C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Sat May 11, 2019 10:11 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 10:50 am
That's well admitted but the argument you copied is not solid and it can now be shown that you do not really agree with it.
Of course I agree with it, but we have moved on from there.
If you agree with it then it thoroughly condems you. You pretended to be concerned with honesty so as to have a stick to beat Lewis with while being, by the very standard you were defending, thoroughly dishonest. I am not surprised you want to move on.
The point has already been made that Lewis was deceptive in deliberately withholding crucial contradictory information to neophytes in order not to muddy them with dirt. That's clear deception on the part of the author and is separate from anything that I may or may not have disclosed.
Here is my summary of the the main reasons that I reject his main arguments.
Argument 1. He pre-supposes God
No he doesn't.
You declaring that he doesn't won't clear his fawning obsession with an invisible entity. If it is not clear to you that he wasn't convinced from the start, then you are being deceptive yourself.
Argument 2. He never gives a definition of a god
Nothing in his argument needs one.
Then what is this "Something" that he is banging on about, and why does it have to point to his own god?
Argument 3. He doesn't give a reason how his Moral Law escapes the Euthyphro dilemma
This is not relevant to his argument.
It is because it eliminates God as the source of morality. Humans could be the source by their societal interactions.
Argument 4. His Moral Law describes what human beings ought to do, which invokes the is/ought problem.
So what?
How does he know the mind of God in what we ought to do?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Sun May 12, 2019 1:07 am

Og3 wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 8:43 pm
I think that where Moonwood has most profoundly summed up is this, SEG:
You mean that he obfuscated and deflected from the main arguments.
It really honestly does feel as if you are merely in this to win an argument at any cost.
It probably feels like that because your favourite book is being dismantled. I understand and feel your pain.
Any time an argument is presented, you will raise the same litany of arguments:
It seems like that because your declarations of objectivity don't work.
1. "It presupposes God." You've raised this one even when we've stated the existence of God as an Ad Argumentum.
You deny that he doesn't, but in reality he does and you know it.
2. "How do you know it's your god?" You raise this one when an argument purports to prove the existence of God, even though that wasn't the question.
That because all the arguments he uses for the existence of the Christian version of a god creating moral laws collapse when he can easily be substituted by any god that's ever existed in the minds of men. He is essentially no different.
3. "What about ..." [Euthyphyro, Is/Ought, Epicurus, Mythical Jesus, This Week's Atheist Mantra] -- you raise one of these to escape answering an argument on point.
That's because they are relevant to your improbable god existing at all and undermine your arguments.
4. "There's no evidence for..." [existence of Nazareth, pre-columbian art, the square root of pi] -- you use this as a shield to protect you from ever having to personally consider an argument.
The existence or not of Nazareth is certainly relevant if you are claiming that a Jesus of Nazareth existed. Not any old Jesus mind you, but the so called "Jesus of Nazareth" that we all know and ....well, we all know.
If caught out on a minor point, you'll go through the litany of justification:
1. I did not!
2. You don't understand, it was appropriate to do it.
3. So what? You do it too! ("Et tu quoque").
Feel my pain when I get,
1. "well you have to look at the context"
2. There are no contradictions in the Bible
3. When it comes down to it, all we have left is faith.
And even now, having just admitted to dishonesty and saying that you won't do it again,
Here's another one backachya.."We are all sinners in the eyes of God"
you cite Judges 14 above as proof that it's okay to be selfish. If you had read the story of Samson from beginning to end you would know several things about Samson, the first being that very little of what Samson ever did was "Okay" by anyone's standards. You would ALSO know that all marriages of that day were arranged marriages, and you would know why his parents were such pushovers when it came to letting him marry a Philistine girl.
...and you completely ignored the elephant in the room..
Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first.
Men HAVE NOT always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first, and the evidence is in your own Bible in numerous accounts. It was a stupid comment to make by Lewis and yet you let it ride.
The fact that you THINK that Judges 14 shows that it's OK to be selfish
Judges 14 is evidence that men HAVE NOT always agreed. If they DID always agree that it is not a good idea to suit yourself, why do men go ahead and do it? Why did God give instructions to disregard the feelings of the women being lustfully captured? In Deuteronomy is says
Deuteronomy 21:11-13 New International Version (NIV)
11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.( don't worry about her fretting about how you just slaughtered her family in front of her after raping her mother - if she's a good sort, just go for it) 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails (can this be any more degrading?) 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured (yep just strip her naked!) . After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, (that's more than enough time to get rid of those ridiculous tears) then you may go to her and be her husband ( IOW rape her to your heart's content) and she shall be your wife (how lucky is she for the rest of her miserable life?).
So that pretty much tells me that your sole purpose here -- as Moonwood correctly called it -- is to win arguments.
No, my purpose here is to expose your irrational beliefs to scrutiny, and I think I have you backpedalling pretty fast ATM.
If that's your goal, like that Lich fellow who was in here not long ago, I for my part am more than willing to roll my eyes and pat you on the head. Okay, SEG, if that's the best you can do, sure, you "Won" the argument. Now you can brag to all your friends about "Winning" an argument.
Don't put me in THAT category, that would be like me placing you in the category of Claire or Chappy.
Of course, that boast will taste like ashes in your mouth, because you really didn't win anything, did you?
I'm not after wins, I'm here to point out your misconceptions.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Sun May 12, 2019 1:31 am

