument regarding justice corresponding to people's views on justice is accepted. And you can accept it "for the sake of argument" which means that you can challenge it later (but if so, please state clearly that you are challenging it) but accept it for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The importance of establishing the reason to accept #1

    This whole thread is an attack on my personal beliefs. (Namely the justice of God among others).
    As your argument is a rejection of that belief, it is not sufficient to appeal to my shared belief on a point, because you are trying to overthrow and debunk my belief.
    But my argument is not a rejection of that belief. Is "it's good for people to be happy" or "It's good for a justice system to correspond with the beliefs of the people" contradict any of your beliefs? I very much doubt nor am I aware of anything in Christian theology that invalidates those two thing.

    Nor are either of them based on atheism. "it's good for people to be happy" is not inherently irreligious. One can say that it's good for people to be happy because God wants us to be happy and it totally fits within the five points. Or one can appeal to naturalism instead. But the statement itself does not favor one over the other and neither does the conclusion.

    So why not concede, at least for the sake of argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you see the problem here with stealing from Christianity in order to debunk Christianity?
    Thus it is not enough to appeal to my belief in a prospect based on my Christianity.
    You must show why on atheism I should accept that belief. For if your argument were a success(in destroying my faith), I would then have no basis to accept #1.
    Who said that I'm appealing to atheism? I'm appealing to people and I'm not even saying that God has nothing to do with that. Maybe people's morality is rooted in God's morality whether they know it or not (so maybe an atheist mistakenly believes that his own morality has nothing to do with God's morality but it actually does).

    My argument's general position is that whether a justice system makes people happy is a good indicator of whether it's a good justice system or not. I think I've supported that pretty well. So in other words, I've made an argument that it's good if justice systems are based on what people want. Obviously, the only contrary position is that it's good if the justice systems are based on what people DON'T want which is pretty ridiculous.

    I think your counter-argument is not to say "it's not good" but "I have a better way to determine if a justice system is good" or "There's better criteria for the quality of a justice system than whether people like it". I think the latter argument is what you are probably trying to say but you haven't really made your case for that as far as I can see. So how about an argument to that effect? Of course you will need to support it like I supported mine.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O.k. you have committed a major error here.
    You have moved from "It is good for people to be happy"
    To
    Some idea of "happiest". If a family of abused children think they are happy.. then that fullfills your #1 and you have no grounds to argue that they really SHOULD be happier.
    I didn't say "happiest". And of course "good to be happy" means that the happier people are the better it is. And coming up with some strange hypothetical doesn't really create a valid rebuttal. OBVIOUSLY children who are being abused, all else being equal, are not as happy as children who are not being abused. Let's keep things realistic.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, you said we should appeal to history, and history tells us that the majority does not run the society in most cases. That is really a modern invention.
    It is the strong in the past that have run the societies. further you assume that they are not in fact the majority.

    yes there were millions of Jews that were unhappy, but germany is made up of a vast majority more that were not bothered by the human smoke houses down their streets.
    So i'm not taxicabbing, I'm assuming that the society reflets the majority in most cases. Or don't you think that the majority ever terrorises the minority?
    First off, it is YOUR argument that certain societies that had clear injustices were happy (remember, you are using historical examples to attack my argument) so any burden regarding the happiness of Nazi Germany is your burden to support. And there's a difference between "don't care" and "happy" so saying that the majority don't care is not the same as saying that the majority were happy. In fact, I recall hearing that many who participated in atrocities said that they didn't want to do it but were forced to ("I was just following orders"). So you have not shown that the majority were indeed happy with the atrocities. And of course happiness and unhappiness is not a binary thing - there are degrees of happiness and unhappiness. It makes one unhappy to face a certain level of injustice such as being told where they can and cannot live and there's the level where one's entire family is murdered. Nazi atrocities were in the latter category and numbered in the millions - I don't think there were millions of German citizens who loved that these atrocities were being committed as much as the victims of those atrocities suffered.

    Quite frankly, the notion that Nazi Germany was generally a happy place is patently ridiculous and if that's the kind of argument you are forwarding to make your case, you don't really have a credible case.

