Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

antiskeptic · 30-05-2019 11:23pm

robindch wrote: »

So far as I can understand antiskeptic's tortured prose, (s)he is claiming that the idea that one can curry favour with some deity by helping your fellow humans is so evil that it could only ever have issued from the poisonous, fetid folds of Satan's sphincter.

When the attempt at helping your fellow humans constitutes a work (i.e. getting on the right side of God for own benefit) then it has no value. By all means help your fellow man. It the motivation to do so comes from the heart (genuine empathy, genorosity, kindness = God characteristics) then it has value.

That value is it's forming a counterfoil to that within you which is selfish and greedy and cruel. It might create a dilemma: "I know what good is - it has a beauty. I also know what not good is within me - it's ugly."

Since you won't be able to extinguish the ugly by yourself you can do a few things:

- you can embrace the ugly and go south.
- you can sit on the fence. "I am wot I am"
- you can be disturbed by your inability to eradicate the ugly.

It's a standard, though hardline, protestant interpretation of christianity in which the idea of "good works" - itself not unrelated to the Ancient Egyptian idea of Maat- is not believed necessary to eternal life in the company of the deity.

Could you quote the bit which suggests this? Because the first couple of sentences contained this:

In the Duat, the Egyptian underworld, the hearts of the dead were said to be weighed against her single "Feather of Maʽat", symbolically representing the concept of Maat, in the Hall of Two Truths. This is why hearts were left in Egyptian mummies while their other organs were removed, as the heart (called "ib") was seen as part of the Egyptian soul. If the heart was found to be lighter or equal in weight to the feather of Maat, the deceased had led a virtuous life and would go on to Aaru

Sounds exactly like the weighing scales /works led life I was referring to as the basis of all religions bar one.

antiskeptic · 30-05-2019 11:46pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I always thought it was a point about good works without faith being worthless (i.e. don't be so proud about all of your works if your faith isn't sincere), not faith giving you carte blanche to do what you like with no sequences.

There are negative consequences. Just not damnation.

Mark Hamill · 31-05-2019 8:30am

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. I didn't say his saving a person was arbitrary. I said his saving a person wasn't based on their works.

If God decides, without any respect to what someone does, to save that person then how is it not arbitrary?

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. I didn't say that God doesn't care what you do post salvation. Just that sinning post salvation doesn't alter that salvation.

If sinning post salvation doesn't alter that salvation, then what form does god "caring" take?

Mark Hamill · 31-05-2019 8:42am

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. Since there are two protogonists (from my viewpoint, the one you're asking after): God and (necessary, as it happens, in order to enable a choice) Satan, you would expect all Satan's various strategies to have a common, antithetical-to-God characteristic. His output will have him as a common ancestor afterall.

The chief commonality amongst his chief facsimile involves the bending of an innate human area of activity: spirituality.

The trick is very simple and widespread in it's effect. It is that: good WORK determines your position before God/the energy/karma in this world and determines whether you have a 'positive afterlife outcome' (whether a bevvy of virgins or not coming back as an amoeba or not burning in a furnace for eternity). In other words: obey the various ordinances of the religion in question (go to mass on Sunday, go to confession, pray to the West, offer sacrifices, do penance, treat others (and animals and nature) the right way. And all will (or has a better chance of being) well.

I haven't heard of a system which deviates from this when you dig down into it. The main religions (including Catholicism) major in it, but it always sits at the core of every system

Except one.

A Christianity in which your behaviour has no influence in terms of your position before God (he loves you as a father in waiting, believer or no, good child in waiting or no).

(To make sure this keeps at least partially on track) If I'm reading you right, your answer to the first question of this thread is that your worldview is the only one that doesn't prescribe people to follow rules to get into heaven. And you already admit that you don't expect this to convince many or even any others. So we are left with my second question, why does it convince you?

volchitsa · 31-05-2019 8:56am

The idea that this child who was brought up with no knowledge of religion thereby becomes impervious to the very idea of God seems to run counter to the whole missionary aspect of Christianity.

