Hate to start another thread like this, but.........
I ran across this amusingly titled page........
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm
basically, i'd like to hear logic that counters this, and is convincing....... although i don't expect anything good. :P
Simple. Because gods don't exist except in people's imagination, and they imagine them to be and do for them whatever they want and need. Even that they can cure cancer, because we don't completely understand cancer yet. But the gods don't cure cancer, and they don't give limbs back. Except that the latter is just too obvious to imagine anything about it.
Well, I know that...... you're just stating what is written in the web site.
I'm just providing a challenge. I'm interested in what responses it might generate.
I didn't read that article. This isn't a challenge anyway. The answer is just too obvious. Of course, in the ancient world, more people belived in that kind of stuff and that even more drastic divine interventions actually happened. Blinds got cured, even dead awakened frpm, well, the dead. There still are many people who very fervently, and probably honestly, believe in these things and who pray very hard. But their god doesn't do anything for them that they can't imagine anyway. Fairy tale time is over.
More importantly:
http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/gawd.html (http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/gawd.html)
Quote from: JCampbell on September 24, 2008, 08:09:31 PM
More importantly:
http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/gawd.html (http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/gawd.html)
QuoteThere are billions of Christian believers today, and that scares the wee out of me. Is their God real? I sure hope not.
Poor fellow; trapped in a world where he wasn't given admin rights to exclude Christians!
This website and the challenge posed here are based on the faulty assumption that the existence (or nonexistence) of God can be proven through logic. One of the definitions of faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
Quote from: Keemun on September 25, 2008, 05:36:18 AM
This website and the challenge posed here are based on the faulty assumption that the existence (or nonexistence) of God can be proven through logic. One of the definitions of faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
Excellent point. And one which so very many people stampede past, in their eagerness to . . . whatever.
I happen to be an amputee. I lost my right leg (below the knee) to diabetes.
I never prayed for GOD to restore my limb. I did pray to GOD to give me the strength to compensate for its loss. WHICH HE HAS DONE.
I walk, I travel, I drive my car (with a specially built prosthesis). The car is not modified in any way. I walk almost with no limp or an altered gait of any kind. most people don't even know that I'm wearing a prosthesis.
My life has changed very, very little from what it was before my amputation.
I no longer can run a marathon. But I never wanted to do that anyway.
Why does God not heal amputees? Because it would be too darn obvious. God has set up the world and what happens in it in such a way that the freedom of choice to believe in him is not violated.
For those determined to reject God, there will always be sufficient reasons to not believe in God *), for those with an open mind there will always be plenty of reasons to believe in Him. Belief in God will always be an eminently reasonable and rational position (as theists, including me, have extensively pointed out in discussions here, and atheists here have not been able to refute our arguments), but it will never be coercive -- it would stop being belief. And I think that God precisely wants it that way.
Were amputees healed, faith would be replaced by certainty, freedom of choice would be suspended.
*) the atheist's assumption of naturalism is also a belief, as has been repeatedly pointed out
Quote from: Iago on September 25, 2008, 06:18:49 AM
I happen to be an amputee. I lost my right leg (below the knee) to diabetes.
I never prayed for GOD to restore my limb. I did pray to GOD to give me the strength to compensate for its loss. WHICH HE HAS DONE.
I walk, I travel, I drive my car (with a specially built prosthesis). The car is not modified in any way. I walk almost with no limp or an altered gait of any kind. most people don't even know that I'm wearing a prosthesis.
My life has changed very, very little from what it was before my amputation.
I no longer can run a marathon. But I never wanted to do that anyway.
I admire your attitude.
Quote from: Keemun on September 25, 2008, 05:36:18 AM
One of the definitions of faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
Making that type of faith a ridiculous thing to have.
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 07:08:29 AM
Making that type of faith a ridiculous thing to have.
I suppose you are talking about naturalism, the faith of atheists.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 07:09:53 AM
I suppose you are talking about naturalism, the faith of atheists.
I'm talking about the virtue of not being arrogant.
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 07:13:49 AM
I'm talking about the virtue of not being arrogant.
I see, the virtue that atheists are so good at by calling believers in God "irrational" for no rational reason.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 07:15:54 AM
I see, the virtue that atheists are so good at by calling believers in God "irrational" for no rational reason.
Okay...
(see Sean's lastest fascinating thread)
The lowly "Starfish" and the "King Crab" have the power of regeneration. If they lose a limb by accident or removal for commercial reasons, that limb regenerates. It's all in the "genes". When science learns that secret (with the help of GOD) mankind will be able to do the same thing.
Humans can already partially accomplish that feat.
After all, if we cut ourselves, in time, the wound heals. And amazingly, the human "liver" already has the power of regeneration. If a portion (or even an entire lobe) of the liver is removed, IN TIME, IT REGENERATES.
If we already possess one major organ that can accomplish that feat, can the rest of our bodies "learn" to do the same thing? With GODS HELP. we will.
Quote from: Iago on September 25, 2008, 07:26:45 AM
The lowly "Starfish" and the "King Crab" have the power of regeneration. If they lose a limb by accident or removal for commercial reasons, that limb regenerates. It's all in the "genes". When science learns that secret (with the help of GOD) mankind will be able to do the same thing.
Humans can already partially accomplish that feat.
After all, if we cut ourselves, in time, the wound heals. And amazingly, the human "liver" already has the power of regeneration. If a portion (or even an entire lobe) of the liver is removed, IN TIME, IT REGENERATES.
If we already possess one major organ that can accomplish that feat, can the rest of our bodies "learn" to do the same thing? With GODS HELP. we will.
Enjoy the wait.
The "Why Won't God Heal Amputees" website addresses (effectively) a particular argument put forward in favour of a particular kind of god: The type god that is listening to our prayers and granting them based on how sincere and deserving the pray-er is. Another way of stating the argument against that concept is to point out that when someone prays for something that is probable, the prayer is often granted; when he prays for something improbable, it is rarely granted; and when he prays for something impossible, it is never granted. This is indistinguishable from random chance.
As has already been made evident by some of the replies here, there are other concepts of God that this website does not disprove.
Quote from: Shrunk on September 25, 2008, 07:39:37 AM
As has already been made evident by some of the replies here, there are other concepts of God that this website does not disprove.
True, and it doesn't need to.
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 07:34:15 AM
Enjoy the wait.
It probably won't happen in my lifetime. But I am sure it WILL eventually happen.
It must be very sad to believe in nothing unless it can be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or heard. You are a small person, who seems to be masquerading as a know-it-all.
Quote from: Iago on September 25, 2008, 07:43:20 AM
But I am sure it WILL eventually happen............... ----> You are a small person, who seems to be masquerading as a know-it-all.
Yes that's right, Iago, you make a lot of sense.
All I need is something real. Not much to ask. --- let the replies flock and make a fool of me! :)
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 07:08:29 AM
Making that type of faith a ridiculous thing to have.
It's no more ridiculous than attempting to prove/disprove the existence of God with limited human logic. (But this is just my opinion.) :)
Quote from: Keemun on September 25, 2008, 08:10:42 AM
It's no more ridiculous than attempting to prove/disprove the existence of God with limited human logic. (But this is just my opinion.) :)
Well, disproving God is basically impossible, so that's never my aim. And even if I was trying to disprove something, human logic is the only tool to do so. I am human after all, and so are you, ergo vis a vis AKA (in the words of David Brent) that's all we can use.
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-are-you-calling-irrational.html
From:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode
"The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us."
Let's not bring God into anything - not our politics, not our approach to the sciences, not into how we judge our neighbor - but our private lives. fair enough? Even the Sermon on the Mount asks for this. And, refresh my memory, who gave that?
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 08:20:15 AM
Well, disproving God is basically impossible, so that's never my aim. And even if I was trying to disprove something, human logic is the only tool to do so. I am human after all, and so are you, ergo vis a vis AKA (in the words of David Brent) that's all we can use.
I agree with you. However, there are those who attempt to disprove the existence of God with logic, which is what my comment was directed at. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that this type of faith is ridiculous.
Quote from: adamdavid80 on September 25, 2008, 08:21:40 AM
Let's not bring God into anything - not our politics, not our approach to the sciences, not into how we judge our neighbor - but our private lives. fair enough? Even the Sermon on the Mount asks for this. And, refresh my memory, who gave that?
It's Greg's fault, he started this thread. :P
Quote from: Keemun on September 25, 2008, 08:41:35 AM
It's Greg's fault, he started this thread. :P
In these precarious faithless times, it is not the time to play the blame game. Now is the time to heal amputees and go to jerusalem and get things done. I am moses and i approve this message.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 06:25:48 AM
Why does God not heal amputees? Because it would be too darn obvious. God has set up the world and what happens in it in such a way that the freedom of choice to believe in him is not violated.
For those determined to reject God, there will always be sufficient reasons to not believe in God *), for those with an open mind there will always be plenty of reasons to believe in Him. Belief in God will always be an eminently reasonable and rational position (as theists, including me, have extensively pointed out in discussions here, and atheists here have not been able to refute our arguments), but it will never be coercive -- it would stop being belief. And I think that God precisely wants it that way.
Were amputees healed, faith would be replaced by certainty, freedom of choice would be suspended.
*) the atheist's assumption of naturalism is also a belief, as has been repeatedly pointed out
This is astonishing. What about the many stories in the bible where God himself kills people/talks to people or angels come out of the sky and talk to people? Is that not the same thing?
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 07:48:26 AM
All I need is something real. Not much to ask. --- let the replies flock and make a fool of me! :)
Replies attempting to make a fool of you are unnecessary. You have managed to do that by yourself.
why do some humans continue supporting euthanizing and aborting others?
dj
Quote from: david johnson on September 25, 2008, 09:32:01 AM
why do some humans continue supporting euthanizing and aborting others?
dj
Because according to their ethical system, it is the morally right thing to do. Lot's of meta ethical dscussion on this too of course.
Quote from: Guido on September 25, 2008, 09:23:50 AM
This is astonishing. What about the many stories in the bible where God himself kills people/talks to people or angels come out of the sky and talk to people? Is that not the same thing?
Obviously, at some point God had to reveal himself if He wanted to make clear what He wanted from humanity. That this was accompanied by extraordinary events was part of the package of divine revelation. However, these days, as we know this divine revelation, God simply wants us to accept it while, in general, leaving personal freedom to do so untouched by extraordinary signs. At least that is what I infer from all that we observe.
As Brett (Catison), who recently converted from atheism to Catholicism, put it so well here: It is not that there is no evidence for divine revelation, the question is rather if you trust the evidence.