    Again, let's keep things on the level of realism.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How about mustlim countries that terroris christians (where they are vastly outnumbered)?
    That is just in their society right?
    No it's not (as in I don't think it's just). And are you going to argue that such a society is overall a happier society than ones where a certain percentage of the population is not terrorized?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no reason to take the whole world over any local "society". They are all societies in their own right and your cherry picking the use to fit your argument.
    What? Using every society in the world is the OPPOSITE of cherry picking. I'm saying that we include them all which directly contradicts the notion of picking whatever one helps one's argument and ignoring the rest.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No look at what the word means and how it has been applied in all human history. It has rarely if ever been applied to the world scale except for your argument (because you require it to overcome the negatives of a given society that you feel is evil).

    You have no justification to say that Germany wasn't a society or Rome or the Tribs in affrica that sold their fowes into slavery, or the societies of Muslims that torture christians.

    You are turning your point #1 into "It is good for all people to be happy"
    Then appealing to a justice system that doesn't exist, namely a system that applies to every single human on the planet. (#3)
    No, the extension of point 1 is "The more people who are happier, the better". And I am not appealing to any particular justice system. My argument, when applied to justice systems, will show that, on average, the more a societies justice system corresponds to its citizen's view of justice, the happier the people will be which is good.

    And this argument is supported btw.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right, then you assume away the prospect that history has had such societies that terrorized the minority.
    I don't assume them away. They are entirely relevant. And my argument will say that the people in these societies, on average, are not as happy as societies where the minority is not terrorized.

    So can you show me that my proposition is wrong and that, in fact, that "terrorizing" societies are as happy or happier than "non-terrorizing" societies?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your rules would automtically call that justice, but you know it isn't so you jump out the cab, and jump into the larger argument of the whole world.
    Your switching terms at will to avoid my point.
    That comment can only come from a misunderstanding of my argument or an intentional misrepresentation of my argument.

    My argument sets no rules on what is or is not justice so that comment is irrelevant.

    To clarify, my argument says that it's good for people to be happy and people are happier when the rules of the society correspond to their view of justice. So it doesn't say what justice actually is. But it does set a standard for a good justice system - one that makes people happy.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My point is that happineiss has nothing to do with Justice.
    One is a value statement and the other moral.
    Well, you are welcome to hold the position that happiness has nothing to do with justice but if you aren't going to support that, it doesn't really effect my argument.

    Again, my argument starts with a premise that you accept and logically leads to its conclusion on what makes a good justice system (one that makes people happy). It's not saying "making people happy" IS the goal of a justice system or the justice system should be based on happiness but only that IF it makes people happy, that is a valid indicator that it's a good justice system. I bolded that since I think it's a very pertinent statement regarding my argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    so you can find a society that is perfectly happy with a given immoral act, and that entire society as happy as a clam would be unjust. Even you recognize this so you appeal to the whole world in those cases.
    I appeal to the whole world in all cases. But where I do draw the line is at the real world, so hypothetical societies that have never happened are irrelevant and will be discarded for that reason.

    Since your above scenario is not necessarily something that has ever happened in a real society, it's not necessarily relevant.

    But I should ask, how do you define an "immoral act"? I mean I know we agree that, as an example, murder is an immoral act but an "immoral act" is not defined as "things that Mican and MT agree are immoral". So again, how is an "immoral act" defined?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If acceptance is arbitrary and thus valid.
    then so is arbitrary rejection, and it is also valid.

    your premise #1 is arbirarily rejected, thus your argument is as validly false as it is true.
    But the acceptance of premise 1 from both of us is not arbitrary. I assume you actually agree with it and the reason that you agree is likely seated in your faith and/or morality. And it's the same with me. So neither of us have accepted it for arbitrary reasons.