I'm at a loss as to why Antiskeptic is so clearly unable to engage with that scenario to explain why he finds his religion convincing, just as missionaries have been doing for thousands of years, ie, what would he say to convert this young adult who is now asking questions.

Seems like a lot of twisting and turning.

smacl · 31-05-2019 1:34pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Huh?

"The law is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ (salvation)".

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight (i.e. be saved and go to heaven) by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin"

Your hellbound. Following the law won't alter that. The purpose of the law isn't that you follow it. You won't and can't follow it. The purpose of the law is to let you know you're a sinner.

It's part of the mechanism of salvation. Letting you know (e.g. via guilt and shame) you're a sinner.

Solving a problem requires you realise you have a problem. That's the purpose of the law.

Again, you are hellbound. There is no "should you" about it. You will sin. All day, every day.

I only repented of my sin 6 months or so after I was saved. So not sure your understanding is correct here. I turned to God because I had nowhere else to go. It wasn't that I was guilt stricken over my sin. Rather my sin had made my life a mess. I was "conscious of my sin" not as sin, but of the mess it produces.

I didn't believe in God, heaven or hell before I was saved and for a time afterwards. So that part of your piece doesn't work very well. I prayed to an unbelieved in God because there was no one else to turn to.

The poster asked for something to differentiate. Works (every world religion, every sub-religion, and the understanding of just about every athiest on boards.ie

Versus No works.

That's a significant differentiation.

Simple question for you so. In your view, if you are say an atheist, a homosexual, a drunk, an adulterer and/or a liar and do not repent, will you go to hell? If you repent, will you avoid that fate and perhaps go to heaven?

antiskeptic · 31-05-2019 7:22pm

IF you are one of the lost (whether religious or irreligious)

AND you don't repent (where failure to repent = resisting God's attempt to bring you to repentence)

THEN you will go to hell.

smacl · 31-05-2019 7:36pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF you are one of the lost (whether religious or irreligious)

AND you don't repent (where failure to repent = resisting God's attempt to bring you to repentence)

THEN you will go to hell.

And if you do repent?

robindch · 31-05-2019 8:17pm

smacl wrote: »

And if you do repent?

I’ve a really faint memory of saying some repentance-related stuff when I was eight or ten. No idea what exactly it was at this remove, but I’m sure I meant it at the time and I suppose god would remember, wouldn’t (s)he?

Looks like eternity with protestant fundamentalists for me :eek:

antiskeptic · 31-05-2019 8:41pm

MarkHamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. I didn't say his saving a person was arbitrary. I said his saving a person wasn't based on their works.

If God decides, without any respect to what someone does, to save that person then how is it not arbitrary?

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. I didn't say that God doesn't care what you do post salvation. Just that sinning post salvation doesn't alter that salvation.

If sinning post salvation doesn't alter that salvation, then what form does god "caring" take?

Works can be defined as ' following, by act of a persons own will, the the prescribed/ believed to be prescribed ordinances of a system (or their own interpretation of a system) in order to obtain the reward associated with having followed them'.

Yet, you can have not 'worked' a jot in your life and be saved in a second. An athiest up to the point of salvation can't have worked, can they?

God works. He works by utilising the effects of your sin in your life. Sin brings pain (the stick unbelievers no nothing about). Pain's function is always to tell you that something is up.

He also, on the positive side (the carrot unbelievers know nothing about) works on the longing within you (if you long) for things to be as they ought to be: fair, equitable, joyous, worry free...

(If you've ever looked at all the locks we employ: our cars, our houses, our wheelie bins (a burglar once used them to scale our garden wall), our lock-ers, our bicycles, our smartphones, our bank accounts .. and yearned for a place where locks weren't required. Well, He works with that.)

If the pain becomes too great. If the longing becomes too unbearable. Then what?

-

On God's caring about a (now) child self/others harm?

You're probably more interested in the effect on the believing sinner than the effect on God. Right?

1. The first effect is the ordinary effect. Sin causes trouble. I, a believer, rob a bank I go to jail. I sleep with someone other than my wife I feel guilt and shame .. and if she finds out she might leave me. I drink to excess, I get fat or get cirrhosis of the liver. Normal, everyday stuff.

