• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Respectable Christianity

Gaudius

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
166
Reaction score
50
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As shown in Rational Gaudism Section 9.2.1 or God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs the hypothesis of the existence of the Christian God is de facto scientifically falsified. Thus, there is no reason to have respect for the claim that the Christian God exists; delusions are, with all respect, something that do not deserve respect (however, all human beings deserve respect to a certain extent, included those who bear this delusion). However, one type of Christianity that does deserve respect is a philosophy identifying all references to divinity in the Bible as superstition of ancient times, which are caused by lack of technology and rational epistemological principles. Furthermore, this respectable type of Christianity states that so large parts of Christ's philosophy is very good that its supporters choose to call themselves Christians. But they retain the right to dissociate from the parts of Christ's teaching that are outdated and negative, while the whole or most of the Old Testament are “trashed”. Such respectable Christianity is not religion, but Christian human ethics (Christianity and human ethics merge). However, this type of Christianity is not in accordance my philosophy, but it deserves nevertheless respect since it is not epistemologically absurd.

Are there any people here that are Christians according to these thoughts?
 
Mixing politics (government policy) and religion, in any form, is dangerous. Using "science" to justify forced income redistribution is not ay more valid than using "religion" to do so. If one has a "moral" right to X then nobody should be expected to pay (or not pay) for X; the idea that the inability to support yourself entitles you to share the wealth of government selected others and to avoid any taxation/public service is insane.
 
As shown in Rational Gaudism Section 9.2.1 or God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs the hypothesis of the existence of the Christian God is de facto scientifically falsified. Thus, there is no reason to have respect for the claim that the Christian God exists; delusions are, with all respect, something that do not deserve respect (however, all human beings deserve respect to a certain extent, included those who bear this delusion). However, one type of Christianity that does deserve respect is a philosophy identifying all references to divinity in the Bible as superstition of ancient times, which are caused by lack of technology and rational epistemological principles. Furthermore, this respectable type of Christianity states that so large parts of Christ's philosophy is very good that its supporters choose to call themselves Christians. But they retain the right to dissociate from the parts of Christ's teaching that are outdated and negative, while the whole or most of the Old Testament are “trashed”. Such respectable Christianity is not religion, but Christian human ethics (Christianity and human ethics merge). However, this type of Christianity is not in accordance my philosophy, but it deserves nevertheless respect since it is not epistemologically absurd.

Are there any people here that are Christians according to these thoughts?

No, I'm a Christian in the religious sense. Why should your "respect" (or your obvious contempt) matter to me? I don't see much to respect about you. /shrug
 
As shown in Rational Gaudism Section 9.2.1 or God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs the hypothesis of the existence of the Christian God is de facto scientifically falsified. Thus, there is no reason to have respect for the claim that the Christian God exists; delusions are, with all respect, something that do not deserve respect (however, all human beings deserve respect to a certain extent, included those who bear this delusion). However, one type of Christianity that does deserve respect is a philosophy identifying all references to divinity in the Bible as superstition of ancient times, which are caused by lack of technology and rational epistemological principles. Furthermore, this respectable type of Christianity states that so large parts of Christ's philosophy is very good that its supporters choose to call themselves Christians. But they retain the right to dissociate from the parts of Christ's teaching that are outdated and negative, while the whole or most of the Old Testament are “trashed”. Such respectable Christianity is not religion, but Christian human ethics (Christianity and human ethics merge). However, this type of Christianity is not in accordance my philosophy, but it deserves nevertheless respect since it is not epistemologically absurd.

Are there any people here that are Christians according to these thoughts?
For context; agnostic atheist here.

I'm not sure that I agree with your premise as described in section 9.2.1 - because you are attempting to apply natural (ie scientific) laws to what is described as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, ineffable entity (ie god). While the Gaudism (never heard of it; intrigued; will look into it more when time allows) page gives a largely accurate description of how a pseudo-variant of beyesian inference can be applied to gravity to produce scientific conclusions, I'd argue that such reasoning cannot be applied to a concept (god) that by definition is beyond human understanding. What's more, to put specific probabilities on each auxiliary hypothesis is clearly fallacious - the numbers have been spun out of thin air with no rationale whatsoever for their precision.

I would argue that "God exists" is not and can never be a scientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable, even by the de facto methods that you describe above. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but this is especially true when the thing you are looking for is practically described as being undetectable by empirical methods.