Quote from: david johnson on September 25, 2008, 09:32:01 AM
why do some humans continue supporting euthanizing and aborting others?
dj
That will be something to do with God choosing not to make himself 'obvious' and give us choices as someone said earlier. Nice deity...so many wonderful choices he gives us...
And I thought the discoveries of Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Darwin were impressive...
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 09:46:57 AM
Obviously, at some point God had to reveal himself if He wanted to make clear what He wanted from humanity. That this was accompanied by extraordinary events was part of the package of divine revelation. However, these days, as we know this divine revelation, God simply wants us to accept it while, in general, leaving personal freedom to do so untouched by extraordinary signs. At least that is what I infer from all that we observe.
I don't remember reading any of that in the The Fellowship of the Ring..... a prologue I missed? or just an introduction?
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 09:55:42 AM
And I thought the discoveries of Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Darwin were impressive...
They certainly were. But did their discoveries somehow convince you that there was no GOD?
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 09:55:42 AM
And I thought the discoveries of Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Darwin were impressive...
Yes, they show impressively that God's creation is far grander that humanity ever imagined.
Quote from: Iago on September 25, 2008, 10:01:33 AM
They certainly were. But did their discoveries somehow convince you that there was no GOD?
It at least makes me question the people who claim they know Him and His meaning.
The earth the center of the universe and anyone who disagrees a heretic? Check.
The devil is the reason that these "fake" dinosaur fossils exist, and other such malleable rationales for disclaiming science and evolution? Check.
Redheads are witches and jews have horns? Check.
War and genocide being waged in His name? Got it.
I love God. I hate preachers. Keep God in your heart, and leave him there, out of my hospitals, politics, and labs of science.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 10:06:27 AM
Yes, they show impressively that God's creation is far grander that humanity ever imagined.
Which is why we should all respect and live by the Ten Commandments and the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount and the edict of "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and shut the hell up.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 24, 2008, 07:09:13 PM
Hate to start another thread like this, but.........
Then why did you start it? Now we will hear a rehash of all the old arguments from each end of the spectrum.
Quote from: Iago on September 25, 2008, 10:01:33 AM
They certainly were. But did their discoveries somehow convince you that there was no GOD?
Wasn't my point and no, not really. Though, Darwin did help a little, I suppose. 0:)
Quote from: Keemun on September 25, 2008, 05:36:18 AM
This website and the challenge posed here are based on the faulty assumption that the existence (or nonexistence) of God can be proven through logic. One of the definitions of faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
Of course, but there's tons of faiths out there. How do you know which one is true?
If you're blindfolded and are told to jump off a diving board (and there's a bunch of them lined up), how do you know which one to jump off of? Obviously, if you admit that none of them make much sense to jump off of, why even bother? If there's no logic to any of them, that makes them all the same.
And suppose we do jump off, and land in the water. What about the next guy who jumps off and hits concrete? Or the next guy who falls into a mini volcano and burns to death? (oh, not just to death, but for all eternity.......)
That's why religion needs logic, and I read through this thread and so far haven't found a reply that's logical, but i'll read again.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 25, 2008, 10:23:12 AM
Then why did you start it? Now we will hear a rehash of all the old arguments from each end of the spectrum.
i don't know, i'll probably get bored with this thread by tomorrow. ;D
Quote from: Iago on September 25, 2008, 07:26:45 AM
The lowly "Starfish" and the "King Crab" have the power of regeneration. If they lose a limb by accident or removal for commercial reasons, that limb regenerates. It's all in the "genes". When science learns that secret (with the help of GOD) mankind will be able to do the same thing.
Humans can already partially accomplish that feat.
After all, if we cut ourselves, in time, the wound heals. And amazingly, the human "liver" already has the power of regeneration. If a portion (or even an entire lobe) of the liver is removed, IN TIME, IT REGENERATES.
If we already possess one major organ that can accomplish that feat, can the rest of our bodies "learn" to do the same thing? With GODS HELP. we will.
You know how God could've helped? He could've created people, from the very beginning to have limb regeneration! That would mean it wouldn't be "obvious" once they heal, plus society wouldn't have to "wait"for stuff like that. Plus, all the effort and money spent on artificial limb research and development, could directed toward other stuff, like AIDS, maybe.. But of course, he doesn't........ why?
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 25, 2008, 11:25:39 AM
You know how God could've helped? He could've created people, from the very beginning to have limb regeneration! That would mean it wouldn't be "obvious" once they heal, plus society wouldn't have to "wait"for stuff like that. Plus, all the effort and money spent on artificial limb research and development, could directed toward other stuff, like AIDS, maybe.. But of course, he doesn't........ why?
Yep you're quite right.
Once evolution was discovered as a fact of nature, the christians had to somehow make out that God was behind it. It's a neverending web of alternations and people shitting themselves.
Quote from: Keemun on September 25, 2008, 05:36:18 AM
This website and the challenge posed here are based on the faulty assumption that the existence (or nonexistence) of God can be proven through logic. One of the definitions of faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
No such assumption need be made. It isn't a logical problem anyway. Logic has to have something to work with, some sensory input (senses extended by the prosthetics of science included). If logic could solve a problem like this you'd end up with self consistency as the criterion. In that case all string theories would be true. What we want to know is not what some logical scheme says is possible in principle, but but which of these schemes is instantiated in the world. For that you need evidence, upon which a testable theory can be constructed and confirmed or falsified. If you don't have that you just have an unconfirmed idea that's no more than an abstract formulation.
The definition of faith looks like a good one to me, since it describes exactly the process everyone uses to get about in the world. The question is always how far beyond evidence should faith be extended, and here you scale according to some measure of plausibility. Faith in personal abilities is known to have an effect on the outcome of performance, and faith in a doctors remedy may assist in getting well. That's because the outcome is sensitive to the internal state you're in, which is an objective factor. The more distant the question is from ones own mental and physical dispositions, the less likely a belief can establish a fact. I'd say the falloff is pretty much a cliff rather than gradual, so you can recover from a serious illness with placebo assistance but can't grow a new limb.
The old wisdom that faith helps you to change what can be changed is consistent with this. So even by the standard of this old saying, the question is not whether to have faith, but what kinds of faith are consistent with what is known, which, outside the self-consistent realms of logic and mathematics, is always an empirical question.
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 11:48:22 AM
Yep you're quite right.
Once evolution was discovered as a fact of nature, the christians had to somehow make out that God was behind it. It's a neverending web of alternations and people shitting themselves.
And newer scientific findings show that the laws of nature that allow for evolution in the first place have to be exceedingly special. They are so special that an assumption that they arose by random chance is ludicrous, completely against any common sense (to use your words, people who make that assumption are "shitting themselves"). Common sense says that they clearly point to a designer.
Dawkins once said that evolution for the first time allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Yet in my view the discovery of the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature has made atheism now even more unbelievable and intellectually strained than before the discovery of evolution.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 09:46:57 AM
Obviously, at some point God had to reveal himself if He wanted to make clear what He wanted from humanity. That this was accompanied by extraordinary events was part of the package of divine revelation. However, these days, as we know this divine revelation, God simply wants us to accept it while, in general, leaving personal freedom to do so untouched by extraordinary signs. At least that is what I infer from all that we observe.
As Brett (Catison), who recently converted from atheism to Catholicism, put it so well here: It is not that there is no evidence for divine revelation, the question is rather if you trust the evidence.
Absolutely. But you believe that the divine revelation these men recieved deliberately left scanty evidence for anyone other than than the original people it was intended for - that way there is some ambiguity left for everyone else as to what is and what isn't true. An example might include Moses recieving the ten commandments... in fact I have been unable to unearth any evidence anywhere of Jews ever being slaves in Egypt during the reign of the Egyption Pharoahs, other than the account given in the bible - is the suggestion that this is a deliberate goal of God's? To me this seems rather perverse and only believable if you think that faith is a vital part of your religion, which facts and knowledge would destroy. One must ask onself, which way round this runs though - does the fact that there is ambiguity about the facts of some of the historical claims in the bible necessitate faith as an integral part of the religion (i.e. faith is to 'plug the gap') or is it that because faith is required in the religion, the evidence is deliberately not compelling (I mean that literally - does not compel anyone to believe). Obviously you are going to disagree with me, but do you at least see where I am coming from?
Also the fine tuning thing. If it's as clear cut as you think it is - doesn't this again compel one to think that God exists, therby removing faith?
Please tell me if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 12:19:03 PM
And newer scientific findings show that the laws of nature that allow for evolution in the first place have to be exceedingly special. They are so special that an assumption that they arose by random chance is ludicrous, completely against any common sense (to use your words, people who make that assumption are "shitting themselves"). Common sense says that they clearly point to a designer.
Well then, if you're basing your belief upon your own scientific insight, why are you so specifically a christian, and not simply a deist?
I don't understand why people who think that the existence of a god can't be proved by logic think this entitles them to accept a positive belief on essentially the same grounds as the placebo effect. Such an effect is not valid beyond an extremely limited range. It certainly wouldn't apply to entities beyond space and time. That's a misuse of the principle.
And I don't understand how promoting a theory of deliberate hiding of evidence helps you confirm a thesis for which no evidence exists. You can't buttress a questionable thesis with equally questionable support. If nothing supports a god than you stop there.
I don't have a hidden evidence theory of why the star that exists between Proxima Centauri and us can't be found but yet can somehow be intuited by occult means. Nor do I have a theory of why the evidence of $100,000,000 has gone missing from my checking account. Such a theory requires the same demonstration as the original hypothesis and can't cure its faults.
Incidentally, the admission by proponents that evidence is missing differs not the slightest from the understanding that it doesn't exist. I'm glad we cleared that up. Now we can proceed to an efficient explanation for why the evidence doesn't exist and not waste time trying to uphold a failed existence argument by backdoor means.:D To admit the evidence is missing is not an alternative to a negative result, it is the negative result. :D :D
Quote from: Guido on September 25, 2008, 12:33:10 PM
Obviously you are going to disagree with me, but do you at least see where I am coming from?
Sure, I see where you're coming from.
QuoteAlso the fine tuning thing. If it's as clear cut as you think it is - doesn't this again compel one to think that God exists, therby removing faith?
It has compelled some. Others think in terms of the multiverse or that the laws of nature could not be any other way. Yet most really are not willing to think those things through properly. A supposed necessity of the laws of nature that we observe can be dismissed on logical grounds and it can be shown that the multiverse doesn't really solve the designer problem (we have gone over all of this on "The Religion Thread"). That really only leaves random chance, which is absurd.
Yes, I think the fine-tuning of the laws of nature is compelling, but it cannot be coercing -- only a mathematical proof can be. Those who are not willing to abandon naturalism will always find a way to convince themselves that it is not necessary.