SEG wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 9:31 pm
Let's cut to the quick and riddle me this - Does Genesis get any scientific knowledge of our natural environment wrong?
Chapabel wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 9:57 pm
I doubt it. But why not come right out and present your supposed contradiction? You seem to be trying to set me up for a “Gotcha” type of question.
It won't be hard. It starts from the very first statement, "In the beginning". It could have been, "When in the beginning" when it may have been lifted from the Enuma Elish.
Enuma Elish.jpg
Enuma Elish.jpg (54.82 KiB) Viewed 250 times
Marduk.jpg
Marduk.jpg (52.75 KiB) Viewed 250 times
Right now you need to address the pickle you’re in with Moon and Og. I’ll gladly defer your response to me to them. Good luck with that.
Thanks Chap, that's very atheist of you!
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Sun May 12, 2019 7:16 am

SEG wrote:
Og wrote: The fact that you THINK that Judges 14 shows that it's OK to be selfish
Judges 14 is evidence that men HAVE NOT always agreed. If they DID always agree that it is not a good idea to suit yourself, why do men go ahead and do it?
Because they are sinful and depraved, SEG. That's the whole point.

Tell you what: Since you came up with your Samson argument that selfishness is okay according to the Bible, from your own personal readings in Judges, please answer a few questions just to show that you've honestly read the passage in context:

1.) What was the normal process for a marriage in the time of the Judges? How did the bride and groom meet, what agreements were made between them, and what were the options for a bride who did not wish to marry a particular man?
2.) Why did Samson's parents object to this girl?
3.) Why did they give in to Samson's demands anyway, since he was their son, honor-bound to obey them?
4.) Out of the strong came forth sweet; out of the eater came forth meat. Explain.
5.) What action, in Samson's entire life, is described by the Bible as an act to be emulated?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Sun May 12, 2019 7:26 am

So that pretty much tells me that your sole purpose here -- as Moonwood correctly called it -- is to win arguments.
No, my purpose here is to expose your irrational beliefs to scrutiny, and I think I have you backpedalling pretty fast ATM.
So in the course of this sentence, you contradict yourself. Nice.
If that's your goal, like that Lich fellow who was in here not long ago, I for my part am more than willing to roll my eyes and pat you on the head. Okay, SEG, if that's the best you can do, sure, you "Won" the argument. Now you can brag to all your friends about "Winning" an argument.
Don't put me in THAT category, that would be like me placing you in the category of Claire or Chappy.
If the comparison bothers you, then distance yourself from his actions by arguing honestly and sincerely.
Of course, that boast will taste like ashes in your mouth, because you really didn't win anything, did you?
I'm not after wins, I'm here to point out your misconceptions.
O Galilean, thy speech betrays thee.