    And if you are going to stretch the definition of "arbitrary" to include acceptance based on moral/faith reasoning, then being "arbitrary" is not a valid reason to reject premise 1 and therefore I will challenge your rejection that basis.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your entire argument is an (arbitrary) value statemnt and not a justice statement because the people could be happy with an action or law that is unjust and examples of this exist.
    Thus your argument fails to establish Justice outside of God.
    And it also doesn't iron and fold your laundry for you. The issue isn't what it doesn't do. The issue is whether it's correct or not.

    And that's not say that your comment about it not establishing a justice is completely irrelevant. But we need to settle whether point 3 is technically correct (really, we can blow off points 4 and 5 for now because they have a specific focus which is not necessarily relevant to the larger debate).

    So can we accept point 3 and hold that it's true that it's generally good for a society to have a justice system that corresponds to what the people view as justice? If so, then we can move on to your issue regarding justice outside of God.

    And again, my argument does not set up a standard of justice. It's a way to determine if a justice system is "good".



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think your making an impossible claim to support.
    Can you really tell me that America is Happier with abortion than without it?
    Or that a state with no Alchole is better than oen with it? (I mean, are you aware of why Alchole was made illegal to start with?)

    There simply is no reason to think that you or anyone else can really place an accurate value on what would make people actually happier. Especially when you get into the weeds of measuring the voilence of either choice.
    Well, you picked the most innocuous examples. I forwarded the Spanish Inquisition and outlawing the teaching of evolution as well.

    But back to your examples, IF people generally want abortion to be legal, they will be happier if it's legal than if we follow religious laws forbidding it. And likewise IF people generally want alcohol to be available, they will be happier if they can buy than if we follow religious laws forbidding it. So regardless of how the law conflict (or don't conflict) with religious values, the more the people support the law, the happier they will be with the law and less they support the law, the less happy they will be with it.

    And this is what my argument would predict - people who agree with the law are happier with the law.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Actually you do. You did it with #1 and you did it every time you call something "good".
    That is a value made up from the whems of your personal mindset. Another person of another mindset may say it's bad.
    But I don't forward that my mindset is inherently superior to someone else' so I'm not appealing to anything personal of mine. In other words, one person's happiness is just as valid as someone else' and mine is no better than anyone's.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Such as your appeal to the majoirty. Some may appeal to the enlightened few as being the standard for what makes people truly happy.
    Such as one who would say that one society is "happier" than another.
    Again, let's stick to the real world. While I don't have a measuring stick, it only takes a little common sense to tell if people of a society are generally happy (and in fact, there are official measurements of happiness).

    And please stop saying that I'm appealing to the majority. Appealing to the majority is saying that one's argument is correct because the majority agrees with it. I NEVER made such an argument. My argument does invoke the majority but it does not appeal to them. If you are going to repeat the claim that I am appealing to the majority, please point out which argument of mine I'm saying is correct based on the majority agreeing with it. If you don't include that specific part, your accusation will be rejected as unsupported.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You have made it clear to me that you mean the majority. Such as your abused family example.
    And that is not an appeal to majority for the correctness of my argument is not based on the majority agreeing with me. You seem to think that any and all arguments that mention a majority is using that fallacy. It's not.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again, arbitrary in nature. What, you just so happen upon another person that agrees with you and thus your argument is valid?
    When your arguemnt relies on the other person agreeing with your arbitrary appeal to value? No you argument is clearly an appeal to popularity.
    It's not just another person. It's EVERYONE in this debate (which is just you and I). When all relevant parties agree on a premise than it's an accepted premise.

    I mean that's the way it always is in these debates. If you and I agree on a certain something then we consider it an accepted premise and then move on from that. You challenging the very concept of accepted premises does not forward this debate at all. I don't want to argue whether an accepted premise is actually accepted or not for that could be argued for ANY debate we may have and therefore has nothing to do with this particular debate.

    So this is just taking up time and energy that could be spend debating the relevant issues of law, justice, and morality. So let's drop this bit of uselessness, alright?
    Last edited by mican333; November 30th, 2016 at 12:36 PM.

