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 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 154
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Christianity is a conspiracy

    I've been researching conspiracy theories for a few years, and recently I've been focused on the conspiracy of Christianity. Christianity is an ideal system for gaining control over a people, as it promotes traits such as submissiveness, a tendency towards blind obedience, and a reluctance to seek justice (revenge) if one is wronged. For those who are interested, I've found this site to be good for this topic http://exposingchristianity.org
    Does anyone else have any thoughts on how Christianity might be used to coerce/control people?

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    I don't really agree with your assessment - not exactly, anyway.

    Christianity is a religion, not a conspiracy. That's not to say that Christians don't sometime conspire or use Christianity, or any religion, to control and influence people.

    But of course Christianity, and other religions, are much more and do much more than that.

    A conspiracy, as far I can define, is a secret plot between multiple people. I'm sure there have been many Christian conspiracies but I wouldn't say the whole religion is a conspiracy.

  3. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  4. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    I think a good case could be made for why some religions could be considered as not conspiracies per se, but definitely complex edifices intended to gain control over people.

    Would you mind providing some excerpts from that website which you believe best support your OP? It's kind of a rule here that we shouldn't have to actually visit your link to know what you're referring to by providing it.

  5. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by greenwater
    Christianity is an ideal system for gaining control over a people, as it promotes traits such as submissiveness, a tendency towards blind obedience, and a reluctance to seek justice (revenge) if one is wronged
    So anything that promotes traits you don't like or agree with are a conspiracy? (assuming of course those are indeed traits Christianity promotes inherently)

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    Does anyone else have any thoughts on how Christianity might be used to coerce/control people?
    Nope, because your premise is not supported and I see no reason to accept it simply because it is stated.
    care to explain?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    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.
    Last edited by futureboy; November 4th, 2016 at 09:05 AM.

  7. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Blind obedience & submissiveness
    So your defining "blind obedience" as what is general described in the bible as "faith"?
    What is your justification?

    and what about submissiveness, the only one I see is about being submissive to the gov not Christianity.
    That doesn't follow as support for your point about Christianity being a conspiracy to control people.
    That is like saying the Illuminati is a conspiracy for people to obey the KKK

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Revenge:
    I do not dispute that the Bible teaches to not seek revenge.
    My objection is that this idea is not the same as "justice" and you have not justified as to why we should
    a: think it is or
    B: That the bible teaches that it is

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    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.
    You are going to have to establish a separate existence of justice and it's source if you intent to start a criticism there.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  8. #7
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are going to have to establish a separate existence of justice and it's source if you intent to start a criticism there.
    Why?

  9. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Why?
    Because from my position Justice flows from God (just like morality).
    So, if he is going to stand on some other idea of justice, he is going to have to first establish it as a measure by which Christianity is to be judged.
    As it isn't a shared assumption, he has to justify it and explain it.

    Isn't that fair? To, you know expect my opponent to establish the basis for his criticism?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because from my position Justice flows from God (just like morality).
    So, if he is going to stand on some other idea of justice, he is going to have to first establish it as a measure by which Christianity is to be judged.
    As it isn't a shared assumption, he has to justify it and explain it.
    I think he is appealing to the notion that one should be held accountable for his crimes and therefore it's not justice to just get away with one's crimes by appealing to a certain deity upon one's deathbed.

    And of course the shared assumption goes both ways. If you want to say that whatever (the bible says that) God does or says is automatically justice no matter how directly it contradicts what we, as people, might think of what is and is not just, if one does not share your theistic assumptions, then your position likewise is based on an unshared assumption.

    But I suppose the question for you is that do you agree that one should be held accountable for his/her crime? Assuming you do, then that particular assumption is shared.
    Last edited by mican333; November 5th, 2016 at 03:53 PM.

  11. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So your defining "blind obedience" as what is general described in the bible as "faith"?
    No, I'm defining blind obedience and submissiveness in the bible as blind obedience and submissiveness, not faith. The bible describes faith as confidence in what is hoped for and assurance about what is not seen, or blind faith. Of course, the blind obedience and submissiveness in the bible is easily justified to Christians by having blind faith, but that doesn't change the fact that it is blind obedience and submissiveness.

    and what about submissiveness, the only one I see is about being submissive to the gov not Christianity.
    The bible commands slaves to submit to their masters, and women to submit to men. The fact that the bible also commands people to submit to governments still proves that it commands submissiveness. Submissiveness to whom is another question altogether. No wonder Christianity has such appeal Constantine for him to make it the empire's religion - it ensured faultless obedience to the will of the ruler.

