Deuteronomy?

Originally posted by RJHinds
On another thread googlefudge claims to be logical, rationial, and unbiased.
What do you think about that? I have admitted that I am biased toward a
Christian world view. But he claims I am illogical and irrationial. Do
you count me as irrational and illogical? If so, could you explain.

RJHinds,

What particular discussion was it in which that charge was made ?

Maybe I can comment on that particular talk.

Originally posted by jaywill
RJHinds,

What particular discussion was it in which that charge was made ?

Maybe I can comment on that particular talk.

The Fine Tuning of the Universe

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Fine Tuning of the Universe

RJHinds,

Check your message box in a little while for a private message.

Originally posted by RJHinds
On another thread googlefudge claims to be logical, rationial, and unbiased.
What do you think about that? I have admitted that I am biased toward a
Christian world view. But he claims I am illogical and irrationial. Do
you count me as irrational and illogical? If so, could you explain.

slight point of order.

I didn't (and don't) claim to be unbiased, (although I would claim to be substantially less biased
than you) Just that I am not biased by being an atheist.
Atheism is the position of not believing in the existence of a god or gods till unless and until there
is positive proof of their existence.
Thus the position is not biased and doesn't introduce bias. The position is neutral.

I am biased by other things, everyone is, and as I have said many times before the point
of skepticism and rationality and formally scientific methodology is that it contains corrective
mechanisms for dealing with individual bias so that the process as a whole is unbiased.
(or at least is as unbiased as possible)

I may or may not have made that clear in the other posts but I am making it clear now.

I, like everyone else, have some biases.
The idea behind rationality and skepticism is to minimise these biases as much as possible and
to take them into account.
Atheism however is not a bias and I am not biased by being an atheist.

Hope that clears things up.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Any of you bible folk fancy a go at justifying or explaining the combined contents of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and 22:13-21?

Non-bible-folk might also want to check it out for a giggle.

Ah, Deuteronomy, the atheists' favorite book.

It's already been explained here numerous times that Mosaic law is for Jews.

Originally posted by googlefudge
slight point of order.

I didn't (and don't) claim to be unbiased, (although I would claim to be substantially less biased
than you) Just that I am not biased by being an atheist.
Atheism is the position of not believing in the existence of a god or gods till unless and until there
is positive proof of their existence.
Thus the position is not bia however is not a bias and I am not biased by being an atheist.

Hope that clears things up.

The idea behind rationality and skepticism is to minimise these biases as much as possible and
to take them into account.
Atheism however is not a bias and I am not biased by being an atheist.

I'm not sure that any person can truly say his reasoning is completely without bias.

Kelly James Clark says "Reason is not neutral. It does not stand dispassionately without prejudice (prejudgment), overlooking the evidence; it is not bias-free (at least on matters of fundamental human concern). Believing, very often, is seeing. Reason is situated, located, embodied in this person at this time and in this place. It is moved by our biases to attend to this sort of evidence and to ignore that sort of evidence. It values this experience and discounts that one."

You did admit that you are bias in some things. But you desire to think you are NOT baised in the matter of Atheism.

I think probably you are biased in that realm also. Mr. Clark further has me thinking here:

"We can't attain the view from nowhere to check our beliefs against the facts (independent of our beliefs)."

Clark says we are "psycho-socio-historico-conditioned creatures" and he says "we cannot stand outside ouselves to compare our beliefs to the reality we suppose they tell us about. We simply cannot get the view from nowhere- ... "

Question if you are really unbiased. Clark may be on to something I think.

Originally posted by jaywill

The idea behind rationality and skepticism is to minimise these biases as much as possible and
to take them into account.
Atheism however is not a bias and I am not biased by being an atheist.

I'm not sure that any person can truly say his reasoning is completely without bias.

Kelly James Clark says "Reason is not neutra ...[text shortened]...