You show by these words that in your mind, pointing out my "misconceptions" will constitute a "win" for you. It is, again, a statement that betrays itself through contradiction.

Had you said that you were here to learn the truth, to find the truth, to seek the truth... then you might have answered well. But you have already judged that my thoughts are "misconceptions" and that you must point them out to me. In order for that to be true, you must be assuming that you have no misconceptions (a wrong assumption). So you're not here to seek truth, not to learn truth, but to peddle the supposed "truth" that you think you know by suppressing my "misconceptions."

In other words, it's all about winning for you; it's all about preaching your version of reality. Just like your buddy.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Sun May 12, 2019 10:59 am

SEG wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 10:11 pm
The point has already been made that Lewis was deceptive in deliberately withholding crucial contradictory information to neophytes in order not to muddy them with dirt. That's clear deception on the part of the author and is separate from anything that I may or may not have disclosed.
And it leaves the issue that you were that fervent in your opposition to deception that you tried to deceive us. Now you can say, as many people would, that you have very high standards but fall short of them yourself, or you can say that showing Lewis to be deceptive was so important it became okay to deceive us in order to do so but it puts you on very shaky ground morally.
You declaring that he doesn't won't clear his fawning obsession with an invisible entity. If it is not clear to you that he wasn't convinced from the start, then you are being deceptive yourself.
You are confusing two different things. If one argues from a presupposition then the presupposition becomes a foundation for the argument. That is quite different from arguing for something which you pressupose in the sense of already believing to be the case. One can present a case using sound arguments whether or not one believes it be the case.
Argument 2. He never gives a definition of a god
Nothing in his argument needs one.
Then what is this "Something" that he is banging on about, and why does it have to point to his own god?
He is a romantic. He is trying to make strange the familiar so as to make familiar the strange. It's an exercise in the discipined use of imagination; a perfectly legitemate technique.
Argument 3. He doesn't give a reason how his Moral Law escapes the Euthyphro dilemma
This is not relevant to his argument.
It is because it eliminates God as the source of morality. Humans could be the source by their societal interactions.
Lewis is a Christian neoplatonist. Plato and his followers locate morality in the realm of the forms, specificaly in aspirations towards the form of the good. in the Timeaus he describes how the demiurge uses the forms which are static and eternal as a model for the material cosmos. Christian neoplatonists see the forms, which are eternal and self existent, as being located in the mind of God. The Euthyphro dilemma really concerns the role of the gods of paganism, they exist within the cosmos and although they may make moral commands and be seen as the source of social morality they cannot be the origin of those commands in the same way the God of neoplatonism can. I think Lewis tackles the question you are raising in the section beginning:
I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different—we learn to keep to the left of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to keep to the right—and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The question is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs.
Argument 4. His Moral Law describes what human beings ought to do, which invokes the is/ought problem.
So what?
How does he know the mind of God in what we ought to do?
The is/ought problem strikes me as a pseudo problem. Hume is right in saying we cannot deduce an ought from an is but we can use induction or the hypothetico-decuctive method and we do so all the time. For example we know what temperature human blood ought to be and we know that from observation of what is. People can and do dervive ought from is and what people are saying when they say people cannot derive ought from is is that people ought not to do so, but in doing that they are breaking the very rule they are proposing. Lewis thinks, and I agree, that we have moral intuitions and he is arguing that the best is explanation for these is the existence of a divine lawgiver. An argument to best explanation works in so far as people come to see that this really is the best explanation from the ones on the table, it is never a matter of strict proof. Hence he is arguing that we encounter God in out moral intuitions. If the argument works then that is the reason why he believes this is the case. In itself that falls somewhere short of knowledge and you are quite right to point that out.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Chapabel » Sun May 12, 2019 12:06 pm