    You are going to have to establish a separate existence of justice and it's source if you intent to start a criticism there.
    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.

  12. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I think he is appealing to the notion that one should be held accountable for his crimes and therefore it's not justice to just get away with one's crimes by appealing to a certain deity upon one's deathbed.
    Who says that's justice?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And of course the shared assumption goes both ways. If you want to say that whatever (the bible says that) God does or says is automatically justice no matter how directly it contradicts what we, as people, might think of what is and is not just, if one does not share your theistic assumptions, then your position likewise is based on an unshared assumption.
    Shifting burden of proof.
    Rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But I suppose the question for you is that do you agree that one should be held accountable for his/her crime? Assuming you do, then that particular assumption is shared.
    No mental cheating. Establish it yourself or don't claim it.

    I do not recognize justice outside of God. Teach me your position if you are going to make the case that yours is superior or God is Unjust.
    Anything less, is laziness.

    -----
    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    No, I'm defining blind obedience and submissiveness in the bible as blind obedience and submissiveness, not faith. The bible describes faith as confidence in what is hoped for and assurance about what is not seen, or blind faith. Of course, the blind obedience and submissiveness in the bible is easily justified to Christians by having blind faith, but that doesn't change the fact that it is blind obedience and submissiveness.
    O.k. I may have misread the "blind obedience and submissiveness" as "blind obedience and blind submissiveness".
    The latter does not seem to be your assertion. So I concede that the bible does generally teach submissiveness.

    I don't see Blind Obedience, and look for you to support that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    The bible commands slaves to submit to their masters, and women to submit to men. The fact that the bible also commands people to submit to governments still proves that it commands submissiveness. Submissiveness to whom is another question altogether. No wonder Christianity has such appeal Constantine for him to make it the empire's religion - it ensured faultless obedience to the will of the ruler.
    Conceded.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    See my response to Mican. Dio only asked "why" that isn't a point, or i did not gather one from it.

    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.
    Don't be lazy and steal the parts of the bible you like in order to try and throw it out.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #12
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because from my position Justice flows from God (just like morality).
    So, if he is going to stand on some other idea of justice, he is going to have to first establish it as a measure by which Christianity is to be judged.
    As it isn't a shared assumption, he has to justify it and explain it.

    Isn't that fair? To, you know expect my opponent to establish the basis for his criticism?
    Since we're talking about fairness, and since fairness is an aspect of morality, and since your position on morality flows from God, can you show in the Bible where the concept of 'fairness' is said to contain an expectation that people first establish their basis for any criticism of concepts of justice before forwarding said criticism?

  14. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Who says that's justice?
    He does. And I agree. Also pretty much everyone else agrees to. I think even you agree but won't officially admit it for the sake of debate (which is fine).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Shifting burden of proof.
    Rejected.
    Why is the burden on me?

    I thought the issue was SHARED premises, which means that BOTH parties agree on certain premises before anything can be established. So if your position of justice is based on a premise that no one here agrees with, then your position is based on something that has absolutely no support (unless you can support your premise with supported facts).

    No one has any basis to claim that their justice is superior.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No mental cheating. Establish it yourself or don't claim it.

    I do not recognize justice outside of God. Teach me your position if you are going to make the case that yours is superior or God is Unjust.
    Anything less, is laziness.
    Mine is based on what humans generally think is just. For example, humans generally agree that people who harm others should receive punishment of some kind. And my evidence that this is a relatively superior system is based on the fact that societies that have a civil justice system are happier societies that have no justice system at all (ones where there is a lot of anarchy and violence) or ones that have a strict religious justice system (modern islamic theocracies and Christian theocracies of the past). So the objective measurement I use is people's happiness and hold that happier people indicate a superior system of justice.

  15. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Since we're talking about fairness, and since fairness is an aspect of morality, and since your position on morality flows from God, can you show in the Bible where the concept of 'fairness' is said to contain an expectation that people first establish their basis for any criticism of concepts of justice before forwarding said criticism?
    Red Herring. We are talking about justice.