I say 'guilt, shame' above. I'd feel the same guilt and shame for cheating on my wife as an unbeliever who feels guilt and shame for cheating on his wife.

But I'd have an additional problem: my father. I'd have cheated on him as well.

(You'll know, if you watch football, the chagrin of a defender hoofing a dangerous crossed ball into his own net?

A believer sinning is like a defender, knowingly, willingly, hoofing a ball into their own net.)

When saved you realise there are two distinct and separate sides: good and evil. And that somehow, you've been transferred to the side of good.

A believer sinning is, effectively, taking a bribe from the other side to score an own goal.

Then again, I'm a sinner. That drug still flows through my veins. God knows this too .. and doesn't condemn

We might, for instance, know Nike scores zero on the scale of corporate responsibility. We nevertheless fall for the ad-men manipulation, the bribe referred to above, parking the inconvenient wider, ugly truth for the desire of the present.

As Robin Williams noted: we don't want Ms. Right. We want Ms. Right Now.

Tension thus:

- no condemnation from God. Just a father distraught at the self harm/harm to others.

-no peace when I rush headlong down the path of sin.

Nobelium · 31-05-2019 11:13pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you become saved you don't have to adhere to any rules and can step out of line to your hearts content. You will go to heaven 100% sure.

This is exactly the type of rubbish "saved" "Pastor" Billy Wright (aka King Rat), leader of the LVF used to preach when the LVF were busy murdering people.

antiskeptic · 01-06-2019 8:04am

Nobelium wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you become saved you don't have to adhere to any rules and can step out of line to your hearts content. You will go to heaven 100% sure.

This is exactly the type of rubbish "saved" "Pastor" Billy Wright (aka King Rat), leader of the LVF used to preach when the LVF were busy murdering people.

Then my last post is for you. The context of the post you quote is 'have to not sin/follow rules .. in order to be and remain saved.'

I.e. no works or rule following is involved in salvation.

antiskeptic · 01-06-2019 8:44am

smacl wrote: »

And if you do repent?

Saved.

You're presumably casting around for a rule to follow, a carrot and a stick?

Jesus told a man once "You must be born again" to which the man replied "How can a man be born again when he is old?" Jesus goes on to tell him that it is a work done by the Spirit (God).

Repentence is the same. God is the one who does the work. He parlays the effects of our evil desire and acts (which produces pain for us) and good desire and acts (which produce both pleasure and agony) in the attempt to drive us to the stage where we have no place to go for a solution but utterly on our knees before him.
That's repentance. Utter surrender of reliance on self direction.

The person themselves can't do anything (in the sense of wilful intent a.k.a. work) to produce that repentence. It might be facsimile repentence: a religious attempt genuine or otherwise.
There might be everyday 'repentance' for a wrong done (e.g. robindchs 10 year old 'repentance'). But this one, the one that saves, is wholesale, a from the bottom of your boots up, turning to (a perhaps unbelieved in at that point) God. A surrender of the rebellion.

Only God can bring about that 'defeat' for we will resist to the last the prospect of death of self.

(When all that the surrender and death of old self means is that we get born again ☺)

All the person can contribute by way of will is.. resistance. And if that resistance is sufficient then defeat won't happen, neither will the white flag be raised (repentance) and neither will salvation.

God will attempt to save. He won't force it.

The carrot and stick are there. But the unsaved are not aware: the irreligious don't believe it in order for a carrot or stick to have any conscious effect. The unsaved religious will believe they need to work to avoid hell and get heaven - but that's their self-generated carrot and stick

A carrot and stick that no unbliever is aware of is no carrot and stick.

smacl · 01-06-2019 9:28am

antiskeptic wrote: »

The carrot and stick are there. But the unsaved are not aware: the irreligious don't believe it in order for a carrot or stick to have any conscious effect. The unsaved religious will believe they need to work to avoid hell and get heaven - but that's their self-generated carrot and stick

A carrot and stick that no unbliever is aware of is no carrot and stick.