  20. #57
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So. Iether
    1) your origninal statement is false.
    or
    2) You must establish an objective measure of justice. (which you have not).
    My original statement that Christianity lacks justice when a murderer can go to heaven and avoid any punishment still stands until you explain how justice works within Christianity such that it is concordant with how justice is commonly defined.
    No objective measure of justice is required. All that is required is a common definition of justice against which we can evaluate situations involving our expressions of justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Here again you contradict yourself and speak in circles. You said there is only one definition of justice that is being used. yet here you clearly use it in two different ways.
    In one way it is the written process, but then you say that process may have parts that are "unjust".
    There is no contradiction. If some process within the justice system is decided collectively that is it not fair, or for some other reason is not in concordance with the common definition, then we try to take steps to improve our justice system. The definition is still the same. It seems you're conflating the way we define justice with the way we attempt to fulfil it.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I'll take that at face value. You insist you were responding to MT and that's fine.
    I'm not insisting anything. I was responding to MT, plain and simple. Again, you've picked up on something I said and are trying to run with it, now in an attempt to make it seem as though I'm "insisting" that I was responding to MT, but that you're letting it slide. This type of rhetorical manipulation is definitely not winning any points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    It's been shown here, twice now, that you DID actually make that claim given that the first time you mentioned it NO ONE had said otherwise, meaning it wasn't a refutation of anything, it couldn't logically be in response as a counter to anything, or anything else of the like. It was you making a claim. You not wanting to believe it doesn't make any less real than it is.
    (a)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.
    (b)Justice exists outside the bible
    The former is the claim I made, and the latter is something else altogether. As already explained, whether there is justice outside the bible is not the claim I made, since "outside the bible" is irrelevant to that claim and dismissed until its relevance is supported. So far, all we've had is claims of things called "God's justice", "justice flowing from God", etc, and all without support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    This is also wildly inaccurate at best or lying at worst. You didn't even mention that definition until post #24 of this thread. Point of fact, when MT challenged you to define it or show some external version of justice beyond the Bible, you argued (as I quoted above) that you didn't have.
    Again, "justice beyond the Bible" is irrelevant to the claim. Also, it is standard practice within debates - and conversation in general - that when a term is used without being defined, the common definition is held by default. When MT's second response to my claim made it clear he was completely misunderstanding it (thinking my claim was that there is justice outside the bible, and not understanding what I meant by "justice"), I replied by correcting him on what my claim was and providing the common definition. The definition was not required until he started to go all "the only justice is from the bible". Please also note that even before I provided the definition, it had already been provided by Mican, who correctly interpreted the use of "justice" for the purpose of the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    You're claiming there (your words, not mine) that you were claiming christianity lacks justice based on the common definition of justice, when the initial claim you made was: 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. Which is a vastly different one since THAT claim only requires that a murderer be spared death for it to invalidate justice, which is itself contradictory to the later clarification (if we're generous) that provided which would allow for instances where a murderer gets X amount of years and gets released, or gets a life sentence, etc.
    You're obviously misreading something, since both expressions of my claim were intended to communicate the same issue with Christianity: that within Christianity, punishment after death is avoided by being saved before death - not being spared death, as you seem to have interpreted it. The second expression merely added the definition of justice. Instances where the murderer serves fair time for their crime are excluded, as justice is served in those instances thankfully - even though, of course, the murderer gets saved and goes to heaven upon death, avoiding any Christian punishment. Whereas someone convicted of the same crime and serving the same time - but doesn't get saved - that guy goes to hell. Way to be fair!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    THE DEFINITION YOU PROVIDED IS AN EXTRABIBLICAL DEFINITION OF JUSTICE and therefore AUTOMATICALLY falls under the category of "justice outside the bible".
    Oh crap - that must mean that it's also AN EXTRA-I-CHING-ICAL DEFINITION OF JUSTICE!!!!11one, and AUTOMATICALLY falls under the similarly made-up category of "justice outside the I Ching"! I must now support the claim that justice exists outside the I Ching! But wait, that also means "justice within the bible" AUTOMATICALLY falls under the category of "justice outside the I Ching"!
    I'm sorry, Mr. Hyde, but no amount of all-caps histrionics will help you avoid the fact that "extrabiblical definition of justice" is a complete non-starter with regards to the claim I am making. The common definition of justice is quite simple, and does not require any reference to be made to anything biblical - not in its content, nor in the type of definition it is. I have explained and supported the existence of justice as it has been defined, and have repeatedly asked my counterparts to do the same for the justice which they have both directly and implicitly claimed exists.
    So you have again spent a lot of time with something which doesn't get us anywhere. You have not showed how I've been constructing a straw man, and have only added to your own straw man by continuing your weird attempts to define some nebulous idea of theistic justice into existence by proxy.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    If the Bible is not something that supports Christian belief and theology, (some of which embraces the principle that God loves justice) then your claim, "I would say that Christianity lacks any form of justice…” is not supported by anything that exists.
    If by "supports Christian belief and theology", you mean supports that it is the truth, then no, the bible simply referencing or embracing justice is neither an explanation of nor support for whatever it is you are calling "God's justice". I have provided support for why Christianity lacks justice based on how justice is defined. If you are referring to a different kind of justice, please explain what that is, and how you determined it to be just.