    The basis of "Make a claim, support a claim" is well established in the realm of this debate. The claim of justice is forwarded by someone not me. I am simply challenging them to support.
    Are there some other rules you would rather follow?
    I retract the question of fair or not, as ODN could have unfair rules.

    Is my question in line with the debate expectation levels on this board? If so, then he does have the burden.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    He does. And I agree. Also pretty much everyone else agrees to. I think even you agree but won't officially admit it for the sake of debate (which is fine).
    Appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because many agree does not make the claim correct.
    Further, am I to understand that "justice" is established through popularity?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Why is the burden on me?

    I thought the issue was SHARED premises, which means that BOTH parties agree on certain premises before anything can be established. So if your position of justice is based on a premise that no one here agrees with, then your position is based on something that has absolutely no support (unless you can support your premise with supported facts).

    No one has any basis to claim that their justice is superior.
    Straw man argument & shifting the burden...still.
    Support or retract that I claimed my "version" of justice was superior.
    I asked for support of his premise. Do you plan on supporting it anytime soon? Or do you intend to continue to shift the burden on me?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Mine is based on what humans generally think is just.
    Nice.. why should I accept your unabashed appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    For example, humans generally agree that people who harm others should receive punishment of some kind. And my evidence that this is a relatively superior system is based on the fact that societies that have a civil justice system are happier societies that have no justice system at all (ones where there is a lot of anarchy and violence) or ones that have a strict religious justice system (modern islamic theocracies and Christian theocracies of the past). So the objective measurement I use is people's happiness and hold that happier people indicate a superior system of justice.
    People of Germany were very happy to dehumanize the Jews in their "justice system".
    I'm sure you would like to pick and choose which societies count and which ones do not. Your simply cherry picking what justice you like, not establishing it against some objective standard. Especially one as vague as "peoples happiness".

    Why is peoples happiness the standard for justice? why not survivalist? Or efficiency? or the more well established "survival of the fittest"?
    Your simply question begging by pointing to "happiness".

    More precisely
    Why should I(or anyone) accept happiness as the standard for justice, apart from your fallacious appeal to popularity?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  16. #15
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Red Herring. We are talking about justice.
    Correction: We WERE talking about justice. YOU brought up fairness when I asked why someone has to 'establish a separate existence of justice and it's source' before they can call something unjust.

    So, in the interest of the fairness you claim to value, can you show in the Bible where the concept of 'fairness' is said to contain an expectation that people first establish their basis for any criticism of concepts of justice before forwarding said criticism?

  17. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Correction: We WERE talking about justice. YOU brought up fairness when I asked why someone has to 'establish a separate existence of justice and it's source' before they can call something unjust.
    Instead of correcting your misapplication of my use of the idea of fairness, I retracted my question (not a claim) regarding the fairness of my point. Is retraction not sufficient?
    Is there a line of argumentation regarding fairness you wish to forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    So, in the interest of the fairness you claim to value, can you show in the Bible where the concept of 'fairness' is said to contain an expectation that people first establish their basis for any criticism of concepts of justice before forwarding said criticism?
    I have made allowances that ODN rules can be completely unfair. Those rules as applied here require that the claim of the existence of Justice be supported.
    Do you agree that, that burden according to ODN rules applies as I have pointed out? Do you agree that there is no burden for me to support any version of justice, as I am not forwarding the claim that it exists, in accordance with the ODN rules?

    If so, then your line of reasoning remains a red herring.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  18. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Straw man argument & shifting the burden...still.
    Support or retract that I claimed my "version" of justice was superior.
    As your arguments below criticize what I forward, it indicates that you hold that your is superior. Or do you concede that whatever flaws my system may have, yours may have similar or worse flaws? If so, then your criticism of my system is rather irrelevant as it may still be the best one there is.

    So I will Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that you method of attaining justice is superior to mine. And of course you can say that you never claimed it was superior and I will accept it. But then it is established that you have not shown that my system is inferior to yours so the flaws that it has may be exceeded by your system.

    And also, if your argument is not that your system of justice is superior to the one that FB and I are referring to, then what is your argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I asked for support of his premise. Do you plan on supporting it anytime soon? Or do you intend to continue to shift the burden on me?
    I have. You are currently attacking my support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Nice.. why should I accept your unabashed appeal to popularity (a logical fallacy)?
    Please make your arguments in the form of statements, not questions. I reserve the right to answer "that's a question, not an argument" to any questions I'm asked. I won't do it this time as your point is clear.

