If you frequent this forum as much as I do, and are exposed to the many posts that come from non-atheists as I do, or read material from conspiracy theorists that post here as I do, You might just want to rewrite the whole dictionary as they do.
I have read from atheists mind you, that god is really the universe. This from people that claim to be atheists.
It seems that every crack pot idea is hinged on a redefinition of a term.
Take the classic redefinition, the "a day" argument. When people first started reading the bible they read it literally and accepted it literally. In Genesis, it says that god created the earth in 6 days. It was accepted that a day meant a day. Centuries later science proved that the earth alone was over 4 and a half billion years old, so the christians decided to redefine "day" to fit their narrative.
It's not just the christians. Recently there have been threads about political idealism. Redefining what was meant by the founding fathers and the constitution has become the new norm of people trying to justify everything from outright racism to the limitation of the general welfare.
There is even a concerted effort to redefine Liberal. The absurd idea, in this case, is that "liberal" means a new form of conservatism but that "liberal" was hijacked by liberals. Crazy right?
The problem is that these people cannot make a good argument for their cause, that the facts, history, and science are against them. they have to redefine terms to fit their narrative.
So let's understand something "god" means a deity and everything that goes with that term, not the universe, not nature, not a warm fuzzy feeling in your stomach.
Liberal means liberal, not some crazy form of conservatism. Incidentally "libertarian" means conservatism without and or not based on racism.
The fact is that people have already lost their argument before they have even started and move the goal post to reargue the same issue.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You describe yourself well. The term is projection.
"concerted effort to redefine Liberal. The absurd idea, in this case, is that "liberal" means a new form of conservatism but that "liberal" was hijacked by liberals."
Well, you were the ones who redefined liberal. This is just reality- John Locke was called the Father of Liberalism because he invented the ideology, which originally advocated individual liberty, rule of law, and free market capitalism. Read Second Treatise on Government if you don't believe me, he said the sole purpose of government is to preserve our life, liberty, and property from aggression.
You don't know your history. The first Liberals were Athenian. John Locke was but one Liberal. Thomas Paine another, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and many more. Locke wasn't the first nor the sole authority. I have John Locke's books....all of them. I've read them more than once. Locke wasn't interested in what you call a free market system. He mentions a free market as long as it is a fair market.
As for libertarian, it is an ideology that is basically a knee jerk reaction to losing a primary race in Colorado.
I think that you haven't really been reading Locke but instead have been reading Ayn Rand, the classic hypocrite that lived off of Social Security in her later years.
As for K Frame, I don't care what YOU say. You're a self-absorbed idiot.
I never read any Ayn Rand, I tried reading one of her books to see what it was about once, but she was too horrible a writer to get through the first chapter.
I probably didn't read as much Locke as you, but I doubt he made a distinction between a 'free market' and a 'fair market.' A Free Market is an economic environment on which anyone is allowed to enter into any trade or profession or industry they like, and dispose of their person or property however they want provided they don't infringe anyone else's liberties. That seems pretty fair to me.
Greek and Roman values did lead to the Enlightenment, but to say that they were the first liberals is not technically accurate. Like I said, father of liberalism= John Locke. Of course he isn't the super authority on everything, I never said that.
Great reply Harry, now we're getting somewhere. I have read a lot of Locke and I disagree with about 25% of what he believes. His contemporaries were at odds with him but that is because Locke rejected royalty. He wrote a great deal about fairness and social responsibilities. He did believe as you said in what we now call free enterprise. Back then they called it free business. He was opposed to government intervention in business affairs but you have to read why and the interference that he is talking about. His take was the landed gentry, the Lords did nothing to earn money yet they controlled business. So Locke was writing about how a tyrannical government not the oversite of government. By the time the USA came about Locke was somewhat irrelevant. It is hard to say what he would have thought was just and unjust. So yes the founding fathers adopted some of Locke's theories, individual rights over divine providence, but actual governing was very much the founders own ideas and not Locke's. That is my take. You may have a different view and that is perfectly fine. I won't consider you a NAZI for disagreeing with me. Locke was a racist if you didn't know. He was also a devout christian. Two facts that I differ greatly with him.
Science changes the goalpost all the time. The only difference is that when scientist do it, you deem it an example of progress and forward thinking, but when religion does it you call it "redefining their terms to fit their narrative."
In fact, it would seem religion only redefines the terms whenever science moves the goalpost. You can't frown on one but smile on the other.
I disagree John. Science is based on discovery and facts. Facts that are verified. The reason science makes changes is that of new discoveries. You cannot say the same for religion. The only reason religion moves the goal post is because they have been discovered wrong, and they didn't find anything new regarding their religion. They are moving to goal post to perpetuate a lie not because they discovered anything new.
So... science makes changes when its wrong and religion makes changes when its wrong... that sounds like the same thing to me.