  21. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If by "supports Christian belief and theology", you mean supports that it is the truth, then no, the bible simply referencing or embracing justice is neither an explanation of nor support for whatever it is you are calling "God's justice". I have provided support for why Christianity lacks justice based on how justice is defined.
    Defined by who, what and in what context? No, you haven’t supported it. You -- according to Futureboy: “Referencing something is not support that it exists.” Your argument is referencing the Bible and God in the Bible – yet referencing God in the Bible (according to you) is not support that it (God's justice or lack there off } exists. Where’s your support?

    1. Being forgiven by God for sin and going to heaven comes from the Bible. It does not just come from Wikipedia.

    2. Your argument that “Christianity lacks any form of justice” is referencing the Bible and the teachings that God forgives sin and thus allows murders to go to heaven.

    3. You are referencing and supporting your argument with the Bible and God in the Bible to support your claim about God’s lack of justice when he forgives a murder and allows that soul to go to heaven. However, you have yet to support anything from the Bible, your reference, that heaven lacks justice.

    4. Yet when I referenced the same God in Bible that you referenced to support your argument that God forgives sin and allows murders to go to heaven (where's the justice?) in order to answer your question, you stated that referencing the same source that you are referencing is not support that God's justice exists.

    5. Thus, if looks like you want to reference the God in the Bible who forgives sin and allows souls to go to heaven as a reference to support your argument about God's lack of justice – but yet you don’t want to consider your own reference as support, God in the Bible, "God loves justice" to address your question about God’s justice.

    6. Is that some type of Martian logic?
    Last edited by eye4magic; December 2nd, 2016 at 01:02 AM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  22. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Defined by who, what and in what context?
    The definition has already been provided: "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals".

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    No, you haven’t supported it. You -- according to Futureboy: “Referencing something is not support that it exists.” Your argument is referencing the Bible and God in the Bible – yet referencing God in the Bible (according to you) is not support that it (God's justice or lack there off } exists. Where’s your support?
    You provided support that forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity in post #41. The definition of justice does not include "- provided they don't just ask to be forgiven" at the end. This was all explained in post #42, to which you did not respond fully. Until you respond to the points/rebuttals, they stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    1. Being forgiven by God for sin and going to heaven comes from the Bible. It does not just come from Wikipedia.
    What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    2. Your argument that “Christianity lacks any form of justice” is referencing the Bible and the teachings that God forgives sin and thus allows murders to go to heaven.
    What's your point? Again, you supported that forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity in post #41.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    3. You are referencing and supporting your argument with the Bible and God in the Bible to support your claim about God’s lack of justice when he forgives a murder and allows that soul to go to heaven. However, you have yet to support anything from the Bible, your reference, that heaven lacks justice.
    What's your point? Again, you supported that forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity in post #41, and the definition does not include "- provided they don't just ask to be forgiven" at the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    4. Yet when I referenced the same God in Bible that you referenced to support your argument that God forgives sin and allows murders to go to heaven (where's the justice?) in order to answer your question, you stated that referencing the same source that you are referencing is not support that God's justice exists.
    What's your point? Again, you supported that forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity in post #41, and the definition does not include "- provided they don't just ask to be forgiven" at the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    5. Thus, if looks like you want to reference the God in the Bible who forgives sin and allows souls to go to heaven as a reference to support your argument about God's lack of justice – but yet you don’t want to consider your own reference as support, God in the Bible, "God loves justice" to address your question about God’s justice.
    Please note that I have not referenced anything from the bible to support that forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity. Also, you seem to be quite confused about the difference between: (a) the bible as support for what is a tenet of Christianity, and (b) references to justice in the bible as explanations of what justice means in the bible and support that it exists.
    As explained, (a) is irrelevant, as you have yourself provided support that forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity, in at least two posts.