    And it's not an appeal to popularity fallacy if the thing's correctness is based on popularity. An example would be an election. It's not an appeal to declare someone the winner of an election by pointing out that they were the most popular candidate. And likewise it's not a fallacy to say that the best system for people is the one that people like the best and therefore how many people like the system is a valid indicator of whether people like it in general.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    People of Germany were very happy to dehumanize the Jews in their "justice system".
    Maybe some people were happy there. But it was not generally a happy place. In fact, for some the place was sheer horror.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm sure you would like to pick and choose which societies count and which ones do not. Your simply cherry picking what justice you like, not establishing it against some objective standard. Especially one as vague as "peoples happiness".
    Happiness is not very vague. I think we can safely say that people living in Western Style Democracies are happier than people living in Middle Eastern Theocracies. You can observe which way the refugees flow for an indicator.

    And I won't pick and choose. I will pit all societies that have a civil rule of law versus all societies that have no rule of law or religious law and exclude none.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why is peoples happiness the standard for justice? why not survivalist? Or efficiency? or the more well established "survival of the fittest"?
    Your simply question begging by pointing to "happiness".
    I forward the premise that it's good for people to be happy. The fact that it's also good to be other things (efficient) does not mean that my premise is wrong.

    In fact - I forward it as a premise for acceptance in this debate so I will bold it. Premise - it's good for people to be happy.

    You can accept the premise or reject it. I'm not asking for support if you reject it (that would be shifting the burden) but you must make it clear that you reject it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    More precisely
    Why should I(or anyone) accept happiness as the standard for justice, apart from your fallacious appeal to popularity?
    Because (assuming you accept the premise I just forwarded), it's good for people to be happy. So a justice system that makes people happy is a good justice system.

    And you asked why should you or "anyone" accept this notion. I can't speak for you but as far as "anyone else" goes, I think pretty much everyone else (with maybe a minor exception here and there) will agree that it's good for people to be happy and therefore in their eyes, I have supported my position. So that's why "anyone" should accept my standard (whether you do or not).
    Last edited by mican333; November 6th, 2016 at 07:02 AM.

  19. #18
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    -----------
    @Mican .. About half of your response is about shifting the burden of proof, straw men arguments regarding my position or the state of the debate.

    Why I ask about Future's idea of Justice.

    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.
    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.
    First he is saying that Christians lack any form of justice. I'm not certain if you know this, but I'm a christian and as I stated my understanding of Justice flows from my understanding of the Just and Moral nature of God.
    He says, that isn't justice.. and that X is unjust.

    Fine, I am not here arguing that God is the source of Justice. And I readily profess my ignorance as to what Justice is.
    So what is this "justice" future is speaking of? What is the basis for his claim that Christianity is "Unjust"?

    Don't feel like answering? Fine, then the assertion is unsupported and dismiss able. Thanks for playing.
    Props to Mican for attempting to establish it and thus support the claim.
    ---------


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As your arguments below criticize what I forward, it indicates that you hold that your is superior.
    False, and another straw man.
    One must first have two established forms or basis of justice in order for an evaluation as to which is superior.
    I have asked for the establishment of an alternate basis for justice (outside of God or the one I recogize) so that I may compare.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I will Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that you method of attaining justice is superior to mine. And of course you can say that you never claimed it was superior and I will accept it. But then it is established that you have not shown that my system is inferior to yours so the flaws that it has may be exceeded by your system.
    That is ridiculous. You are going to draw a conclusion without ever forwarding any form of justice of your own?
    You are being intellectually lazy and shifting the burden of proof to me. As though I have some burden when I have made not claim
    In fact, I only asked a question and stated my ignorance.
    IE, what is this jutice you speak of as I am not aware of any outside of one established by God.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I will Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that you method of attaining justice is superior to mine. And of course you can say that you never claimed it was superior and I will accept it. But then it is established that you have not shown that my system is inferior to yours so the flaws that it has may be exceeded by your system.
    Right now it is that no idea of justice has been forworded or supported by you or anyone else.
    Your question begging, and shifting the burden of proof and constructing straw-men for several posts.. I hope we are past this part now.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I have. You are currently attacking my support.
    I believe I am yes. Later on in the response you offer a kind of support.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Please make your arguments in the form of statements, not questions. I reserve the right to answer "that's a question, not an argument" to any questions I'm asked. I won't do it this time as your point is clear.
    If you do not intend to answer relevant questions regarding your argument, then I don't think your really interested in establishing your position or explaining it.