Carrots and sticks are for donkeys, evangelists and bible bashers. Those who shout 'repent or go to hell' at anyone who has a contrary opinion to their own are by and large treated as nutters in this day and age. Where they're shouting it at the gay community, hateful nutters. This 'turn or burn' or 'get sanctified or get french fried' style of Christianity has long since had its day.

Going back to the OP, I'm of the opinion that any impartial onlooker that hadn't been raised in the bible belt would see through this carrot and stick religion for what it really is and reject it on that basis. A more moderate Christian emphasizing the more communal nature of their religion might make a better argument, but the reward of an afterlife for good behaviour is still a hard sell.

antiskeptic · 01-06-2019 9:43am

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

The carrot and stick are there. But the unsaved are not aware: the irreligious don't believe it in order for a carrot or stick to have any conscious effect. The unsaved religious will believe they need to work to avoid hell and get heaven - but that's their self-generated carrot and stick

A carrot and stick that no unbliever is aware of is no carrot and stick.

Carrots and sticks are for donkeys, evangelists and bible bashers. Those who shout 'repent or go to hell' at anyone who has a contrary opinion to their own are by and large treated as nutters in this day and age. Where they're shouting it at the gay community, hateful nutters. This 'turn or burn' or 'get sanctified or get french fried' style of Christianity has long since had its day.

Going back to the OP, I'm of the opinion that any impartial onlooker that hadn't been raised in the bible belt would see through this carrot and stick religion for what it really is and reject it on that basis. A more moderate Christian emphasizing the more communal nature of their religion might make a better argument, but the reward of an afterlife for good behaviour is still a hard sell.

No rebuttal! Looks like we've established a substantial differentiation for our enquiry into same.

antiskeptic · 01-06-2019 9:52am

volchitsa wrote: »

The idea that this child who was brought up with no knowledge of religion thereby becomes impervious to the very idea of God seems to run counter to the whole missionary aspect of Christianity.

The idea is that everyone is born antagonistic to God - whether they've heard of him or not.

The missionary heads off on the basis of that. He knows the default position from the get go.

I'm at a loss as to why Antiskeptic is so clearly unable to engage with that scenario to explain why he finds his religion convincing, just as missionaries have been doing for thousands of years, ie, what would he say to convert this young adult who is now asking questions.

Your confusing the attempt of a missionary to engage with a partial onlooker (the default antagonist) with the OP's suggestion that there can be an impartial onlooker to judge things.

The OP hasn't really progressed with the engineering drawings from which this impartial onlooker is to be constructed. He's suspended it from sky hooks and doesn't appear to be able to say to what the sky hooks are attached.

Seems like a lot of twisting and turning.

Arising out of your conflating two types of onlookers it would seem.

Nobelium · 01-06-2019 10:19am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then my last post is for you. The context of the post you quote is 'have to not sin/follow rules .. in order to be and remain saved.'

I.e. no works or rule following is involved in salvation.

So as long as you believe God has declared you to be saved, you can rape rob and murder all you wish ?

Do you see the problem with your logic here and the manifesto of Pastor Billy Wright and the LVF ?

robindch · 01-06-2019 10:52am

Here's the splendid Kenneth Copland speaking with a reporter a day or two back about his newest private jet. Kenneth is most certainly saved and I'd imagine that he believes that this guarantees him a seat at the high table with his god for all eternity. Not so sure what the deity might feel about that.

https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1134509543612911617

realitykeeper · 01-06-2019 10:54am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The basic premise is I asked antiskeptic (a theist) how they would convince an impartial onlooker (a hypotethical blank slate, religious-and-empricism-wise) that their worldview (Christianity) is true.

A Christian`s belief is based on faith, not proof. However we can hypothesize on whether or not there is a God who sacrificed his son for us. If it is true, we owe God and that debt needs to be repaid by being self sacrificing ourselves, in other words by loving God and each other.

Sure you can say we don`t know for certain that God exists because we don`t have empirical evidence but that is not a valid excuse if God`s sacrifice did happen. I mean suppose a building collapsed following an earthquake and the rescuers were not sure if there was anyone buried beneath the rubble, they would/should check just in case. If the rescuers don`t bother going to all the trouble of looking because there might be nobody there, that is not something they would be thanked for, especially not by anyone buried in the rubble.