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 12:48:36 PM
Well then, if you're basing your belief upon your own scientific insight, why are you so specifically a christian, and not simply a deist?
I personally don't base my belief on scientific insight, but scientific insight gives me confirmation of its reasonableness.
As to why I am a Christian? If God cares so much about our universe that he has endowed it with exquisite fine-tuning, it would be rational to assume that he has revealed himself to a resulting life-form that is able to accept his message – us, at the least. Historically it may be reasonably argued that if there was a revelation by God, it first happened to the Jewish people, who then believed in one single God who made all of nature, whereas all other peoples continued to believe in many gods (by the way, the associated demystification of nature into mere things led to a mindset that made the rise of science possible). It may further be argued that the prophecies of the Old Testament regarding the appearance of a saviour reached their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
But what does Al have to say about my posts on this page?
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 01:05:26 PM
As to why I am a Christian? If God cares so much about our universe that he has endowed it with exquisite fine-tuning, it would be rational to assume that he has revealed himself to a resulting life-form that is able to accept his message – us, at the least. Christ.
Why is that rational? What makes you think we should assume that the creator would care about communicating to the life he/she/it created? Just because it's what you would do, had you been the creator?
I can just about get past (well not really) people believing in a designer who then just sits back and lets it happen, but all this other nonsense.
Also, if you believe in the christian faith, you basically rule out the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe.
Furthermore, if he really wanted to reveal himself, why not do it in a much more easily and universally perceivable manner?
It seems to me that once you delve into a specific Theism, you have few legs to stand on, and don't really know what you think.
Quote from: Guido on September 25, 2008, 12:33:10 PM
Also the fine tuning thing. If it's as clear cut as you think it is - doesn't this again compel one to think that God exists, therby removing faith?
That's correct. If
Al is right that it's optional and relative to believers then it's not evidence, which of course it isn't. Fine tuning is a scientifically meaningless concept. How can you tell if something's is fine tuned if you have no idea whatsoever of what a Universe without any tuning would be? It's just an escape hatch concept to load with your intuitions. Dawkins call this the Argument from Personal Incredulity which frequently takes the form of:
I can't imagine how everything could be so perfectly arranged... The operative word here is
perfect, which has no fixed meaning. The Universe is neither perfect nor imperfect. Perfect signifies feelings we have and not a state of affairs of the Universe itself.
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 01:14:12 PM
Also, if you believe in the christian faith, you basically rule out the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe.
Huh?
QuoteFurthermore, if he really wanted to reveal himself, why not do it in a much more easily and universally perceivable manner?
I think I have answered that already.
Quote from: drogulus on September 25, 2008, 01:17:44 PM
That's correct. If Al is right that it's optional and relative to believers then it's not evidence, which of course it isn't.
Not all valid evidence is scientific evidence (it happens to be evidence from science though, but this is not the same). Were you only to allow scientific evidence as the solely valid evidence, you would not even be able to properly live your daily life, with the evidence-based decisions that you constantly make in it.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 01:05:26 PM
I personally don't base my belief on scientific insight, but scientific insight gives me confirmation of its reasonableness.
It may further be argued that the prophecies of the Old Testament regarding the appearance of a saviour reached their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
That sure isn't what jewish folks think.
is everyone hovering on this thread just to look at my avatar?..........
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 25, 2008, 02:19:00 PM
is everyone hovering on this thread just to look at my avatar?..........
Would be better if they were real women.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 25, 2008, 02:23:39 PM
Would be better if they were real women.
Don! Mind your blood pressure!!! ;D
Quote from: Bulldog on September 25, 2008, 02:23:39 PM
Would be better if they were real women.
Actually........ the avatar is more like a robotic obedient cat.......
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=8OALTLNL
watch 19:40........ the guy is too embarassed to buy panties for her, so he tries to teach her to buy them.
Greg, why do you like that crap?
What an awesome statement!
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 01:39:27 PM
Not all valid evidence is scientific evidence (it happens to be evidence from science though, but this is not the same). Were you only to allow scientific evidence as the solely valid evidence, you would not even be able to properly live your daily life, with the evidence-based decisions that you constantly make in it.
Scientific confirmation and ordinary confirmation are not different. Scientific confirmation grows out of the same observe and test routines we use every day. And we use intuitions and hunches to assist in forming hypotheses,
but then seek to confirm them. I think the mistaken notion that science is somehow different from ordinary procedures is part of the problem. Science is no more occult than learning to ride a bike. I have a hypothesis that if I shift my weight around to keep the center of gravity over the wheels,
I won't fall off the bike!
:D Life is a test and confirm process, and the degree we accept faiths role is scaled to what faith legitimately can be shown to assist us in doing. There's no placebo effect for the existence of galaxies, is there?
:P If a god exists, then it's this confirmation, and not the faith, that is knowledge.* And in the process the incoherent thesis that gods are beyond knowledge will be abandoned as the worst kind of intellectual trash, something the truth about which could only be "realized" by instances of its obvious falsehood.
>:(
*Since I don't object to real as opposed to faith-based gods, I'm
Ohhhh Kaayy with that.
(which is not to say I wouldn't be disappointed at the Forrest Gumpery involved! :()
Quote from: Norbeone on September 25, 2008, 01:14:12 PM
Furthermore, if he really wanted to reveal himself, why not do it in a much more easily and universally perceivable manner?
There is a lot of theology in this question that cannot be boiled down to a single post. All I can hope to tell you is that there how Catholics perceive this question.
If you have read Genesis, you'll find the account of Adam & Eve. This story isn't a literal story in the sense of an accurate history, but Catholics believe these stories have a meaningful lesson. In the story you can see that Adam knows God and lives in perfect harmony with him in Eden. Adam is free of sin, which is another way to say he is a perfect human. He is given Eve, who also lives in perfect harmony. But they are tempted by the devil into sin, or in other words, they assume their human nature. Cast out of Eden, they can no longer know God intimately.
The moral: even while knowing God, Adam and Eve could not contain their human tendency to sin. So what use has God, who created us to share in his perfect love and not sin, to intimately reveal himself again?
This is a very Catholic answer (as I have come to understand), not based on history, but on theology. A more logical answer might be that God, knowing how we treat our own environment, has chosen to reveal himself slowly through time in order for those who truly wish to know him might seek and find him on their own. Showing up on our doorstep would not have as much meaning.
Again, this is only for your understanding of Catholic faith. I don't expect anyone to mistake it for an argument for God.
Quote from: Guido on September 25, 2008, 02:58:01 PM
Greg, why do you like that crap?
Because it takes me out of the brutally mundane boringness and magicless reality of real life.
Just seeing an anime-drawn picture, and contrasting it with anything just makes it seem that much more like it's from another world....... (Plus, that episode is especially hilarious- she goes down the street repeating "panties" to herself, looks under girls' skirts to see someone and says that she has to buy them).
The world is a bleak, boring place, my friend. Drugs are dangerous..... this stuff isn't. :D
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 25, 2008, 05:24:14 PM
The world is a bleak, boring place, my friend. Drugs are dangerous..... this stuff isn't. :D
The world is what you make of it. It doesn't have to be bleak and boring. Look for adventure -
real adventure - and you will find it. All fantasy has some ties to reality.
Quote from: JCampbell on September 25, 2008, 05:27:59 PM
The world is what you make of it. It doesn't have to be bleak and boring. Look for adventure - real adventure - and you will find it. All fantasy has some ties to reality.
You can only do so much, though. I don't like the way real life
feels compared to imaginary life- like certain video games, anime, whatever. Just looking at the roads outside, and it just lacks color, lacks personality.
I think you need to change locations then. Look at pizdaus.com and see the beauty in the world. Even music is a product of reality!
Lots of good pics there.
Of course, there is a lot of beauty in the world, but you have to travel to find it all! :P
Still, though, all of that doesn't quite compare to a simple anime picture. I don't know why, though, it's weird..... ???
Or just move to Canada! ;D
FWIW, I can relate to your position, though maybe not on such a pathological level :P.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 06:25:48 AM
Why does God not heal amputees? Because it would be too darn obvious. God has set up the world and what happens in it in such a way that the freedom of choice to believe in him is not violated.
The same God who parted seas, rained fire and brimstone from the sky, sent his son to wake up dead and cure blind people and walk on water? You are right, he is a master of subtlety. He gave our bodies the power to fight against, and sometimes even win, the nastiest germs, but why did he invent them in the first place? Why does our skin regenrate when it is cut? Isn't that also really obvious?
Quote from: Iago on September 25, 2008, 06:18:49 AM
I never prayed for GOD to restore my limb. I did pray to GOD to give me the strength to compensate for its loss. WHICH HE HAS DONE.
How do you know? Maybe you just found the strength in yourself. You do seem a little bitter though in general. Are you sure God really gave you what you think he did? Why did he give you diabetes in the first place? Or do you blame that on the Nazis, too? After all, Germany is the biggest exporter of candy products in the world.
Quote from: M forever on September 25, 2008, 06:03:22 PM
The same God who parted seas, rained fire and brimstone from the sky, sent his son to wake up dead and cure blind people and walk on water? You are right, he is a master of subtlety. He gave our bodies the power to fight against, and sometimes even win, the nastiest germs, but why did he invent them in the first place? Why does our skin regenrate when it is cut? Isn't that also really obvious?
How do you know? Maybe you just found the strength in yourself. You do seem a little bitter though in general. Are you sure God really gave you what you think he did? Why did he give you diabetes in the first place? Or do you blame that on the Nazis, too? After all, Germany is the biggest exporter of candy products in the world.
You're more of an "Old Testament" than "New Testament" kinda guy, aren't you? ;)
So is Iago. Eclusively. Although I also mentioned the miracle dude from the New Testament. Who Iago believes was an impostor. The question though is, why did his God not clarify the matter of the fake "Messiah"? Or maybe he actually did. That's where the Romans come in. Yes, that makes sense now. God brought the Romans into the lands of his chosen people to make sure they get rid of the fake Messiah who claimed to be his son. That plan worked out well. Unfortunately, they then proceeded to delete the entire country. Was that part of God's master plan, too?
Quote from: JCampbell on September 25, 2008, 06:00:58 PM
Or just move to Canada! ;D
FWIW, I can relate to your position, though maybe not on such a pathological level :P.
Vancouver, right?
ugggghhhhhhh the city might be more exciting, but not there. Canada hardly has any history, so it just seems so........ unimportant.
I've always had these types of obsessions....... what they need to do is make a virtual reality RPG.... put on the headset and you aren't LOOKING at a screen, you're IN the screen, and you're somewhere else, somewhere much better than here.