    For example, the question of
    Why Happyness, and not Survival of the fittest?
    Is not answered by you. It appears you choice is arbitrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And it's not an appeal to popularity fallacy if the thing's correctness is based on popularity. An example would be an election. It's not an appeal to declare someone the winner of an election by pointing out that they were the most popular candidate. And likewise it's not a fallacy to say that the best system for people is the one that people like the best and therefore how many people like the system is a valid indicator of whether people like it in general.
    It is important to note that threat of violence is what establishes elections. For it can be equally said that if others(say the looser) by use of force overthrow the election, then the election is not valid.
    Is that the basis you are appealing to? The threat of violence?
    *Note that question is not a point or argument, it is to establish the basis of what your appealing to accuratly*

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Maybe some people were happy there. But it was not generally a happy place. In fact, for some the place was sheer horror.
    Your standard is not well explained and appears to take the form of the taxi cab fallacy. Where you just jump off whenever you don't like the results.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Happiness is not very vague. I think we can safely say that people living in Western Style Democracies are happier than people living in Middle Eastern Theocracies. You can observe which way the refugees flow for an indicator.

    And I won't pick and choose. I will pit all societies that have a civil rule of law versus all societies that have no rule of law or religious law and exclude none.
    What is vague is who's happiness counts and to what degrees. How many refugies does it take before that society is deemed "unhappy".
    For example, lots of companies are leaving the U.S. they are clearly "unhappy" with america and it's tax code. Do they count?
    There are people who are fleeing the U.S. for other reasons, like oppression by the "justice" system. They are clearly unhappy. How do those count?
    In the end, I see an arbitrary measure not only with the choice of Happiness over other standards, but also with what it means for the people to be happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I forward the premise that it's good for people to be happy. The fact that it's also good to be other things (efficient) does not mean that my premise is wrong.
    It's arbitrary. One could easly pick and support survival of the fitests instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    In fact - I forward it as a premise for acceptance in this debate so I will bold it. Premise - it's good for people to be happy.

    You can accept the premise or reject it. I'm not asking for support if you reject it (that would be shifting the burden) but you must make it clear that you reject it.
    I must draw your attention to the distinction between "good" and "moral".
    For example, it is good to become a Dr but that doesn't make it moral choice.

    Justice is based on morality, and you are conflaiting terms that don't apply to morality.
    That something is good, doesn't make it just.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    In fact - I forward it as a premise for acceptance in this debate so I will bold it. Premise - it's good for people to be happy.

    You can accept the premise or reject it. I'm not asking for support if you reject it (that would be shifting the burden) but you must make it clear that you reject it.
    Define what it means to "Make people happy".
    Drugs make people happy, is that good?


    --summary--
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you asked why should you or "anyone" accept this notion. I can't speak for you but as far as "anyone else" goes, I think pretty much everyone else (with maybe a minor exception here and there) will agree that it's good for people to be happy and therefore in their eyes, I have supported my position. So that's why "anyone" should accept my standard (whether you do or not).
    Anyone who accepts your argument is following a fallacious line of reasoning.
    Conflaiting the ideas of what it means to be "good" and "moral".
    Appealing to an arbitrary standard of "happiness".
    Having an ill defined standard of "happiness".
    And taxi cabbing their standard when the outcome is not liked.

    If everyone in the world believed as you do, they would be practicing mass delusion with the threat of violence as it's base justification.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  20. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,656
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @Mican .. About half of your response is about shifting the burden of proof, straw men arguments regarding my position or the state of the debate.
    Then I guess I don't understand what your position is so state your position in the debate. Make the argument that you are forwarding.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First he is saying that Christians lack any form of justice. I'm not certain if you know this, but I'm a christian and as I stated my understanding of Justice flows from my understanding of the Just and Moral nature of God.
    He says, that isn't justice.. and that X is unjust.

    Fine, I am not here arguing that God is the source of Justice. And I readily profess my ignorance as to what Justice is.
    So what is this "justice" future is speaking of? What is the basis for his claim that Christianity is "Unjust"?