SEG wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 1:31 am
SEG wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 9:31 pm
Let's cut to the quick and riddle me this - Does Genesis get any scientific knowledge of our natural environment wrong?
Chapabel wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 9:57 pm
I doubt it. But why not come right out and present your supposed contradiction? You seem to be trying to set me up for a “Gotcha” type of question.
It won't be hard. It starts from the very first statement, "In the beginning". It could have been, "When in the beginning" when it may have been lifted from the Enuma Elish.
How does plagiarizing from Enuma Elish get any scientific knowledge wrong? (BTW, I find it hilarious that you, of all people, would accuse the Bible writers of plagiarizing) That was your claim, remember, that the Bible somehow got "scientific knowledge of our natural environment wrong". When I asked you to present your case of the Bible being in error, you claim it was plagiarized. Dude, you're so dazed and confused right now from Moon and Og that you don't know whether to scratch your watch or wind your butt.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Sun May 12, 2019 2:42 pm

Chapabel wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 12:06 pm
How does plagiarizing from Enuma Elish get any scientific knowledge wrong? (BTW, I find it hilarious that you, of all people, would accuse the Bible writers of plagiarizing) That was your claim, remember, that the Bible somehow got "scientific knowledge of our natural environment wrong".
Because it has copied the same scientific errors that ancient people believed in.
See: https://biologos.org/articles/genesis-1 ... tion-story
In both stories, light exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
In both stories, there is a division of the waters above and below, with a barrier holding back the upper waters.
The sequence of creation is similar, including the division of waters, dry land, luminaries, and humanity, all followed by rest.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Sun May 12, 2019 3:06 pm

Og3 wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 7:16 am
The fact that you THINK that Judges 14 shows that it's OK to be selfish
SEG wrote:Judges 14 is evidence that men HAVE NOT always agreed. If they DID always agree that it is not a good idea to suit yourself, why do men go ahead and do it?
Because they are sinful and depraved, SEG. That's the whole point
but according to the self loathing that is present in Christians like yourself, we are all sinful and depraved.
Tell you what: Since you came up with your Samson argument that selfishness is okay according to the Bible, from your own personal readings in Judges, please answer a few questions just to show that you've honestly read the passage in context:

5.) What action, in Samson's entire life, is described by the Bible as an act to be emulated?
I only want to answer your last question. He was a nazirite, like Samuel and perhaps Jesus.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Chapabel » Sun May 12, 2019 6:21 pm

SEG wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 2:42 pm
Chapabel wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 12:06 pm
How does plagiarizing from Enuma Elish get any scientific knowledge wrong? (BTW, I find it hilarious that you, of all people, would accuse the Bible writers of plagiarizing) That was your claim, remember, that the Bible somehow got "scientific knowledge of our natural environment wrong".
Because it has copied the same scientific errors that ancient people believed in.
See: https://biologos.org/articles/genesis-1 ... tion-story
In both stories, light exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
In both stories, there is a division of the waters above and below, with a barrier holding back the upper waters.
The sequence of creation is similar, including the division of waters, dry land, luminaries, and humanity, all followed by rest.
Hahaha, when you offer snippets from websites I suggest you read the entire article. You obviously did not read this piece in its entirety. If you had you would have read the following:
At the time, many scholars thought that the author of Genesis 1 borrowed material from Enuma Elish. This led to the “Bible and Babel” controversy (“Babel” is Hebrew for Babylon). In fact, scholars commonly thought that Babylonian culture was the source for all ancient religions, including Christianity (i.e., “pan-Babylonianism”).

But with subsequent discoveries from other cultures (Sumerian, Egyptian, Canaanite) and other time periods, scholars came to a more sober conclusion: Babylonian culture did not have such a widespread influence, and Genesis 1 was not directly dependent on Enuma Elish.

Instead, these texts are two examples of the kinds of theological themes that pervaded numerous cultures over many centuries. The stories are not directly connected, but they share common ways of thinking about beginnings. They “breathe the same air.”
You done been got again 😂😂😂😂

Post Reply