    Regarding (b), the charge was for you to explain what you meant by "God's justice" and provide support that it exists - post #34. You responded in post #41 by providing biblical passages which merely make reference to justice, and claiming that "God loves justice".
    I'm sorry this is proving so difficult for you, but to repeat: merely referencing something in text is neither an explanation of what it is nor support that it exists. For example, let's say you pick up a random issue of Spiderman, in which a character is shown talking about Spidey's powers. According to your logic, his powers have now been explained, and support that they exist has been provided. Unfortunately, - and here comes the Martian logic now - without having any other knowledge about his powers, just reading about someone referencing them does nothing to explain how they work. Second, Spiderman doesn't exist, and his powers don't either, and - warning, more Martian logic - just reading about someone referencing his powers does not prove that they actually exist.

  23. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Please note that I have not referenced anything from the bible to support that forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity.
    Where do the tenets of Christianity come from that you are questioning? You are referencing in your claim the Christian principle that God forgives sin. N'est pas? What God? Basic reasoning would say the Christian God since you are challenging a Christian tenet. What body of knowledge do Christians learn about God (that you are questioning)? What body of knowledge are the tenets of Christianity derived from? Where do Christians learn that God forgives sin?

    Here is a hint:
    https://www.openbible.info/topics/forgiving_murder

    Also, you seem to be quite confused about the difference between: (a) the bible as support for what is a tenet of Christianity, and (b) references to justice in the bible as explanations of what justice means in the bible and support that it exists.
    Can you please support this statement by explaining how and where the Bible explains justice. If you want to talk about some of Christianity’s perspectives regarding God’s justice, I would be happy to discuss the different Biblical references and teachings about justice in the Bible that supports God, who knows and sees all things, love of justice. That discussion requires referencing the Bible which is where we learn that God forgives sin, which your claim is questioning. If you want to discuss the Biblical principles of God justice for the purpose of perhaps better understanding them, we can have that discussion.

    As explained, (a) is irrelevant, as you have yourself provided support that forgiveness is a tenet of Christianity, in at least two posts.
    Are you claiming that Christianity’s principle that God forgives sin is not based on Biblical knowledge?

    Regarding (b), the charge was for you to explain what you meant by "God's justice" and provide support that it exists
    My position with regards to your claim is simply to point out that you have not supported that Christianity lacks justice because you can’t seem to support what happens in heaven when a murderer dies who God has forgiven. Again you are assuming that when God forgives a murderer who dies, just because you and I don't know what happens after death, you are assuming there is no justice.
    Last edited by eye4magic; December 2nd, 2016 at 07:26 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

 

 
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 911 Conspiracy
    By PatrickHenry in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 198
    Last Post: June 16th, 2011, 08:52 AM
  2. The philosophy of Christianity and the religoin of Christianity
    By Supaiku in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 5th, 2005, 12:01 PM
  3. Hey I got a conspiracy for you...
    By EscraymCroix in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: April 1st, 2005, 11:27 PM
  4. The Mormon Conspiracy
    By freedom man in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 21st, 2005, 02:24 PM
  5. Conspiracy or cover up?
    By CC in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 14th, 2005, 02:43 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
  •