    Don't feel like answering? Fine, then the assertion is unsupported and dismiss able. Thanks for playing.
    Props to Mican for attempting to establish it and thus support the claim.
    From what I can tell, you have no argument then. You are just asking for clarification on what he means. And I clarified for you. I pointed out that he is forwarding the premise that "a person should be held accountable for his crimes". Asking for even more clarification is not a counter-argument to that.

    You can personally reject it for any reason that you want but who cares if you do? No one has any burden here to explain further and further until you are satisfied, especially since you have apparently not even taken a position at all.

    So that is my response. I offered clarification upon your request.

    I'd say thanks for playing but I don't think you've really played yet.

    And I could be wrong about that. So let's get the "game" properly started and know where we stand. So again I ask: What is your argument here?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is ridiculous. You are going to draw a conclusion without ever forwarding any form of justice of your own?
    You are being intellectually lazy and shifting the burden of proof to me. As though I have some burden when I have made not claim
    In fact, I only asked a question and stated my ignorance.
    IE, what is this jutice you speak of as I am not aware of any outside of one established by God.
    I have forwarded the kind of justice that I speak of. You are currently attacking it so PLEASE stop saying that I haven't provided any.

    And I have established that you have not attempted to, let alone succeeded in, showing that the form of justice that I've forwarded is inferior to your own (since you declined to support that assertion). So even if your criticisms of my version of justice are correct, you cannot say that it's still not a better system than yours.

    And if you aren't seeking to show that my version of justice is inferior then I see no point in attacking it. If it does not help your argument to criticize my basis of justice, then such criticisms do not forward the debate and I should actually ignore your criticisms on the basis that one should not respond to spam. But again, I'm assuming that your criticisms have a point and the point is that my form of justice is inferior to what you hold. If I'm wrong, then please explain how your criticisms support your argument.

    So again I ask - What is your argument?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you do not intend to answer relevant questions regarding your argument, then I don't think your really interested in establishing your position or explaining it.

    For example, the question of
    Why Happyness, and not Survival of the fittest?
    Is not answered by you. It appears you choice is arbitrary.
    If it's your OPINION that my choice is arbitrary, then your opinion is noted. But opinions are not support. If you want to argue that my choice is arbitrary, then you have that burden of support that with A SUPPORTED ARGUMENT. So until you do support that my choice is arbitrary, I will ignore such a claim as unsupported. If you continue to forward that claim without a support, I will challenge you to support or retract the claim.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is important to note that threat of violence is what establishes elections. For it can be equally said that if others(say the looser) by use of force overthrow the election, then the election is not valid.
    Is that the basis you are appealing to? The threat of violence?
    *Note that question is not a point or argument, it is to establish the basis of what your appealing to accuratly*
    No, I'm showing that certain things are shown to be true by popularity, using elections as an example. Your arguments regarding problems with elections are a red herring and doesn't change the fact that the person with the most votes, in other words the most people vote for, becomes president and it's not an appeal to popularity fallacy to point this out.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What is vague is who's happiness counts and to what degrees. How many refugies does it take before that society is deemed "unhappy".
    For example, lots of companies are leaving the U.S. they are clearly "unhappy" with america and it's tax code. Do they count?
    There are people who are fleeing the U.S. for other reasons, like oppression by the "justice" system. They are clearly unhappy. How do those count?
    In the end, I see an arbitrary measure not only with the choice of Happiness over other standards, but also with what it means for the people to be happy.
    If you are going to argue that my choice is arbitrary, I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my choice is arbitrary.

    And again, questions are not arguments.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It's arbitrary. One could easly pick and support survival of the fitests instead.
    It's not arbitrary because I have supported that it's a good system based on the premise that it's good to be happy.

    Arbitrary means picked at random. My system was not picked at random - I picked it for a reason.

    As far as any alternatives go, it's irrelevant. If one does find a better system, that's fine. But it doesn't mean that my system is bad and DEFINITELY doesn't mean that it's picked at random. And of course you have not supported that there is a better system then mine.

    So no, it's clearly not arbitrary.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I must draw your attention to the distinction between "good" and "moral".
    For example, it is good to become a Dr but that doesn't make it moral choice.

    Justice is based on morality, and you are conflaiting terms that don't apply to morality.
    That something is good, doesn't make it just.
    Straw man. I didn't argue otherwise.

