Commandments in that section of leviticus are not absolute in the sense that they must be followed under all circumstances and across all times. Commandments can be overridden. — Moses

According to what authority?
Anyway, that doesnt excuse a contradiction so you have still to do.

Jesus Christ! Hold hands you love birds.

Holding hands needs faith, yes?

Anyway, the point is that if they are laws from god and god is wise then so too should his laws be wise, right? But you said that stoning gays isnt wise — DingoJones

there is a difference between the written law and the implementation of that law.

According to what authority? — DingoJones

Why should the authority matter? This is a philosophy forum. Unless you're trying to get into theology. Then it would be the Talmud.

Are you having fun reading our discussion? Do you want to join in?

Thanks for the invite.

Optimism and hope have the direction of fit from thought to word. Hope involves expectation and desire.

That notion of direction of fit is exactly what is needed to make sense of hope. — Banno

What I've been trying to say is that the two directions don't have to be in conflict. They can work together.

Engineering is an activity where the two work hand in hand.

Optimism and hope have the direction of fit from thought to word. Hope involves expectation and desire.

That notion of direction of fit is exactly what is needed to make sense of hope. — Banno

If I believe in science, the direction is from thought to world, but I believe in science because the direction of fit of science itself is from world to thought. But that direction of fit of science is established by the moral commitment of the scientist to the truth about the world - that is, by their belief in science.

The circle is unbroken. But it only works the one way, one cannot have a moral commitment to falsehood or believe in anti-science, except as a partial game within the real commitment to truth. To be a scientist is to be dedicated to the moral cause of extending human knowledge. To falsify one's results is to betray science.

In science as in religion one must ought to put aside personal desire in the name of principles of truth, justice, and - something else, I forget for the moment.

Faith : superstition :: imaginary hope : imaginary fear.

Let's not to conflate – confuse – "faith" (or "superstition") with pragmatic trust-ing (or pragmatic distrust-ing).

The point is that worldviews which seek to completely discount the role of faith and instead advocate for a dogmatic narrow-minded commitment to "evidence" or using one's own reason to follow up on everything are bullshit.
— Moses

Can you give an example? — Jackson

William Clifford is one of the leading examples.

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kingdon_Clifford#Ethics

Faith : superstition :: imaginary hope : imaginary fear.
Let's not to conflate – confuse – "faith" (or "superstition") with pragmatic trust-ing (or pragmatic distrust-ing). — 180 Proof

The concept of such conflation can only exist for a non-religious person.

For a religious person, believing in God/having faith in God/trusting God is epistemically the same as believing/having faith/trusting that the ariplane one is about to board isn't going to crash.

Uh huh. And "for a religous person" as you say, snakes talk and the young flat earth is the center of "creation" and statues bleed and ... :pray: :roll:

What counts as insufficient evidence? By virtue of calling something insufficient you're already saying belief isn't justified. Who determines that. Who determines justified belief.

What counts as insufficient evidence? By virtue of calling something insufficient you're already saying belief isn't justified. Who determines that. Who determines justified belief. — Moses

Poor William Clifford, the author of that pithy saying, worked himself to death, at the prophetic age of 33.

As for your questions, I'm with William James on this matter.

Uh huh. And "for a religous person" as you say, snakes talk and the young flat earth is the center of "creation" and statues bleed and ... :pray: :roll: — 180 Proof

Yes. So?

Who or what is really offended here?
What is really at stake here?

Can you explicate?

there is a difference between the written law and the implementation of that law. — Moses

Indeed, and I addressed this already and why its not a valid defence for your position.

Why should the authority matter? This is a philosophy forum. Unless you're trying to get into theology. Then it would be the Talmud. ↪ — Moses

You said commandments can be overridden…says you? What justification do you have for the claim that commandments (gods commandments no less!) can be overridden? By who? Where is this written?

You said commandments can be overridden…says you? — DingoJones

We've now moved into theology i.e. religious reasoning.

Do you think it would make sense for someone to derive that they personally can just carry out e.g. the murder of homosexuals? That can't be how any religion works. Judaism advises against studying these books alone, and insists on group study/group justification.

Indeed, and I addressed this already and why its not a valid defence for your position. — DingoJones

all we can say is that god thought it wise to issue the rule.