I've always considered making a game like that one day after I'm an experienced programmer. I could learn about art, physics, etc. and be a director or co-director, and find a group that would do this just for fun. Except something like that would be unrealistic, probably.........though I'll keep the idea in mind. Oh, and not only regular RPG art style, but cell-shaded anime as well....... what'd it feel like to literally be an anime character and walk around in this new world? It might not be perfect, but it might be a much better place.
Quote from: M forever on September 25, 2008, 06:03:22 PM
How do you know? Maybe you just found the strength in yourself. You do seem a little bitter though in general. Are you sure God really gave you what you think he did? Why did he give you diabetes in the first place? Or do you blame that on the Nazis, too? After all, Germany is the biggest exporter of candy products in the world.
Exactly what i think........the random tantrums may help quite a bit, whether they make sense or not.
What helps me is different- do nothing but sleep my life away until i get recharged. It really sucks, imagine what I could do if I didn't have to sleep so much. :-\
another thing- i wish they could develop a pill that can make you function perfectly w/out any sleep. The fact that I'm going 7 more hours w/out learning a thing, or working toward accomplishing something, is irritating. And I really need 9-10hrs........
so off i go..........
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 25, 2008, 07:22:54 PM
Vancouver, right?
Close...Just a bit west, on Vancouver Island. Victoria, specifically. Funnily enough, the plant that I work at has often been a punishment for site leaders who failed elsewhere:
"Just send them to that small plant on that small island in Canada somewhere off the west coast."Quote
ugggghhhhhhh the city might be more exciting, but not there. Canada hardly has any history, so it just seems so........ unimportant.
Unimportant to whom?
You decide what's important. Who cares what the annals of history say?
Quote
I've always had these types of obsessions....... what they need to do is make a virtual reality RPG.... put on the headset and you aren't LOOKING at a screen, you're IN the screen, and you're somewhere else, somewhere much better than here.
I've always considered making a game like that one day after I'm an experienced programmer. I could learn about art, physics, etc. and be a director or co-director, and find a group that would do this just for fun. Except something like that would be unrealistic, probably.........though I'll keep the idea in mind. Oh, and not only regular RPG art style, but cell-shaded anime as well....... what'd it feel like to literally be an anime character and walk around in this new world? It might not be perfect, but it might be a much better place.
This is mildly depressing to read. I can't imagine cell-shaded anime being even close to seeing, for example, the sun shining through clouds.
Quote from: JCampbell on September 25, 2008, 08:17:31 PM
[/i]Unimportant to whom? You decide what's important. Who cares what the annals of history say?
Well, they don't say all that much about Canada, that's true. At least not on a world history scale. But they don't say all that much more about Florida either.
I have never been to Canada, BTW, but I have seen it twice - once from the islands NW of Seattle (that may be about the area you are moving to) and once from the US side of Niagara Falls. But, following the llogic of the woman who wants to become one of the most powerful people in the world, that means I know and understand everything about Canada.
BTW, you guys should get rid of that queen thing. That is so silly. And these royalty people are so trashy.
Quote from: JCampbell on September 25, 2008, 08:17:31 PM
This is mildly depressing to read. I can't imagine cell-shaded anime being even close to seeing, for example, the sun shining through clouds.
How poetic. Does that actually impress any girls you know? (I bet it does.)
Quote from: M forever on September 25, 2008, 08:47:38 PM
I have never been to Canada, BTW, but I have seen it twice - once from the islands NW of Seattle (that may be about the area you are moving to) and once from the US side of Niagara Falls. But, following the llogic of the woman who wants to become one of the most powerful people in the world, that means I know and understand everything about Canada.
Haha...well Canada certainly has a lot more to offer than the current American Republican's VP candidate thinks.
Quote
How poetic. Does that actually impress any girls you know? (I bet it does.)
I would
never say that to girls I know for a couple of reasons:
- None of the girls I know are even remotely interested in an artificial cell-shaded world
- Reading it again on here, I'm pretty unimpressed with how it sounds anyways...
"Why Won't God Heal Evangelicals?"
their heads, that is.
Hey, Brian...how did your summer abstinance from GMG go? Did you get a ton of reading in?
Quote from: Brian on September 25, 2008, 09:11:05 PM
"Why Won't God Heal Evangelicals?"
their heads, that is.
Again, because there are no gods. So all these people can ply their trades freely. Talk about deregulation. And society picking up the bill. That makes the damage done by all those financial wizards and the 700-billion-or-however-much-exactly-that-was bail out appear minute in comparison.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 25, 2008, 01:05:26 PM
As to why I am a Christian? If God cares so much about our universe that he has endowed it with exquisite fine-tuning, it would be rational to assume that he has revealed himself to a resulting life-form that is able to accept his message – us, at the least. Historically it may be reasonably argued that if there was a revelation by God, it first happened to the Jewish people, who then believed in one single God who made all of nature, whereas all other peoples continued to believe in many gods (by the way, the associated demystification of nature into mere things led to a mindset that made the rise of science possible). It may further be argued that the prophecies of the Old Testament regarding the appearance of a saviour reached their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
That's a good enough reason, but Al, doesn't it also have something to do with the fact that you were born in the US to a Christian family? Even if your immediate family does/did not have much to do with religion, you were presumably raised in en environment that was awash with Judeo-Christian traditions, knowingly or not. Do you believe that if you were born in, say, Syria... would you still be saying what you said above?
What I am trying to say is, the foremost reason why a person belongs to the religion that they say they do is, 999999 times out of 1000000, is simply because they were born into it. There are the converters of course, a real small minority for whom I have a deep respect for. They must have had the courage to question their own faith and decide in the end that it does not speak of the real truth.
I don't know you, but I have not met one person who has even considered changing their religion. Actually, that's not exactly the truth ;D I know a few people (all female) who have converted to Judaism -but simply for pragmatic reasons, i.e. to be able to marry their Jewish sweethearts :-*
Quote from: orbital on September 26, 2008, 01:22:31 AM
I don't know you, but I have not met one person who has even considered changing their religion. Actually, that's not exactly the truth ;D I know a few people (all female) who have converted to Judaism -but simply for pragmatic reasons, i.e. to be able to marry their Jewish sweethearts :-*
Raises hand. I am currently converting to Catholicism, after being a very strict Atheist.
There are a lot of arguments on this thread that basically boil down to, "Look how stupid religious people are". I will have to admit that there are a lot of stupid people who are religious. There are religious people who unquestioningly follow their church. There are religious people who refuse to understand any other belief system. There are religious people who do stupid things in the name of their own religion.
You don't have to focus on those people though. There are brilliant theologians, e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, who have been devoutly religious and devoutly rational. In fact, one of the things that drew me to the Catholic church initially was its use of classical philosophy in its theology. If you choose to, you can understand your religious reality "through your head".
There is an encyclical by John Paul II entitled
Fides et Ratio, which would be very apt in these discussions.
Quote from: orbital on September 26, 2008, 01:22:31 AM
That's a good enough reason, but Al, doesn't it also have something to do with the fact that you were born in the US to a Christian family? Even if your immediate family does/did not have much to do with religion, you were presumably raised in en environment that was awash with Judeo-Christian traditions, knowingly or not. Do you believe that if you were born in, say, Syria... would you still be saying what you said above?
What I am trying to say is, the foremost reason why a person belongs to the religion that they say they do is, 999999 times out of 1000000, is simply because they were born into it. There are the converters of course, a real small minority for whom I have a deep respect for. They must have had the courage to question their own faith and decide in the end that it does not speak of the real truth.
I don't know you, but I have not met one person who has even considered changing their religion. Actually, that's not exactly the truth ;D I know a few people (all female) who have converted to Judaism -but simply for pragmatic reasons, i.e. to be able to marry their Jewish sweethearts :-*
See Catison's post.
Also, while I was brought up Catholic, I could not have sustained my faith through all phases of doubt (yes, the atheist myth that all religious people are full of fanatic and dangerous security in their beliefs, devoid of any doubt, is nonsense) without finding a firm basis in rationality. I cannot divorce my rationality from any aspects of my life, and that includes religion as well. My thinking is one, and not conveniently divided into "compartments".
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 04:09:58 AM
Raises hand. I am currently converting to Catholicism, after being a very strict Atheist.
Good for you Catison. Any decision arrived after deliberations -provided it does not harm others, of course- is worthy of admiration. But my point is, had you been in Turkey during this time of transformation, you'd most likely about to be a Muslim and not a Catholic.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 26, 2008, 05:19:36 AM
See Catison's post.
Also, while I was brought up Catholic, I could not have sustained my faith through all phases of doubt (yes, the atheist myth that all religious people are full of fanatic and dangerous security in their beliefs, devoid of any doubt, is nonsense) without finding a firm basis in rationality. I cannot divorce my rationality from any aspects of my life, and that includes religion as well. My thinking is one, and not conveniently divided into "compartments".
So is mine. It's just that, just like theism, atheism can not be unproven either so it is an every bit as valid thought system. Plus, naturalism and its predecessors have been consistently good in explaining things we once thought were wondrous, so it is not very unsafe to assume that it is likely to provide more answers in the future.
The difference between the two schools is that one puts its faith in its process while the other puts its faith in stone.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 26, 2008, 05:19:36 AM
See Catison's post.
Also, while I was brought up Catholic, I could not have sustained my faith through all phases of doubt (yes, the atheist myth that all religious people are full of fanatic and dangerous security in their beliefs, devoid of any doubt, is nonsense) without finding a firm basis in rationality. I cannot divorce my rationality from any aspects of my life, and that includes religion as well. My thinking is one, and not conveniently divided into "compartments".
The final thread which broke in my Atheism was the realization that my belief in science was based upon a philosophy of materialism and naturalism. Ultimately, all Atheists (distinct from agnostics) have to rationalize their beliefs through the lens of
logical positivism, the philosophy that in order to have meaning an idea must be based on a physically tangible reality and must be falsifiable. Moreover, most Atheists believe that we can study the world through science and arrive at an objective understanding of that reality. I think it would be incorrect to characterize Atheists as needing proof to believe. More generally, they believe that if there is no chance for objective proof, then it is irrational to believe.
Contrast this with a negativism view of the world, in which everything is true until it is objectively proven false. A negativist accepts there are many "correct" versions of reality in line with our scientific understanding, but there are certainly versions completely false. So it is rational to think there is a God, but irrational to think the world is flat.
Positivism and negativism are, however, the two extremes of philosophy of science. There are other philosophies that find a middle ground, most notably Kuhnian philosophy.