    I don't see how this rebuts my premises so I will forward it again. It's good for people to be happy.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Define what it means to "Make people happy".
    Drugs make people happy, is that good?
    My premise didn't include "make people happy" so your question is irrelevant to the premise. I'm saying that it's good for people to be happy. I will hold to that premise until you reject it.

    And I should say that you really should accept or reject the premise I've forwarded. I'm basing my argument on it and therefore to forward the debate you either need to:

    1. Accept the premise but show that my view is flawed even though the premise is correct
    2. Reject the premise.

    To do neither is to basically ignore the basis of my argument and therefore fail to move the debate forward. You do need to address my premises in order to address my argument. So please accept or reject the premise "It's good for people to be happy".



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Anyone who accepts your argument is following a fallacious line of reasoning.
    Conflaiting the ideas of what it means to be "good" and "moral".
    Straw man. I didn't argue that the two are the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Appealing to an arbitrary standard of "happiness".
    Addressed above.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Having an ill defined standard of "happiness".
    Since people know what "happy" means, there is no need for me to define the term.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And taxi cabbing their standard when the outcome is not liked.
    You will need to explain this one further. You provided Germany as an example where people were happy with atrocities and I pointed out that that is not true in general. A significant portion of the population were very unhappy about it. If it helps clarify, I am looking at the country as a whole in all instances so I'm not selectively choosing samples that help my argument but consistently using the same, reasonable standard for all societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If everyone in the world believed as you do, they would be practicing mass delusion with the threat of violence as it's base justification.
    That must be based on complete misunderstand on what I'm saying and will be ignored as such.
    Last edited by mican333; November 6th, 2016 at 11:50 AM.

  21. #20
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity is a conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then I guess I don't understand what your position is so state your position in the debate. Make the argument that you are forwarding.
    As an overview it currently stands (before the remainder of your post)
    As
    1) Call to support the existence and nature of the "justice" appealed to indite Christianity.

    Then in response to the answer of #1

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

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

    /end summary
    I think the strawman claims are in regards to #1


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    From what I can tell, you have no argument then. You are just asking for clarification on what he means. And I clarified for you. I pointed out that he is forwarding the premise that "a person should be held accountable for his crimes". Asking for even more clarification is not a counter-argument to that.

    You can personally reject it for any reason that you want but who cares if you do? No one has any burden here to explain further and further until you are satisfied, especially since you have apparently not even taken a position at all.

    So that is my response. I offered clarification upon your request.

    I'd say thanks for playing but I don't think you've really played yet.

    And I could be wrong about that. So let's get the "game" properly started and know where we stand. So again I ask: What is your argument here?
    See #2

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I have established that you have not attempted to, let alone succeeded in, showing that the form of justice that I've forwarded is inferior to your own (since you declined to support that assertion). So even if your criticisms of my version of justice are correct, you cannot say that it's still not a better system than yours.
    Why do you keep bringing up my version of justice? It is not relevant here. You still have a burden to produce a valid foundation for justice even if mine is bunk.
    The poor state of my version (which is not forwarded here) does not support your version, nor make it more valid in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And if you aren't seeking to show that my version of justice is inferior then I see no point in attacking it. If it does not help your argument to criticize my basis of justice, then such criticisms do not forward the debate and I should actually ignore your criticisms on the basis that one should not respond to spam. But again, I'm assuming that your criticisms have a point and the point is that my form of justice is inferior to what you hold. If I'm wrong, then please explain how your criticisms support your argument. So again I ask - What is your argument?
    Please se #2 at the top of this post.
    My objection is that the justice being forwarded is not valid. That it is equally arbirarily dismissed as it is arbitrary in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If it's your OPINION that my choice is arbitrary, then your opinion is noted.
    The fact is that your basis is arbirary.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But opinions are not support. If you want to argue that my choice is arbitrary, then you have that burden of support that with A SUPPORTED ARGUMENT. So until you do support that my choice is arbitrary, I will ignore such a claim as unsupported. If you continue to forward that claim without a support, I will challenge you to support or retract the claim.
    There is no reason to base an idea of justice on happiness, one could with equal justification choose some other measure, such as survival of the fittest, or overall productivity etc.
    That was the reasoning and justification. I did not simply state my opinion. Please adjust your considerations accordingly.