With all that said - yes, I do agree that the less specific you are about features of god, the less falsifiable your beliefs become (and so the more valid they become as 'beliefs' based on personal experience). As such, those who try and see biblical texts through the eye of the culture at the time, and who are less rigid in their interpretations, are on considerably firmer footing than those that make very specific claims about God. And yes - some of those claims are falsifiable and have been falsified (eg YECists), which leads to the absurdity you describe above.
 
Last edited:
With all that said - yes, I do agree that the less specific you are about features of god, the less falsifiable your beliefs become (and so the more valid they become as 'beliefs' based on personal experience). As such, those who try and see biblical texts through the eye of the culture at the time, and who are less rigid in their interpretations, are on considerably firmer footing than those that make very specific claims about God. And yes - some of those claims are falsifiable and have been falsified (eg YECists), which leads to the absurdity you describe above.

You can of course rub out (or interpret) those parts of the Bible that you do not like and say that God did not do this and that. But then it is a very large potential for using the rubber (440 episodes of “bad stuff” [cruelty, injustice, intolerance] only in NewT; about 2000 in OldT). There are a waste number of combinations of what you may erase and interpret according to your own agenda or political view, which indicates that such an understanding of “God” is a pure human work without any credible divine touch. The more fundamentalist attitude you have to the Bible, the more de-facto-falsified the God hypothesis will be, as explained in Rational Gaudism Section 9.2.1. The more liberal attitude you take, the less credibility has the claim of divinity (you have to introduce an auxiliary hypothesis stating that exactly your combination of rubber-using and interpretations represents the real meanings of God among a waste number of alternative combinations). But if you use rubber and interpretations as you want or feel, but wipe out the idea of divinity, Christianity has no problems with “the God hypothesis”.

If divinity is to have credibility, the biblical text should form the culture, and the culture should not form the meaning of the Bible (i.e. the word of God).


“What's more, to put specific probabilities on each auxiliary hypothesis is clearly fallacious - the numbers have been spun out of thin air with no rationale whatsoever for their precision.”
You are right; this is also stated in Rational Gaudism Section 9.2.1: “Of course, it is impossible to give exact numerical values for the well-foundednesses in point 1-4 below; all we can say is that they are very low, and thus, numerical values are only introduced for illustrating the epistemological principle behind the argumentation”

I would argue that "God exists" is not and can never be a scientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable, even by the de facto methods that you describe above.

If you talk about a deistic god, I agree (but atheism and deism may be seen as merging concepts). If we talk about the Christian god, I mean that the de-facto-falsification process is valid.
 
As shown in Rational Gaudism Section 9.2.1 or God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs the hypothesis of the existence of the Christian God is de facto scientifically falsified. Thus, there is no reason to have respect for the claim that the Christian God exists; delusions are, with all respect, something that do not deserve respect (however, all human beings deserve respect to a certain extent, included those who bear this delusion). However, one type of Christianity that does deserve respect is a philosophy identifying all references to divinity in the Bible as superstition of ancient times, which are caused by lack of technology and rational epistemological principles. Furthermore, this respectable type of Christianity states that so large parts of Christ's philosophy is very good that its supporters choose to call themselves Christians. But they retain the right to dissociate from the parts of Christ's teaching that are outdated and negative, while the whole or most of the Old Testament are “trashed”. Such respectable Christianity is not religion, but Christian human ethics (Christianity and human ethics merge). However, this type of Christianity is not in accordance my philosophy, but it deserves nevertheless respect since it is not epistemologically absurd.

Are there any people here that are Christians according to these thoughts?

Sorry but it will never fly with the masses. You have to have heaven or they have nothing to look forward to.
 
The "hypothesis of the existence of the Christian God", as you call it, has NOT been scientifically falsified. The most that science can say is that it has not been proven. Saying that something is not proven is not the same as falsifying it. To say that you will not respect someone else's unproven beliefs says more about your prejudice and intellectual bias, than it does about those beliefs. Your whole monologue reeks of the bigot's philosophy, " I've already made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts."
 
Sorry but it will never fly with the masses. You have to have heaven or they have nothing to look forward to.

"The masses"? Such noblesse oblige.*

I don't see a problem with looking forward or to having hope.