The ultimate stumble of Atheists is that they don't see how their positivist ideology is one of several, equally rational, ideologies. They find comfort that their's is the only objective ideology. But there in lies the fallacy. The belief in an objective, tangible reality is based upon an understanding of science, a creation of humanity (for what else could have created it?), that is subjective. When Bacon first determined the rules of science, he did so subjectively, using his own philosophical insights which, however beautifully reliable they may be, are ultimately his own interpretation. Bacon didn't discover science; he created it. Positivism destroys itself if it admits only an objective truth.
My point here isn't to say that Atheists are bad people, but that it is wrong to think Atheism is without its philosophical hurdles or is the most rational of the philosophies. There is nothing wrong with being an Atheist, but an Atheist must be comfortable with these problems. I wasn't.
Interesting post, Catison.
Quote from: orbital on September 26, 2008, 06:30:51 AM
Plus, naturalism and its predecessors have been consistently good in explaining things we once thought were wondrous, so it is not very unsafe to assume that it is likely to provide more answers in the future.
That is correct. However, science (not naturalism, if you mean
philosophical naturalism; science has risen on a Christian background) will never be able to answer the ultimate questions of where did it all come from, why things are the way they are (I have extensively discussed this on "The Religion Thread" from not just a philosophical but also a scientific perspective, being a scientist myself). Thus, putting faith in science because
in principle, "one day", it should be able to answer all questions is misguided.
Well done,
Brett.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 26, 2008, 07:02:44 AM
. . . Thus, putting faith in science because in principle, "one day", it should be able to answer all questions is misguided.
And, well done,
Al.
You're all crazy. :)
Thanks guys. These discussions are so interesting, especially now.
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 26, 2008, 07:02:44 AM
Thus, putting faith in science because in principle, "one day", it should be able to answer all questions is misguided.
This was another stumbling block for me. I thought that humanity would triumph over itself by the means of science. As we learned what made reality, we could apply that to make ourselves progressively better: more civilized, living longer with a better quality of life.
Again, I hadn't noticed the fallacy that in addition to science giving us access to amazingly useful things, e.g. medicine and computers, it also gave us access to destructive things, e.g. atomic and biological weapons, and there was no guarantee that the useful side of science would win out. Salvation cannot be found in science alone. We may end up destroying ourselves.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 04:09:58 AM
You don't have to focus on those people though. There are brilliant theologians, e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, who have been devoutly religious and devoutly rational. In fact, one of the things that drew me to the Catholic church initially was its use of classical philosophy in its theology. If you choose to, you can understand your religious reality "through your head".
So why do you have to join the club because of that? Can't you just read these and whatever other texts you find interesting and still stay open to other religious/philosophical/mythological concepts? Why do you need a membership card? Becase you are afraid you are going to hell without it?
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 07:37:24 AM
Again, I hadn't noticed the fallacy that in addition to science giving us access to amazingly useful things, e.g. medicine and computers, it also gave us access to destructive things, e.g. atomic and biological weapons, and there was no guarantee that the useful side of science would win out. Salvation cannot be found in science alone. We may end up destroying ourselves.
Maybe. Or maybe not. But we *have* tried to destroy each other for countless millenia, often fueled by or in the name of such things as religion or ideologies. So what you just said there is incredibly silly. Things are slowly getting better in that respect. Large parts of the world which fought countless wars among themselves, like Western Europe, have now come together and it is extremely unlikely that these countries will ever attack each other again based on such things (or anything, really).
And in all of these countries, religion does not play a significant role in society anymore. Maybe on a private level, definitely not on a political level. There is a direct connection between these phenomena.
OTOH, the one Western country which is very backwards in this respect, the US, is the one in which politics and public life are still heabily influenced by religion, and - oooops! - it also happens to be the one Western country which still likes to attack other countries, usually backed up by the declaration of the conviction that "God is on our side". There is a direct connection here, too.
Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 09:06:07 AM
So why do you have to join the club because of that? Can't you just read these and whatever other texts you find interesting and still stay open to other religious/philosophical/mythological concepts? Why do you need a membership card? Becase you are afraid you are going to hell without it?
Well, what you've tried to do here is characterize my beliefs as reactive to fear. They aren't.
I'll admit, the jump from philosophy of science to religion is a big one, but it is the path I took. A single post won't do it justice. But in a nutshell, once I was able to accept the possibility of supernatural phenomenon, I was interested how Christianity presented these events. I read the Gospels with an open mind and, from what I read about the history of the early Church, decided that there was nothing inconsistent between history as we know it now and the possibility that the Gospels, while not necessarily historical, are a reliable account of Jesus. From my reading of the Gospels, it was clear to me that Jesus had, himself, established the Catholic Church. I started to seriously examine what the Catholic Church said, and I was surprised to find it remarkably consistent with something the ideas I had always had about the world. Then I sought out the theological resources at my disposal, including the local priest, who answered all of my questions. I am now satisfied, although still searching, with the truth as presented by the Church. The decision to convert was easy. Now I am in the RCIA program and will make the final step to become Catholic this Easter.
Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 09:06:07 AM
Maybe. Or maybe not. But we *have* tried to destroy each other for countless millenia, often fueled by or in the name of such things as religion or ideologies. So what you just said there is incredibly silly. Things are slowly getting better in that respect. Large parts of the world which fought countless wars among themselves, like Western Europe, have now come together and it is extremely unlikely that these countries will ever attack each other again based on such things (or anything, really).
And in all of these countries, religion does not play a significant role in society anymore. Maybe on a private level, definitely not on a political level. There is a direct connection between these phenomena.
OTOH, the one Western country which is very backwards in this respect, the US, is the one in which politics and public life are still heabily influenced by religion, and - oooops! - it also happens to be the one Western country which still likes to attack other countries, usually backed up by the declaration of the conviction that "God is on our side". There is a direct connection here, too.
This is a common, although not persuasive argument. Using the same logic, because Hitler was German and killed people, the entire German culture is worthless.
Notice that the Church is a human institution, just like science. No one is perfect, so we can't rely upon the human nature of anything for salvation. This was my point. The difference, though, between the Church and science is that the Church is also blessed with a supernatural guidance and objectivity, so it has the potential to actually save.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 09:30:08 AM
Well, what you've tried to do here is characterize my beliefs as reactive to fear.
I didn't. I asked.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 09:30:08 AM
From my reading of the Gospels, it was clear to me that Jesus had, himself, established the Catholic Church.
This is complete bullshit. You can't even read that from the gospels and other parts of the NT. We can learn even from the canonical sources that what developed into the Catholic Church was in direct contradiction to what the original followers of Jesus believed.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 09:30:08 AM
This is a common, although not persuasive argument. Using the same logic, because Hitler was German and killed people, the entire German culture is worthless.
I didn't say that religion in general is useless. I said that your argument that religion may be important in keeping us from destroying each other is nonsense because it has triggered and served that purpose ***countless*** time in history. And it is an obvious fact that there is a direct connection between rationality and peacefulness in politics and international relations and the recession of religion into private spheres and out of the public and political sphere. Nobody in Western Europe says anymore "let's go to war because god wants us to be there".
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 09:30:08 AM
But in a nutshell, once I was able to accept the possibility of supernatural phenomenon, I was interested how Christianity presented these events. I read the Gospels with an open mind and, from what I read about the history of the early Church
Apparently you read some books about that written from the Catholic perspective only, but apart from that, if you consider the possibility of "supernatural phenomena", why select these accounts? There are endless other accounts from all over the world.
Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 09:41:53 AM
I didn't. I asked.
This is complete bullshit. You can't even read that from the gospels and other parts of the NT. We can learn even from the canonical sources that what developed into the Catholic Church was in direct contradiction to what the original followers of Jesus believed.
I didn't say that religion in general is useless. I said that your argument that religion may be important in keeping us from destroying each other is nonsense because it has triggered and served that purpose ***countless*** time in history. And it is an obvious fact that there is a direct connection between rationality and peacefulness in politics and international relations and the recession of religion into private spheres and out of the public and political sphere. Nobody in Western Europe says anymore "let's go to war because god wants us to be there".
Apparently you read some books about that written from the Catholic perspective only, but apart from that, if you consider the possibility of "supernatural phenomena", why select these accounts? There are endless other accounts from all over the world.
I don't recall who said it, but I've always found lots of truth to the quote "Religion is te only thing keeping the lower class from killing the upper class."
Quote from: JCampbell on September 25, 2008, 08:17:31 PM
Unimportant to whom? You decide what's important. Who cares what the annals of history say?
Maybe that's the wrong term? Uninteresting may be a better word, though I might've already used that. Just like here, of course...... no history, no culture.......
Quote from: JCampbell on September 25, 2008, 08:17:31 PM
This is mildly depressing to read. I can't imagine cell-shaded anime being even close to seeing, for example, the sun shining through clouds.
Well, whenever I feel like doing that, i could take off the headset........
Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 09:41:53 AM
I didn't. I asked.
Fine. You asked a leading question. ;D
Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 09:41:53 AM
This is complete bullshit. You can't even read that from the gospels and other parts of the NT. We can learn even from the canonical sources that what developed into the Catholic Church was in direct contradiction to what the original followers of Jesus believed.
For you, complete bullshit. For me, it isn't. The New Testament (NT), as we know it, was assembled by the Church over a period of about a hundred years. Of course, the entire content of Christian theology is not contained in the NT, but also in the tradition established by what became the early Church. Unfortunately, this is the mistake Protestants make when condemning the Church for practicing extra-biblical theology. What is in the NT is only part of the story. So you are right that you wouldn't be able to read the NT and somehow construct the Catholic church out it.
What you can know is that Jesus established
a church, headed by Peter, in which he would continue Jesus' ministry. Peter was given special power to develop doctrine for this church. In Acts, you can see Peter use this power. After Jesus dies, Peter, as the head of this church, makes his first use of doctrine when he declares pagans are able to join. In this way Peter extends Jesus teaching to an area Jesus himself did not explain. So this church, whichever church it is, has Peter at the head, establishing doctrine about the state of souls in the world with a power given to him by Jesus himself.
So what you can know is, at least, consistent with what the Church teaches. If you are willing, the rest is a historical connecting the dots.
Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 09:41:53 AM
I didn't say that religion in general is useless. I said that your argument that religion may be important in keeping us from destroying each other is nonsense because it has triggered and served that purpose ***countless*** time in history. And it is an obvious fact that there is a direct connection between rationality and peacefulness in politics and international relations and the recession of religion into private spheres and out of the public and political sphere. Nobody in Western Europe says anymore "let's go to war because god wants us to be there".
I am not sure what your argument here is. Just because people have done horrible things in the name of some
idea doesn't mean that the
idea itself is at fault. Not to bring up Hitler again, but countless have been killed in the name of Social Darwinism. Should we reject Darwinism? There are people, indeed entire movements, which take an idea and twist it to rationalize horrible acts.