Also, I think there are definite snippets of wisdom in the bible. After all, trust (faith) is better than mistrust and love is better than hate.

volchitsa · 01-06-2019 2:09pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The idea is that everyone is born antagonistic to God - whether they've heard of him or not.

The missionary heads off on the basis of that. He knows the default position from the get go.

Your confusing the attempt of a missionary to engage with a partial onlooker (the default antagonist) with the OP's suggestion that there can be an impartial onlooker to judge things.

The OP hasn't really progressed with the engineering drawings from which this impartial onlooker is to be constructed. He's suspended it from sky hooks and doesn't appear to be able to say to what the sky hooks are attached.

Arising out of your conflating two types of onlookers it would seem.

So basically you're saying that because the OP hasn't constructed a satisfactory hypothetical observer (satisfactory to you) for his question, you refuse to engage with the basic question which is perfectly clear from the thread title?

And you think that sort of silly pedantry will do anything other than discredit Christian belief and Christian believers in general? Really?

antiskeptic · 01-06-2019 2:44pm

The question in the OP involves an impartial onlooker. Its not Mark doing to judging, his view and mine are to be judged. By this impartial onlooker.

If the impartial onlooker can't exist then the question is voided, given its reliance on an impartial onlooker.

I would have thought Mark would be as interested in there being an impartial onlooker as I am - if we are to assume he actually is interested in his question being answered.

You evidently are not interested.

volchitsa · 01-06-2019 3:22pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question in the OP involves an impartial onlooker. Its not Mark doing to judging, his view and mine are to be judged. By this impartial onlooker.

If the impartial onlooker can't exist then the question is voided, given its reliance on an impartial onlooker.

I would have thought Mark would be as interested in there being an impartial onlooker as I am - if we are to assume he actually is interested in his question being answered.

You evidently are not interested.

Except you aren't trying to answer the question. In fact you said there isn't such an observer, and therefore you can't answer the question. That's a dodge, and a pathetic one at that.

Telling other people they aren't interested (in a thread they have chosen to take part in!) is just you being offensive on top of that.

Not a great ad for Christianity, TBF.

antiskeptic · 01-06-2019 4:11pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The basic premise is I asked antiskeptic (a theist) how they would convince an impartial onlooker (a hypotethical blank slate, religious-and-empricism-wise) that their worldview (Christianity) is true.

A Christian`s belief is based on faith, not proof. However we can hypothesize on whether or not there is a God who sacrificed his son for us. If it is true, we owe God and that debt needs to be repaid by being self sacrificing ourselves, in other words by loving God and each other.

Sure you can say we don`t know for certain that God exists because we don`t have empirical evidence but that is not a valid excuse if God`s sacrifice did happen. I mean suppose a building collapsed following an earthquake and the rescuers were not sure if there was anyone buried beneath the rubble, they would/should check just in case. If the rescuers don`t bother going to all the trouble of looking because there might be nobody there, that is not something they would be thanked for, especially not by anyone buried in the rubble.

Also, I think there are definite snippets of wisdom in the bible. After all, trust (faith) is better than mistrust and love is better than hate.

That understanding of faith isn't the Christian understanding. At not the Christians I know.

"Faith, the substance of things hoped for (i.e. a hope based on something of substance as opposed to a blind hope), the evidence of things not seen (i.e. the non-empirical realm a.k.a. the spiritual realm) "... is the bibles way of putting it.

There's no 'on the off chance its true' element in there.

antiskeptic · 01-06-2019 4:31pm

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question in the OP involves an impartial onlooker. Its not Mark doing to judging, his view and mine are to be judged. By this impartial onlooker.

If the impartial onlooker can't exist then the question is voided, given its reliance on an impartial onlooker.

I would have thought Mark would be as interested in there being an impartial onlooker as I am - if we are to assume he actually is interested in his question being answered.

You evidently are not interested.

Except you aren't trying to answer the question. In fact you said there isn't such an observer, and therefore you can't answer the question. That's a dodge, and a pathetic one at that.