Question if you are [b]really unbiased. Clark may be on to something I think.[/b]

"Reason is situated, located, embodied in this person at this time and in this place. It is moved by our biases to attend to this sort of evidence and to ignore that sort of evidence." citing Kelly James Clark

When an accusation if bias is made, it is often with derogatory intent. Clark removes that derogatory meaning. He says reason serves motivations. Of course. For example, hunters reason out how to down the wildebeast. If we must remove the derogatory meaning to preserve the accusation of bias, I think that would satisfy the accuser less than it satisfies the accused.

Originally posted by jaywill

The idea behind rationality and skepticism is to minimise these biases as much as possible and
to take them into account.
Atheism however is not a bias and I am not biased by being an atheist.

I'm not sure that any person can truly say his reasoning is completely without bias.

Kelly James Clark says "Reason is not neutra

Question if you are [b]really unbiased. Clark may be on to something I think.[/b]

First a little on what I am talking about when I say biased...
We all are prone to a thing called confirmation bias, which is a very powerful (subconscious) process whereby we naturally
latch on to any piece of information or observation that supports whatever preconceived ideas we have and minimise, ignore,
or forget, any data that contradicts or doesn't support our preconceived ideas.

What I mean by bias is this tendency to ignore facts and observations that don't support some already held belief or to simply
fail to go looking for any information that might confirm or refute that belief.

An example of this would be a police officer in a criminal investigation deciding early-on that one particular suspect did it and then
finding lots of circumstantial evidence that supports this belief while failing to do the investigating that might show that the evidence
might also support others committing the crime or rule out this suspect completely. (or actually prove outright that this suspect did it
and thus making the trial much more likely to succeed in the event that the officer happened to pick the right person)
The officer has a bias against this suspect (for whatever reason) and is colouring their entire investigation with this bias which effects
the likely result of this investigation and correspondingly reduces the chance that this investigation will come to the correct outcome
and the chance that any resulting trial will come to the right conclusion. including in the instance that this suspect did commit the crime
that the they get convicted for it. (Nothing like a poorly conducted investigation with lots of loose ends for defence council to use to create
reasonable doubt)

Bias is looking to make the world fit your view of it, rather than make your view fit the world.



I agree that no person can truly say that their reasoning (being non gender specific, what women can't reason?
lets try to weed out using male identifiers as short-cuts for discussions relating to people of all genders)
is without bias. Which is what, if you read my post, you will find I said.

The accusation here is that my being an atheist biases my reasoning.
In other words that I accept evolution for example (picked because that is what RJHinds obsesses about) as being true
and reject creationism (and I would like to make it clear that these are by no means mutually exhaustive options)
because I am an atheist.

Which is just not true.

I am an atheist for precisely the same reason and as a result of the same processes that mean I accept evolution as being true.

I am an atheist because I am a rational skeptic who believes in scientific methodology and the available evidence does not support
any belief in deities or the supernatural.

I accept evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of species because the available evidence does support and confirm
the evolutionary theory.


My point is that my atheism is a result of my beliefs (and any biases I may have and haven't yet eradicated) and isn't the start of them.
And thus CAN'T be, and isn't, a source of any bias's I might have.
As agnostic atheism is also the neutral position of not holding a belief in a god or gods until evidence arises that justifies such a belief it is
inherently the theistic position with the least possible bias attached to it.


More importantly, because I recognise that I, like everyone else, do have bias's I employ methods designed to come up with the correct, fair unbiased answer despite any potential biases I might and do have.

The difference (apart from sheer number and obviousness of biases) between me and say RJHinds is that I try very hard not to be biased
in my search for truth, and I eliminate/compensate for any biases I do find myself to have. Whereas RJHinds openly and proudly claims to
be biased as if it were a good thing.


The purpose and success of the skeptical rationality of scientific methodology is that it is designed to suppress and counteract any biases
inherent in it's human practitioners. And contains corrective mechanisms to discover and fix any mistakes made due to biases.



In short while I don't, and have never, claimed to be completely unbiased. The notion that I am biased because I am an atheist is absurd and
quite simply wrong.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Ah, Deuteronomy, the atheists' favorite book.

It's already been explained here numerous times that Mosaic law is for Jews.