What are you babbling about, baker?

all we can say is that god thought it wise to issue the rule. — Moses

Ok, thanks for the convo.

if god commands X that means you can maybe start the process but fulfilling the actual execution is a whole other issue. execution was extremely rare in sanhedrin. maybe once every 70 years.

people were executed for working on the sabbath, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that becomes law of the land.

What are you babbling about, baker? — 180 Proof

*sigh*

I'm not babbling. Don't be so superficial.

I'm asking you to explicate why you think there's something wrong with some people believing that "snakes talk and the young flat earth is the center of "creation" and statues bleed".

I'm asking you to explicate why you think there's something wrong with some people believing that "snakes talk and the young flat earth is the center of "creation" and statues bleed". — baker

It's delusional to believe that patent falsehoods are true or factual. To wit:

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire

It's delusional to believe that patent falsehoods are true or factual. — 180 Proof

So what? What is it to you if other people believe falsehoods?

So what? What is it to you if other people believe falsehoods? — baker

They vote for President Trump because he is King Cyrus...

:clap: :up:

What is it to you if other people believe falsehoods? — baker

What part of the following quote are you too trifling to understand or dispute?

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire

there is a difference between the written law and the implementation of that law. — Moses

Well, even more than that. There's a difference between the written law and the actual law. The idea that the Torah (the written law) is the law is simply false, not just to liberal Jews, but to Orthodox Jews and to Fundamentalist Christians as well.

This idea that there are sizeable groups of religious folks who read the Torah (the 5 books of Moses) alone and use that as their sole guide for life simply have no idea how these religions work.

The oral law (the Talmud) and the thousands of years of rabbinical interpretation are as primary and authoritative as the Torah. You indicated that with your reference to the prohibition against the death penalty. A biblically authorized death penalty hasn't been carried out in over 2,000 years, yet thousands of death sentences have been carried out in the West in the past 200 years.

And this goes for Christians as well, who rely heavily on the New Testament and the traditions of their various denominations. That is, they don't just run out and try to emulate the biblical characters.

Just a rant about the constant anti-religious claims made here...

So what? What is it to you if other people believe falsehoods? — baker

I'd prefer my bridges be supported by sound engineering principles as opposed to devout prayer.

Do you include the NT in your thinking? — Tom Storm

Read Matthew today. NT is very different from OT. I believe Christians worship a false prophet. Lot more black and white thinking in NT. It's all about the afterlife. Jesus dishonors Jewish holidays for no reason, breaks simple rules like not eating bread on passover. There's two bad stories about him in the Talmud one where he engages in idolatry. The other is a gross sexual comment if I'm reading it correctly. He dishonors his family by treating them like everyone else. He tells his followers to be like children. He openly relies on his rhetorical skill and verbal cleverness to gain followers like a demagogue. He equates adultery with a man looking at a woman lustfully and in doing so debases the severity of adultery. It doesn't seem like his followers ever really question him. He says with enough faith one can move mountains. The OT doesn't bullshit you like that.

Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

I'd prefer my bridges be supported by sound engineering principles as opposed to devout prayer. — Hanover

:mask: :up:

The thing for me about faith is that rationality is a paradox. We are, on one hand, bundles of matter and energy, while on the other hand, infinite potential. There are limits to what we can do and there aren't. "Whatever a man can conceive and believe he can achieve". "By faith a man can move mountains". The idea of purely mechanical materialism is only true in its limitation. There is more to the story. To quote Hegel,

"'You can, because you ought'- this expression, which is supposed to mean a great deal, is implied in the notion of ought. For ought implies that one is superior to the limitation; in it the limit is sublated and the in itself of the ought is thus identical to itself, and is hence a 'can'. But conversely, it is equally correct that 'you cannot, just because you ought.' For in the ought, the limitation as limitation is equally itself asserted, and the concept of possibility has, in the limitation, a reality, a qualitative otherness opposed to it and the relation of each to the other is a contradiction, and thus a 'cannot', or rather an impossibility."

Paradox is necessary to reason and to find one's salvation one literally has to do the impossible. That's a secret to life, while in the materialistic paradigm there are no secrets to life

The idea of purely mechanical materialism is only true in its limitation. — Gregory

What do you mean?