This may surprise you, but rationality is not exclusive to secularism. This was the argument I presented here (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9224.msg231192.html#msg231192). Peacefulness has always been a part of Christianity. But what is most important to understand is that religion, at least Catholicism, is an evolving thing. New doctrine and understanding is being added to its lexicon of theology. I would never directly attribute a cooled off Europe to the Church, but I would not be surprised if the fact that there are fewer killings motivated by God would please it.
Quote from: M forever on September 26, 2008, 09:41:53 AM
Apparently you read some books about that written from the Catholic perspective only, but apart from that, if you consider the possibility of "supernatural phenomena", why select these accounts? There are endless other accounts from all over the world.
You seem to think you know a lot about me from only a few posts. How do you know that my reading was Catholic literature
only?
Regardless, the answer to your question, why? My own research could only get me so far. I had to humble myself, admit I couldn't exhaustively study all of the world's religions, and accept that what I had learned from the Catholic Church made sense to me. This was a hard step because it went against a lot of what I had told myself was the right thing to do. But this was my
leap of faith. All converts have their's, this was mine.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 11:40:28 AM
. . . This may surprise you, but rationality is not exclusive to secularism.
The simple truth, which many of our neighbors fail to grasp.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 06:38:08 AM
The final thread which broke in my Atheism was the realization that my belief in science was based upon a philosophy of materialism and naturalism. Ultimately, all Atheists (distinct from agnostics) have to rationalize their beliefs through the lens of logical positivism, the philosophy that in order to have meaning an idea must be based on a physically tangible reality and must be falsifiable. Moreover, most Atheists believe that we can study the world through science and arrive at an objective understanding of that reality. I think it would be incorrect to characterize Atheists as needing proof to believe. More generally, they believe that if there is no chance for objective proof, then it is irrational to believe.
I don't accept that. Ideas can have meaning without referring to a physical objects. If you want to say that something nonphysical exists, you can indicate what you mean and how you can confirm it.
The objection is to ideas that posit the existence of something without indicating what would have to be true in order to confirm it, so that there's no discoverable difference to look for. That would place the question beyond any possible knowledge, rendering the original statement meaningless, and in fact a contradiction. The knowledge the statement must be based on in order to be about the world can't be had, so it isn't a statement about the world, it's at most a statement about a belief. As a belief it can have a type of meaning.
Logical positivism was an early stage in the history of analytical philosophy, which tried to make sense of the field by forcing speakers to define what they mean strictly enough so that they could understand what exactly they were saying. That way listeners wouldn't have to put up with so much nonsense.
:) Needless to say it hasn't caught on outside the boundaries of the discipline, nor entirely inside it. All philosophy is analytical, in the sense that understanding the meaning of statements and clarifying their meaning is a big part of what philosophers do. I think philosophy is this analysis to a large part, and the part about the specifics of what's true about the world is now science, at least at the frontiers. What we call ordinary life is just the science of an earlier time, or an earlier stage in our own life when we learned new things.
:D If I want to believe something I want to know what that is, and how I know it's true. If I don't know it's true why do I want to believe it? This doesn't seem like a truth, it seems like a wish, a desire. Shouldn't these be kept separate? There has to be a way of telling the difference, and there is. The ideas that can pass some test have truth value, and the ideas that can't be tested must find some other explanation. One such explanation is that the idea is a general rule, not a fact. An example is verification, which is used to establish the truth of a statement. Is verification itself true? No, it's a generalization about how to establish facts, not a fact itself. You could say that it's a meta-statement, not a fact about the world. Then there are value statements, which are treated differently. The situation is not as stark as you portray it. I don't go around trying to prove things any more than other people. Only the weird cases excite this behavior, so it's your fault.
;D
Well, Ernie, you'll see I included the word "falsifiable" especially for you. ;D
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 06:38:08 AM
The final thread which broke in my Atheism was the realization that my belief in science was based upon a philosophy of materialism and naturalism. Ultimately, all Atheists (distinct from agnostics) have to rationalize their beliefs through the lens of logical positivism, the philosophy that in order to have meaning an idea must be based on a physically tangible reality and must be falsifiable. Moreover, most Atheists believe that we can study the world through science and arrive at an objective understanding of that reality. I think it would be incorrect to characterize Atheists as needing proof to believe. More generally, they believe that if there is no chance for objective proof, then it is irrational to believe.
Also, I know I muddled logical positivism and verificationism, but they are often identified together.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:10:21 PM
Well, Ernie, you'll see I included the word "falsifiable" especially for you. ;D
Also, I know I muddled logical positivism and verificationism, but they are often identified together.
Yes, I see that.
:) And I'd point out that analytical philosophers are quite self critical. Logical positivism didn't give a very good account of value statements. They were termed emotive statements, not statements of fact. I think this is right, but insufficient. Value statements are not harmed by not being factual, and not meaningless. The emotional system tells us how to turn what we experience into action plans, because facts without desires can't tell you what to do about what you know. You have to feel something. On the other hand, feelings can't establish the facts they need to work on. Many statements made by believers are value statements disguised as fact statements, which creates a confirmation problem that needn't arise when the actual meaning is teased out from the verbal confusion.
People want a good life and want it to have as much meaning as possible, and they are willing to establish a fact rather than declare a value because this seems the quickest and surest way of doing it, and they are not too squeamish about the incongruities. There are also facts about death and suffering that are hard to accept, so they are not accepted. By covert means values become facts to solve these problems. It works well enough at the institutional level as well as the personal because it accords well with human nature which has a limited capacity to pursue truths beyond the survival value of what's near and immediate. We shouldn't be too surprised that a weak fact detection system is overruled by a very strong value system. The scientific/philosophical approach to these subjects is a late and somewhat discomfiting adaptation that doesn't need to be accepted universally to be valuable. People think they have the right to think what they want, and they do, of course. I just don't want the right to believe to be confused with warranted belief, which is what concerns me.
Quote from: drogulus on September 26, 2008, 12:16:50 PM
If I want to believe something I want to know what that is, and how I know it's true. If I don't know it's true why do I want to believe it? This doesn't seem like a truth, it seems like a wish, a desire. Shouldn't these be kept separate? There has to be a way of telling the difference, and there is. The ideas that can pass some test have truth value, and the ideas that can't be tested must find some other explanation. One such explanation is that the idea is a general rule, not a fact. An example is verification, which is used to establish the truth of a statement. Is verification itself true? No, it's a generalization about how to establish facts, not a fact itself. You could say that it's a meta-statement, not a fact about the world. Then there are value statements, which are treated differently. The situation is not as stark as you portray it. I don't go around trying to prove things any more than other people. Only the weird cases excite this behavior, so it's your fault. ;D
I didn't doubt you would say anything different (not that there is anything wrong with that 0:)).
This is a common criticism of religion. If you believe in the Christian God, then I can believe in vampires, or Hercules, or Frankenstein or a flying monster made of pasta. Or, because you don't have any proof, you just
want your God to exist because it
makes you feel good.
These are very good criticisms, in my opinion. The key component these arguments miss, and this is still a difficult one for me, is that belief in the (Christian) God generates Truth in the physical world. Faith tells believers the right way to live. Faith gives believers morals. Faith motivates believers to humble themselves and be kind to their neighbors. This is because only God holds the objective Truth, so he does not lead us astray. Faith tells us what to do, and even when a believer doesn't follow it, he knows he should have.
Belief in other things, though, does not offer this moral consistency. You may have morals, but if they are not grounded in an objective truth, they are arbitrary. You may say that you get your morals from Frankenstein, but in reality you are just making them up on your own. Even the evolutionary model of morals has this problem, because that theory simply states that the morals we have now are just the emergent set of whatever history we've had, not that these are the best set of morals.
This is a very Catholic understanding of the interaction of Faith and Truth, I'll admit. And no doubt M has his "bullshit" key on a hair trigger and will bring up the Crusades to show the immorality of all Christians, but that's OK. It will just allow me to write more. 8)
Quote from: JCampbell on September 25, 2008, 09:21:20 PM
Hey, Brian...how did your summer abstinance from GMG go? Did you get a ton of reading in?
41 books! Or maybe it was 43, I can't remember. ;D
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:42:08 PM
And no doubt M has his "bullshit" key on a hair trigger and will bring up the Crusades to show the immorality of all Christians, but that's OK.
It's right next to his "I find that interesting" key. ;D
Quote from: drogulus on September 26, 2008, 01:41:33 PM
By covert means values become facts to solve these problems. It works well enough at the institutional level as well as the personal because it accords well with human nature which has a limited capacity to pursue truths beyond the survival value of what's near and immediate. We shouldn't be too surprised that a weak fact detection system is overruled by a very strong value system. The scientific/philosophical approach to these subjects is a late and somewhat discomfiting adaptation that doesn't need to be accepted universally to be valuable. People think they have the right to think what they want, and they do, of course. I just don't want the right to believe to be confused with warranted belief, which is what concerns me.
Well, Ernie, my fact detection system is probably weaker than yours, but I'll go out on a limb here and declare that it is probably stronger than most. (I wouldn't have made it this far in grad school without it.) As such, I still converted first with my mind and then with my will.
I always find it weird that Atheists must always characterize religious people as weak in some way. I would like to think that one can be strong intellectually and still be religious. The differences lie in matters of philosophy, not in matters of intelligence.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:50:37 PM
Well, Ernie, my fact detection system is probably weaker than yours, but I'll go out on a limb here and declare that it is probably stronger than most. (I wouldn't have made it this far in grad school without it.)
maybe, maybe not. Are you on scolarship or are paying the school full tuition? :)
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:50:37 PM
Well, Ernie, my fact detection system is probably weaker than yours, but I'll go out on a limb here and declare that it is probably stronger than most.
Unless you're in the humanities like me; then it's your BS detection system, surely. ;D
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:50:37 PMI always find it weird that Atheists must always characterize religious people as weak in some way. I would like to think that one can be strong intellectually and still be religious. The differences lie in matters of philosophy, not in matters of intelligence.
Eh, that's a generalization [the first sentence]. I'm an atheist and have no problem telling you that Isaac Newton, Jane Goodall etc. are in no way "weak" because they believe in something. I believe that all people are basically good, and that's certainly irrational. ;D
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:50:37 PM
Well, Ernie, my fact detection system is probably weaker than yours, but I'll go out on a limb here and declare that it is probably stronger than most. (I wouldn't have made it this far in grad school without it.) As such, I still converted first with my mind and then with my will.
I always find it weird that Atheists must always characterize religious people as weak in some way.