Actually for pouring ridicule on Christian beliefs it's tough to beat genesis.
But there are atrocities and stupidities throughout the bible both old and new testaments.
Go have a look at the skeptics annotated bible to get the idea.

As for your 'I don't know why we are still on this it's been 'explained' many times' shtick.

Well first your version of Christianity is FAR from being the only one, and there are many who
don't think the the OT only applies to Jews.

Second the OT is supposed to be about the earlier actions of the same god and dealing with
the same 'chosen' peoples.

So even if it doesn't apply any more YOUR god is still supposed to have done and said the things
in the OT and thus still has to answer for them.

And more relevantly people today still base their opinions and beliefs based on what it says in the
OT as WELL as the New Testament (which [the NT] contains plenty enough evil all on it's own)
So pointing out the evil and absurdity in both the new and old testaments is completely valid
and cannot be brushed under the carpet with "oh this has been explained already" because it just hasn't.


There has never, and will never, be a time in history when a being with the power and intellect ascribed to
god will EVER have an excuse to say that what should happen when a man rapes a women who isn't
married or engaged is that women should be forced to marry that man (regardless of her feelings).

I don't care who the Mosaic law was intended for.
It is, was, and always be, abominable.

And you claim to worship the same god that supposedly inspired and condoned these laws.

This charge has not been answered, least of all by you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Bull, the bible clearly states that the laws of the OT still apply.
Also the laws of the OT are supposed to be the laws handed down by your god and/or his prophet which make them
relevant to any discussion of the nature of your god and religion.

[b]KJV
[i]
Matthew (sermon on the mount)
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the ...[text shortened]... atisfactory answer.

Which is unsurprising as there can be not satisfactory answer for this.[/b]

YES! Jesus came to fulfill the LAw so we don't have to.

Eph 2:8-9

Originally posted by Suzianne
Ah, Deuteronomy, the atheists' favorite book.

It's already been explained here numerous times that Mosaic law is for Jews.

Is it the atheists' favourite book? I would have thought they would prefer 'On the Origin of Species' or 'The God Delusion' or something. Maybe 'The Road to Reality' (although the maths in that one gets a bit tricky in places).

Anyway, I kind of figured the more progressive christians such as yourself would easily be able to distance them(/your)selves from such er... 'wisdom'. To be honest I was more interested in responses from the guys who take the whole kaboodle literally. It wasn't as much fun as I'd hoped it would be. Serves me right for trying to bait 'em I guess.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Is it the atheists' favourite book? I would have thought they would prefer 'On the Origin of Species' or 'The God Delusion' or something. Maybe 'The Road to Reality' (although the maths in that one gets a bit tricky in places).

Anyway, I kind of figured the more progressive christians such as yourself would easily be able to distance them(/your)se s much fun as I'd hoped it would be. Serves me right for trying to bait 'em I guess.

Actually Cat dude we have been through this before, I and the Proper one, where I
think i successfully defended the ancient text!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually Cat dude we have been through this before, I and the Proper one, where I
think i successfully defended the ancient text!

I, unsurprisingly, have a different recollection of that episode. I think we reached the point, as we have in the God knows thread, where you were claiming that God sentencing people to death by horrific means would act as a deterrent. I pointed out that all the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn't, an omniscient God should surely know that. His sentencing people to death is nothing more than utter brutality in light of this, something which can hardly be reconciled with the love which God/Jesus (or whomever he is) has for everyone.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I, unsurprisingly, have a different recollection of that episode. I think we reached the point, as we have in the God knows thread, where you were claiming that God sentencing people to death by horrific means would act as a deterrent. I pointed out that all the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn't, an omniscient God should surely know that. ...[text shortened]... hardly be reconciled with the love which God/Jesus (or whomever he is) has for everyone.

ah we percieve that Gods love is not a sentimental kind, for justice is justice PK.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ah we percieve that Gods love is not a sentimental kind, for justice is justice PK.

Would you call the stoning to death of women in Afghanistan and Pakistan for crimes such as adultery 'justice'?