Telling other people they aren't interested (in a thread they have chosen to take part in!) is just you being offensive on top of that.

Not a great ad for Christianity, TBF.

Mark Hamill has an agenda. He wants a toe to toe, his worldview vs my worldview ... presented to this impartial onlooker according to the norms of Marks empirical/rational worldview.

When it is queried how such an onlooker can be impartial when measured against my worldview instead of his worldview then its me whose dodging.

The Yanks wanted the same in Vietnam - a WWII style battlefield toe to toe with the NVA. The NVA didn't oblige. And why should they?

Its right to dodge traps. Its not as if Mark should be unaware of the Christian position on mans default view of God.

Talk to him about a poorly framed idea if you like.

-

Mere post writing isn't in itself partaking. Some partake to throw peanuts from the peanut gallery for example. In your case, you don't seem to have an interest in there being an actual impartial onlooker. You just want the question answered despite half the question being void.

Not a great advertisement tbf

Hedgelayer · 01-06-2019 4:41pm

I'm agnostic myself and someone once told me that nothing can happen without an observer.

Think about that for a second, nothing happens without observation.

The guy who told me this is an Atheist, he doesn't believe in a God, he's doing a lot of soul searching as he's quite a thinker.

He's interested in quantum physics and working with electronics and an electrician for year's.

His thinking is very outside the box that's for sure.

He was explaining to me about quark's atom's and electrons and how they need an observer to do what they do.

My mind cannot comprehend what he's suggesting but it sounds like there's powers at play which we haven't and probably never understand.

When learning to garden one should know the first step is to dig a hole.....and that hole lead's to the potential to your very own paradise

volchitsa · 01-06-2019 4:43pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark Hamill has an agenda. He wants a toe to toe, his worldview vs my worldview ... presented to this impartial onlooker according to the norms of Marks empirical/rational worldview.

When it is queried how such an onlooker can be impartial when measured against my worldview instead of his worldview then its me whose dodging.

The Yanks wanted the same in Vietnam - a WWII style battlefield toe to toe with the NVA. The NVA didn't oblige. And why should they?

Its right to dodge traps. Its not as if Mark should be unaware of the Christian position on mans default view of God.

Talk to him about a poorly framed idea if you like.

-

Mere post writing isn't in itself partaking. Some partake to throw peanuts from the peanut gallery for example. In your case, you don't seem to have an interest in there being an actual impartial onlooker. You just want the question answered despite half the question being void.

Not a great advertisement tbf

The Viet Cong no less. Just wow. I suppose we should be grateful you didn't go the whole hog and Godwin the thread.

My interest was in reading how a practising Christian would explain the basis of their world view to an uninvolved outsider, ie someone with no antipathy to religion but no particular knowledge of it either.

Instead I see this offensive nonsense.

I'm out, but your card is marked as far as I'm concerned. And you're a Christian you say?

antiskeptic · 01-06-2019 7:13pm

Nothing on the point of using the example of the NVA example. There was a point. Nothing.

You don't seem to have gotten the point about uninvolved outsiders (of which there are none) either. This in the context of Mark's agenda.

You don't do toe to toe very well. Deal with the problems presented you. Don't evade.

Nobelium · 01-06-2019 7:17pm

When are you going to address your LVF pastor style logic though ?

volchitsa · 01-06-2019 8:05pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nothing on the point of using the example of the NVA example. There was a point. Nothing.

You don't seem to have gotten the point about uninvolved outsiders (of which there are none) either. This in the context of Mark's agenda.

You don't do toe to toe very well. Deal with the problems presented you. Don't evade.

Well this is ironic.

When you give a straight answer to any of the questions you've been asked, then you can berate random passers-by in the thread for not replying.

Although maybe you'll even find that if you do reply, then so will they.

antiskeptic · 01-06-2019 10:41pm

Nobelium wrote: »

When are you going to address your LVF pastor style logic though ?

An athiest is in the same position as a believer: he is convinced that nothing he does will result in his eternal damnation.

Logically (your logic that is) atheists must necessarily become like LVF pastors on the basis of this get out of jail free card.

Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

Comments