    [QUOTE=MICAN] No, I'm showing that certain things are shown to be true by popularity, using elections as an example. Your arguments regarding problems with elections are a red herring and doesn't change the fact that the person with the most votes, in other words the most people vote for, becomes president and it's not an appeal to popularity fallacy to point this out. [/QUOTE
    I think you should re-read my objection to this point.
    What I did was offer a more accurate explination as to what elections are determined by. Namely force or threat of.
    Again, if an election is held, and the loser doesn't like the election can be negated by force. Thus proving that elections are not true by popularity, but by force.
    Further, there is no reason an election can not be determined by the lower vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you are going to argue that my choice is arbitrary, I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my choice is arbitrary.

    And again, questions are not arguments.
    Support provided bothin the post your responding to, and repeated here.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's not arbitrary because I have supported that it's a good system based on the premise that it's good to be happy.

    Arbitrary means picked at random. My system was not picked at random - I picked it for a reason.

    As far as any alternatives go, it's irrelevant. If one does find a better system, that's fine. But it doesn't mean that my system is bad and DEFINITELY doesn't mean that it's picked at random. And of course you have not supported that there is a better system then mine.

    So no, it's clearly not arbitrary.
    Quote Originally Posted by DEFINE ARBITRARY
    subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
    an arbitrary decision.
    2.
    decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
    3.
    having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical:
    an arbitrary government.
    4.
    capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
    an arbitrary demand for payment.
    5.
    Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a
    Your refering to the mathmatical understanding of arbitrary. I am refering to the more philisophical versions of.. basically 1-2.
    So, there is no law or statue that states "it's good to be happy." So that statement is based on your personal whim, your arbitrary decision that it is so.

    So, yea your premise and your version of Justice is "arbitrary" by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Straw man. I didn't argue otherwise.

    I don't see how this rebuts my premises so I will forward it again. It's good for people to be happy.
    Your claiming a straw-man fallacy here. Why?
    Is there not a distinction between "good" and "moral"?
    Is justice in regards to what is "good" or in regards to what is "Moral"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My premise didn't include "make people happy" so your question is irrelevant to the premise. I'm saying that it's good for people to be happy. I will hold to that premise until you reject it.
    I'm not sure your objection here is a distinction with a differance.
    Sure you worded it "it's good for people to be happy".
    That to me implies that your standard of justice is what makes people happy.
    You even used examples of people being made unhappy by some other circumstance, leading to them to seek happines through being a refugee to a new place. Presumably one that would make them happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I should say that you really should accept or reject the premise I've forwarded. I'm basing my argument on it and therefore to forward the debate you either need to:

    1. Accept the premise but show that my view is flawed even though the premise is correct
    2. Reject the premise.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Straw man. I didn't argue that the two are the same.
    Neither did I say you argued it. I said you equated the terms. Your applying the term "good" when the term "moral" is what is needed.
    Justice is a function of morality, not goodness.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Since people know what "happy" means, there is no need for me to define the term.
    Actually, your a long way from establishing this idea and how it relates to justice.
    Who's happiness matters the rapist or the rapee?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You will need to explain this one further. You provided Germany as an example where people were happy with atrocities and I pointed out that that is not true in general. A significant portion of the population were very unhappy about it. If it helps clarify, I am looking at the country as a whole in all instances so I'm not selectively choosing samples that help my argument but consistently using the same, reasonable standard for all societies.
    Right. To be clear the objection is based on the assumption that you would find the germans treatment of the Jews leading up to the time of war "unjust".
    In that time, they were declaired non-person. They were the object of institutionalized racism, and the object of destain and scorn from the population at large.

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

    Your taxicab fallacy is due to the illedefined idea of "significant portion". It appears to be based on what you would like to be true about Germany at that time. It does not appear to me to be the product of understanding Germany at the time.
    Suddenly, the political process of elections don't count, and the "significant portion" even though they are a minority and your argument is based on an appeal to the majority.
    Ie Taxicab. The majority serves your purpose until it doesn't so its' discarded.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

 

 
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 911 Conspiracy
    By PatrickHenry in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 198
    Last Post: June 16th, 2011, 07:52 AM
  2. The philosophy of Christianity and the religoin of Christianity
    By Supaiku in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 5th, 2005, 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
  •