For every atheist who does the above, there are probably 10 who simply mind their own business and keep their views to themselves. There are jerks in every religious/non-religious category.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:42:08 PM
The key component these arguments miss, and this is still a difficult one for me, is that belief in the (Christian) God generates Truth in the physical world.
No, I think my last post addresses this point. Belief does
not generate truths about the world beyond the dispositions of the believers. And then you illustrate precisely the point I tried to make in your next 3 sentences:
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:42:08 PM
Faith tells believers the right way to live. Faith gives believers morals. Faith motivates believers to humble themselves and be kind to their neighbors.
I couldn't put it better, though I certainly tried!
:)Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:50:37 PM
I always find it weird that Atheists must always characterize religious people as weak in some way. I would like to think that one can be strong intellectually and still be religious. The differences lie in matters of philosophy, not in matters of intelligence.
I don't do that. Smart people can believe dumb things, and provide brilliant rationalizations for doing so. I don't like to communicate with dumb people. It's nearly impossible to find anything interesting in what they say, and they don't understand anything I say, so it's a waste of time.
Brett, we had an interesting exchange about the meaning of objectivity some time back. How could I possibly have that with a dumb person? Maybe you know a better class of dumb person than I do. IMO, they're like, really awful!
:DQuote from: Bulldog on September 26, 2008, 01:58:30 PM
For every atheist who does the above, there are probably 10 who simply mind their own business and keep their views to themselves. There are jerks in every religious/non-religious category.
That's too bad. This works better if you play along and have it out. And it doesn't make you a jerk, either, though jerks are allowed to play, too.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 26, 2008, 01:58:30 PM
For every atheist who does the above, there are probably 10 who simply mind their own business and keep their views to themselves. There are jerks in every religious/non-religious category.
Amen. Well said, Don.
Quote from: Brian on September 26, 2008, 01:57:34 PM
Eh, that's a generalization [the first sentence]. I'm an atheist and have no problem telling you that Isaac Newton, Jane Goodall etc. are in no way "weak" because they believe in something. I believe that all people are basically good, and that's certainly irrational. ;D
Quote from: Bulldog on September 26, 2008, 01:58:30 PM
For every atheist who does the above, there are probably 10 who simply mind their own business and keep their views to themselves. There are jerks in every religious/non-religious category.
Yes, yes, yes. Pardon my generalizations. I should have said that I see this in the most outspoken Atheist, and I saw it in myself when I was an Atheist. This is, of course, not what I said, so I am sorry.
Quote from: drogulus on September 26, 2008, 02:03:13 PM
No, I think my last post addresses this point. Belief does not generate truths about the world beyond the dispositions of the believers.
But what other truth is there for beliefs, i.e. intangibles, to elucidate? Faith doesn't tell you about the material world. That is the unique job of science.
Quote from: adamdavid80 on September 26, 2008, 02:03:35 PM
Amen. Well said, Don.
I don't think there is anything about atheism that requires it to be kept private. The point is to explain the nature of beliefs in a way that makes the most sense, so you have to account for all the reasons beliefs are held. The truth of a belief is one reason, and there are others. There are survival values in some beliefs without regard to their truth. You may need to know the truth about a lion there in front of you, but the truth about a god is different. You have time to make up your mind, and tools you can use so you aren't thrown back on intuitions that aren't sharpened by the need to avoid being eaten.
:DQuote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 02:14:23 PM
But what other truth is there for beliefs, i.e. intangibles, to elucidate? Faith doesn't tell you about the material world. That is the unique job of science.
Beliefs don't elucidate truths except about what you feel and see in front of you. You need sharper tools to go beyond that. That's why I think the evolutionary explanation is good. It accounts for why we believe so accurately about near field things related to our needs and so poorly about distant things. We have to use our wits against our own inclinations to discover what's out there.
If you really believed that faith didn't tell you about the material world you'd have to reevaluate those beliefs that are telling you about it, like the existence of a supernatural realm beyond the material world, which is a theory about the material world in covert form. Science doesn't have a fenced off area to operate in. That's an unwarranted belief, too. There would be no way of discovering such a thing, so it's a contradiction to propose it. When something is actually discovered it isn't fenced off, it's incorporated, and that's unlikely to change. Quine talks about the "web of belief", and what I think this means is that when something new is found the web is altered in some ways. A new web is never started, since there's no need. We benefit greatly by not being absolutists that have to abandon everything instead of changing it.
:)
Quote from: drogulus on September 26, 2008, 02:32:19 PM
That's an unwarranted belief, too. There would be no way of discovering such a thing, so it's a contradiction to propose it.
Aww now c'mon Ernie. Is there any way to discover that
that is true?
Quote from: drogulus on September 26, 2008, 02:32:19 PM
I don't think there is anything about atheism that requires it to be kept private. The point is to explain the nature of beliefs in a way that makes the most sense, so you have to account for all the reasons beliefs are held.
Although I think the two of us possess similar views about religion, we differ greatly about the private/public issue. Sure, there's nothing that requires that atheism or theism be kept private. However, making these views public just causes dissension and ill-will, as we often see on this board of well educated and intelligent persons. IF everyone simply practiced their religious/non-religious beliefs in a private matter, the world would be more stable and amicable.
I'm confident you see good things that come out of debating these matters, but I see nothing but constant repetition and/or bitching.
Quote from: drogulus on September 26, 2008, 02:03:13 PM
That's too bad. This works better if you play along and have it out.
Well, I think it's a waste of time except for those who love the subject.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 02:45:41 PM
Aww now c'mon Ernie. Is there any way to discover that that is true?
Yes, by trying to see if there's warrant for the supernatural belief.
There's a realm beyond knowledge.
I have a belief about it.
The belief is therefore not knowledge.
Or, the first statement isn't true, and the belief is about something else.
How much more unwarranted can you get?
0:) Quote from: Bulldog on September 26, 2008, 02:52:41 PM
Well, I think it's a waste of time except for those who love the subject.
That's true. Hooray for those who are interested, then! All others beware!
(I think they do beware, don't they? But that's up to them)
Quote from: drogulus on September 26, 2008, 02:56:14 PM
How much more unwarranted can you get? 0:)
Ernie, by your own standards, the statement that all things should be verifiable is itself unwarranted. There is no way to prove things need verification to be true, therefore it is a belief.
Quote from: Catison on September 26, 2008, 01:42:08 PM
I didn't doubt you would say anything different (not that there is anything wrong with that 0:)).
This is a common criticism of religion. If you believe in the Christian God, then I can believe in vampires, or Hercules, or Frankenstein or a flying monster made of pasta. Or, because you don't have any proof, you just want your God to exist because it makes you feel good.
These are very good criticisms, in my opinion. The key component these arguments miss, and this is still a difficult one for me, is that belief in the (Christian) God generates Truth in the physical world. Faith tells believers the right way to live. Faith gives believers morals. Faith motivates believers to humble themselves and be kind to their neighbors. This is because only God holds the objective Truth, so he does not lead us astray. Faith tells us what to do, and even when a believer doesn't follow it, he knows he should have.
Belief in other things, though, does not offer this moral consistency. You may have morals, but if they are not grounded in an objective truth, they are arbitrary. You may say that you get your morals from Frankenstein, but in reality you are just making them up on your own. Even the evolutionary model of morals has this problem, because that theory simply states that the morals we have now are just the emergent set of whatever history we've had, not that these are the best set of morals.
This sounds like an explanation to my diving board analogy question, except I'm not sure i understand, still.......
Quote from: Al Moritz on September 26, 2008, 07:02:44 AM
Interesting post, Catison.
That is correct. However, science (not naturalism, if you mean philosophical naturalism; science has risen on a Christian background) will never be able to answer the ultimate questions of where did it all come from, why things are the way they are (I have extensively discussed this on "The Religion Thread" from not just a philosophical but also a scientific perspective, being a scientist myself). Thus, putting faith in science because in principle, "one day", it should be able to answer all questions is misguided.
I never claim that science will be able to answer all questions. Some of the questions may be well beyond the scope of science. However it is also misguided to think that just because they are out of the scope of science, they are automatically in the scope of something else (i.e. God). There is a good probability that they may not be in the scope of anything since
or if such questions are not valid to start with. Just because we have the mental capacity to ask them does not automatically guarantee that there is a valid answer -with or without a God involved. We can ask what the last decimal digit of Pi is, but there is no answer to that. Of course, I understand that these two questions are not equally important to us, but we do not decide on the answers, only on the questions that we desperately think should have an answer that we can comprehend [either scientifically, and if that does not happen, then spiritually].
Inserting a deity into the equation will not give us answers, it will only make the questions disappear. And that's perhaps fine if we can keep it at that. But we should also acknowledge that since no theist can claim to understand God, we will be back at where we started. We will either not understand God or we will not understand the universe. The difference between the two camps, perhaps, depends on which of these two we are more doubtful about.
Quote from: orbital on September 27, 2008, 03:33:38 PM
I never claim that science will be able to answer all questions.
Some here do, though.
Quote from: orbitalInserting a deity into the equation will not give us answers, it will only make the questions disappear.
Why do you suppose so?
QuoteQuote from: orbital
Inserting a deity into the equation will not give us answers, it will only make the questions disappear.
Maybe way back then when maybe people weren't allowed to ask certain questions, but I don't see how it makes questions disappear. nowadays.
Quote from: orbital on September 27, 2008, 03:33:38 PM
Inserting a deity into the equation will not give us answers, it will only make the questions disappear. And that's perhaps fine if we can keep it at that. But we should also acknowledge that since no theist can claim to understand God, we will be back at where we started. We will either not understand God or we will not understand the universe. The difference between the two camps, perhaps, depends on which of these two we are more doubtful about.
Great post. However, I would be careful with a statement that we can't understand God. It is true that we cannot know his face, his height, or if these physical attributes have any meaning for God. We cannot know his methods of creation or when/if he will wipe us off the earth. But we
can know he created us, for we are here, and that he loves us, for he has given us the capacity to love him in return. We
can know that he has given us free will, for we can freely sin. These are examples of ways to know about God without fully understanding him. These small truths tell us what he wants for us and how we should live our lives. So while you are right that we can't understand him, we can understand about him.
I know that the above probably looks like a lot of rationalization - a bunch of mumbo jumbo designed to confuse the issue. Perhaps you might think these theological "answers" are available only to make the ignorant feel as if they know something without telling anything. Or that the "answers" were generated after the doctrine, so that the Church could force its will upon people. But this is not what they are. These answers, however incomplete, were arrived at through intense theological effort, an effort anyone can freely examine. In a way, it parallels science in its rigor.