*[per DP rule]noblesse oblige: the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged
 
As shown in Rational Gaudism Section 9.2.1 or God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs the hypothesis of the existence of the Christian God is de facto scientifically falsified. Thus, there is no reason to have respect for the claim that the Christian God exists; delusions are, with all respect, something that do not deserve respect (however, all human beings deserve respect to a certain extent, included those who bear this delusion). However, one type of Christianity that does deserve respect is a philosophy identifying all references to divinity in the Bible as superstition of ancient times, which are caused by lack of technology and rational epistemological principles. Furthermore, this respectable type of Christianity states that so large parts of Christ's philosophy is very good that its supporters choose to call themselves Christians. But they retain the right to dissociate from the parts of Christ's teaching that are outdated and negative, while the whole or most of the Old Testament are “trashed”. Such respectable Christianity is not religion, but Christian human ethics (Christianity and human ethics merge). However, this type of Christianity is not in accordance my philosophy, but it deserves nevertheless respect since it is not epistemologically absurd.

Are there any people here that are Christians according to these thoughts?

This is a very poor presentation that you linked us to, with poor conclusions. For instance,
Jesus is actually in our midst. So he is right here already, supposedly. Yet when we pray to him to physically materialize, nothing ever happens.
Isn't it odd that Nothing happens, given the fact that Jesus promises us that something will happen? Isn't it odd that nothing happens when, supposedly, Jesus is right here with us already, and materialization would be trivial for him?

We have created an unambiguous situation where coincidence cannot "answer" the prayer. The only way for this prayer to be answered is for Jesus to actually, unambiguously, materialize.

First of all, any number of Christians will tell you that Jesus has indeed answered their prayers.

Second, there's a number of reasons some prayers are not answered: sin in a person's life, trying to put God to the test, a prayer not being in the will of God, etc.

Concerning the resurrection, your link said,

As you think about this, you will realize that Paul's story in the Bible must be false. Simply look at Paul's story like any judge in a courtroom would. What Paul's story in 1 Cor 15 is suggesting is entirely unprecedented - a man dead three days with mortal wounds came back to life. Yet:
•There is absolutely no evidence that the story is true,

•There are many alternative explanations for what Paul is saying. Paul could be fabricating the story, Paul could have hallucinated or dreamed the meeting, Paul could have seen an imposter, etc.

•In addition, no one is seeing Jesus today, even though it would be trivial and obvious for Jesus to appear to people today just like he did with Paul.

Given this evidence, rational people would automatically conclude that Paul's story in the Bible is untrue.

1. There's been numerous instances of people who have reported seeing Jesus - in dreams and in real life. You can find a number of these accounts on the net.

2. Saying "Paul could have hallucinated" (etc.) is not evidence against God. It's a hypothesis at best. Considering the hell Paul received for preaching the Gospel, it's more believable to me that he was telling the truth.

3. No evidence for the resurrection? That's absurd. There's multiple, independent, historical confirmations of the event (Gospels, etc.). And there's other evidences and/or arguments in favor of the resurrection:

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli

So, sorry but the arguments in your link are very sophomoric and not well thought out.
 
Last edited:
"The masses"? Such noblesse oblige.*

I don't see a problem with looking forward or to having hope.

*[per DP rule]noblesse oblige: the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged

I always found masses boring. Although, I haven't been to any but a few Catholic weddings, and a couple of Catholic funerals.
 
Sorry but it will never fly with the masses. You have to have heaven or they have nothing to look forward to.

That is a carefully constructed notion designed to keep the masses complacent with the promise of heaven and not striving to take power from the powerful while still alive. This is most starkly exemplified with the pushing of Christianity on slaves in America. They were promised heaven if they were complaint slaves. The masses have to have heaven or they won't stay cooperative masses at the bottom of the power structure. That's what Marx meant when he referred to religion as the opiate of the masses. It keeps people passive.

The "hypothesis of the existence of the Christian God", as you call it, has NOT been scientifically falsified. The most that science can say is that it has not been proven. Saying that something is not proven is not the same as falsifying it. To say that you will not respect someone else's unproven beliefs says more about your prejudice and intellectual bias, than it does about those beliefs. Your whole monologue reeks of the bigot's philosophy, " I've already made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts."

Tell you what, you define for me a god, in specific detail, and I will happily falsify it. The one caveat is that this god has to be relevant to our lives in some way. Deist gods that cause the big bang and then disappear or vague notions like "god is love" have no influence whatsoever on how we should live, and so can be summarily ignored, rather than falsified. So, describe a god important enough to bother falsifying, and I will happily falsify it for you.

If you're wondering, I think you're the 8th poster I've offered this challenge to, and not one has stepped up to the plate.
 
I always found masses boring. Although, I haven't been to any but a few Catholic weddings, and a couple of Catholic funerals.

Equivocation ftl.
 
Back
Top Bottom