Because religion claims itself the infallible word of God, science is simply making conclusions based on observations. If a holy book is found to be in error that would discredit the whole book since it was supposed to come from God. If a scientific claim is proven wrong, that does not disprove science since it does not claim to be infallible, or the word of God.
Infallibility is a strange word to use. But for the sake of the discussion I'll use it. Without a doubt religious truths do claim to be infallible. Yet our understanding and interpretation of those truth aren't and never will be infallible. Within Scripture itself we see Jesus point this out numerous times, pointing out how priests and disciple alike misunderstood and misinterpreted the words of God numerous times.
Truth is truth no matter what, and science is nothing but a synonym for our best human efforts to understand the universe. Perhaps the flexibility of religion in the face of a changing science, does say something about its infallibility after all.
Agreed John but Harry is correct. If you take "inspired word" literally then there can never be a mistake. It's not that the interpreters made the mistake, that is acceptable, but the actual text has failed, and as a result, a perfect word needed to be revised.
How do you know when the actual text has failed, and not your interpretation? Its seems both statements can't be true simultaneously.
John has a point here. It's exactly that. The word doesn't have error but the way we interpret them may have error. But the essential truths are still there.
@Jon The Catholic:
If the essential truths include "the divinity" are not only wrong, they are bullshit... and also anyone can prove it, historically, literary and philosophically, are pure garbage.
John 6IX Breezy.
Why was Yeshua right and all of the priests and disciples wrong in their various interpretations of the words of Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies?
@ John Breezy and Jon the Catholic.
We aren't talking about facts outside of the bible like how the church taught that the universe revolved the earth. Both what was science at the time and religion believed that to be true. Both were wrong and they both corrected that mistake, BUT......that isn't actually scripture.
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/bible.htm
https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html
Right but what you are arguing for now seems different than what you argued in your OP. The claim that the Bible contradicts itself is different from reading about the literal creation days, and interpreting them as representing ages of time.
Okay, I see what you are getting at. I shouldn't blame the bible for people misinterpreting it.
The bible says that god created the world in six days. It even describes how the day was made. So to justify this apparent lie christians try to redefine "day". Now, in this case, the bible is clearly wrong and it has nothing to do with the interpretation, EXCEPT NOW christians want to explain away the error by redefining what "day" means.
Science doesn't justify errors. It takes responsibility for them and corrects them. Christians just lie and change definitions to fit a narrative. BIG difference. Big big big difference!
You're treating the Christian as if they cared what you think of them. They're religion is personal, regardless if they vocalize it. By that I mean they believe what they believe regardless of whether you agree with them or not. When you say they want to "explain away the error" you treat them as if they had to justify their beliefs before a judge or a committee somewhere.
That's hardly the case. They believe what they believe because it makes sense to them. Not because they're trying to win an argument with you. They hold on to interpretations, because they made more sense to them than the alternatives. Same as everybody else.
The main denomination which redefines "day" are Jehovah's Witnesses. They interpret it as signifying a period of a thousand years each. My denomination doesn't do that. Other denominations lean towards a theistic evolution interpretation.
You generalize when you say Christian. I'm not JW and even I don't look at Jehovah's Witnesses as dishonest. They have a right to interpret Scripture whichever way they feel it ought to be interpreted. The veracity of their interpretation rests on their ability to support and defend it. Not on my own interpretation.
You have a personal motive to latch onto the most strict and literal of Biblical interpretations. Whatever interpretation is most likely to be wrong, is the one you'll most likely think to be the proper one. That's understandable.
Jon, in this post, you seem to generalize about christians ("They believe what they believe..."They're [sic] religion is personal...") and then tell Myk, "You generalize when you say Christian...".
I don't get it. Just as no one has the right to speak for me without my permission, I don't think you get to speak for all folks who identify as christian.
People have every right to generalize, so long as they understand when they are doing so. I didn't tell him he doesn't have permission. I mentioned he's generalizing so I can introduce an important distinction between me and JWs. I have as much a motive as he does to view their interpretation as moving a goalpost. But I don't, because that's simply not their porpuse.
Ok, that just wasn't clear to me. I read it differently.
It doesn't matter John. The fact is that anyone and everyone that believes in a god, any god, can, but they have no right to claim that believe and profess it to others without proof, which in the case of every belief just isn't there. Their proofs, justifications have changed (moved the goal post) as those explanations have been implicitly been shot down. So they move the goal post again.
Science provides facts. When a new scientific discovery disproves what was accepted before, science doesn't explain away the previous error. Science takes responsibility. Religion does not.
Religion acts like a child caught in a lie that compounds the lie with still more lies. There lies the difference.
I am not trying to convert a single person. Religion and or the belief in a god has a responsibility to prove their god or to just shut up about it. They have no right to impose their beliefs on anyone. They have no right to even purport their myth. They can keep their belief personal or be honest and prove that their lie is fact.