This difficulty, though, should not daunt a person from knowing God. Afterall, what good is the effort if we are only given a small picture? A parallel often used is love between people. A man and woman don't fall in love because they are sure they are perfect for each other. They don't examine health records, go through interviews, or take tests in order to love, they simply love without knowing exactly (in the scientific sense) who they love. In Catholic teachings, this earthly love is a guide for how to love God. We don't have to completely understand all aspects of God in order to follow him, we simply do.
And following God gives us Faith, and that Faith informs us of the Truth (whatever small piece we can discern). And the Truth tells us "Why?". This is, of course, the canonical question unreachable by materialism. Science itself cannot tell us what our purpose is. This is why theology is needed. It doesn't take the place of science, but compliments it, so that we know "How?" and "Why?". So I would not agree that God and science are two sides of the same coin, both incapable of being understood. It is much more complicated than that.
Quote from: M forever on September 27, 2008, 10:32:11 PM
In Catholic teachings, that is just being dirty and animal-like. And strictly forbidden.
Undoubtedly, your statement is a vivid testimony to your deep understanding of Catholic theology >:D
Sorry for the long post, and all those quotation breaks.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 27, 2008, 04:10:16 PM
Why do you suppose so?
Because if it did provide the answer, there would not be any logical reason why it would not be accepted by every sane person in the world. It is not like (all) the atheists have something against God and that they all bury their heads to what is obvious. As long as there are atheists around, it should be accepted that the religious answer is not all-encompassing. Just like the other way around. As long as religion is alive it also means that positive science has not answered the questions objectively and once and for all.
Also, I think saying "God created us" takes its credit from nothing else other than the only source that claims its existence.
To me, religion is like saying "Look, we are curious about a lot of things, but we can not answer them. However,
if there was this entity called 'God' it would all make perfect sense."
This is a plausible way of thinking, no contest. But it does not provide an answer as much as it shows a way out. But that way out does not lead anywhere. And we are still curious about "how" he did it, but are given that we cannot know it, for he works in ways that we can never understand.
Quote from: Catison on September 27, 2008, 08:24:50 PM
Great post. However, I would be careful with a statement that we can't understand God.
Perhaps I did not phrase it correctly. I should have said "we cannot know God
in its entirety What we can know about him is -by its very definition- limited to what he chooses to let us know. And he does/did it by giving us a mental capacity to that effect.
Quote
It is true that we cannot know his face, his height, or if these physical attributes have any meaning for God. We cannot know his methods of creation or when/if he will wipe us off the earth. But we can know he created us, for we are here, and that he loves us, for he has given us the capacity to love him in return. We can know that he has given us free will, for we can freely sin. These are examples of ways to know about God without fully understanding him. These small truths tell us what he wants for us and how we should live our lives. So while you are right that we can't understand him, we can understand about him.
But if it is not full knowledge -and since it can never be- how is that any different than what Al objects to about naturalism? We don't know exactly
how God created the universe, just that he created it. Similarly we don't know how universe came to be, just that it did.
Hence my claim that God does not answer the question(s) as much as it makes them disappear. We accept what is revealed to us by religious texts or we except what we have so far found based on scientific theories and settle for the possible fact that we may not go to the very bottom of it all.
In either case, I still believe that the questions are not valid.
Let me try to give another example for questions that may not have an answer readily at hand:
To the extent of our knowledge of physics, we must accept that we have never been or will never be visited by extraterrestrial beings (should they exist in the first place), and similarly that we will never meet with them with our own effort. The limit of current science says that the speed of light is not breachable, and thus a contact is physically impossible. But the question is not easily answerable, still. We are not in a position to say that the reigning scientific theory will hold in the future, so whether we will be able to go to distant galaxies to search for life cannot be answered with a "yes" or a "no". We simply do not know at this point.
Quote
I know that the above probably looks like a lot of rationalization - a bunch of mumbo jumbo designed to confuse the issue. Perhaps you might think these theological "answers" are available only to make the ignorant feel as if they know something without telling anything. Or that the "answers" were generated after the doctrine, so that the Church could force its will upon people. But this is not what they are. These answers, however incomplete, were arrived at through intense theological effort, an effort anyone can freely examine. In a way, it parallels science in its rigor.
I don't find it mumbo jambo at all. Just that it only makes sense to people who already believe.
Quote
This difficulty, though, should not daunt a person from knowing God. Afterall, what good is the effort if we are only given a small picture? A parallel often used is love between people. A man and woman don't fall in love because they are sure they are perfect for each other. They don't examine health records, go through interviews, or take tests in order to love, they simply love without knowing exactly (in the scientific sense) who they love. In Catholic teachings, this earthly love is a guide for how to love God. We don't have to completely understand all aspects of God in order to follow him, we simply do.
What you can know about God is limited. It is limited to what he cared to let you know. If you believe in his omnipotence, how can you be positive that he does not have myriads of other facets that he has not revealed to you? You love him by the things that he has shown you, and that's perfectly fine. But I think that claiming to know him above and beyond the Bible/Koran/Talmud [if that counts] would be a delusion.
Quote
And following God gives us Faith, and that Faith informs us of the Truth (whatever small piece we can discern). And the Truth tells us "Why?". This is, of course, the canonical question unreachable by materialism. Science itself cannot tell us what our purpose is. This is why theology is needed. It doesn't take the place of science, but compliments it, so that we know "How?" and "Why?". So I would not agree that God and science are two sides of the same coin, both incapable of being understood. It is much more complicated than that.
I think the dilemma here is that science can dismiss God at a whim. However, looking from the opposite perspective, science is a creation of God anyway, so they cannot be separated. Science has the luxury to say "We do not care about the 'how's' and particularly the 'why's, you may ask yourself these questions but it is not our responsibility to answer them." This puts belief at a small disadvantage since the rational believer will have to reconcile his beliefs with the scientific findings while the non-believer scientific crowd will only have to care about God when and if a scientific finding points in God's direction.
I sense that some see this as the atheist's arrogance while in most cases it is the natural outcome of this way of thinking and it can't be helped.
orbital,
You ask good, serious theological questions. The amazing thing is that these questions have been mulled over for thousands of years, and occasionally there are very good answers. The Catholic Church, again surprisingly, has been a source of some of the best philosophical thinking and provides a multitude of answers that I think are worth exploring, even for an atheist. St. Thomas Aquinas is a classic example, but you may also be interested in Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) by the recent pope John Paul II, who deals with the problem of how faith and reason intertwine. He was actually a very good philosopher, in the classical sense of the word.
So I am going to punt on your questions, not because they aren't interesting, but because I don't have the time. However, it would be a mistake, IMHO, to give up on these ideas, because if you can't connect the dots, it doesn't mean someone else hasn't, and successfully.
i still feel left hanging....... :-\
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 28, 2008, 03:21:19 PM
i still feel left hanging....... :-\
Sorry Greg. If you (or anyone else) PM's me, I would be happy to chat about the things I have come to believe.
Quote from: orbital on September 28, 2008, 02:57:01 PM
Because if it did provide the answer, there would not be any logical reason why it would not be accepted by every sane person in the world.
I don't mean to do you any discourtesy by excising the remainder of your post, which has many good ideas to it. But I don't know that this quite follows at all. Consider what I find a piercingly incisive remark by Archbishop Fulton Sheen:
You cannot make a man good against his will. No amount of logic ensures that anyone's will shall conform to what, logically, you demonstrate to be good to him.
OTOH, there is a sense in which you are right, here. Choosing to do ill when when understands what is good, and has the power to do good, is not quite sanity. It is only that under that understanding,
all the sane people in the world may not be quite the overwhelming majority we might wish.
Quote from: orbital on September 28, 2008, 02:57:01 PM
I think the dilemma here is that science can dismiss God at a whim. However, looking from the opposite perspective, science is a creation of God anyway, so they cannot be separated. Science has the luxury to say "We do not care about the 'how's' and particularly the 'why's, you may ask yourself these questions but it is not our responsibility to answer them." This puts belief at a small disadvantage since the rational believer will have to reconcile his beliefs with the scientific findings while the non-believer scientific crowd will only have to care about God when and if a scientific finding points in God's direction.
I sense that some see this as the atheist's arrogance while in most cases it is the natural outcome of this way of thinking and it can't be helped.
This perspective is understandable, but it is based on a number of misconceptions.
a)
"Science can dismiss God at a whim." No, it can't, because the question of God's existence is not the domain of science. Science can only analyze things, what and how they are, but it cannot say anything about why they are there in the first place. Certainly, science is a problem for the "God of the gaps", but this is not the God of mainstream theology.
As Ken Miller, one of the most prominent defenders of evolution today (he was also one of the star witnesses in the Dover trial against Intelligent Design), writes:
(http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf)
"The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find Him there, they conclude that He does not exist. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, the explanation of why things are. He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself."
(This should be self-evident if God created nature -- then He stands outside nature.)
b)
"This puts belief at a small disadvantage since the rational believer will have to reconcile his beliefs with the scientific findings." This reeks of the old fallacy that believers have to be in the defense position. However, since for believers the natural world is a creation of God, science, which investigates this natural world, can never truly contradict religion. It simply studies the works of God, while divine revelation (including the Bible) is the word of God, to paraphrase what the first scientists who started the scientific revolution said.
Science did not start in opposition of religion, but from a religious foundation -- all the opposite of a "defense" position. As biochemist, atheist and Nobel Prize winner Melvin Calvin writes in
Chemical Evolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 258: "The fundamental conviction that the universe is ordered is the first and strongest tenet [of science]. As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely, that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science."
The "conflict thesis" of science vs. religion is dismissed by all notable historical scholars in the field today, it only lives forth in the popular imagination and in the atheist mind. The relationship between Church and science has overall been a smooth ride, only with the Galileo case as an (admittedly serious) bump in the road -- yet even there the dispute was not about science in a clear-cut way, but also mingled with politics and theology (Galileo wanted to re-write the Bible, something that obviously has nothing to do with science).
What about the creation story in the Bible? Already in the 4th century St. Augustine warned against a literal interpretation of the Bible. Basically, it was a non-issue a 1000+ years before the rise of science -- no "defense" adjustments of interpretation in the wake of the advances of science were needed.
And evolution? The great Cardinal Newman – considered for sainthood in the Catholic Church – dismissed Paley's "proof of God" (the watchmaker analogy, attacked by Dawkins in
The Blind Watchmaker) already several years before Darwin's
The Origin of Species appeared. And in an 1863 entry in his
Philosophical Notebooks, four years after the publication of
The Origin of Species, he endorses Darwin's views as plausible and suggests he might "go the whole hog with Darwin". Newman believed that God let His work develop through secondary causes, and in 1868 he wrote "Mr. Darwin's theory need not be atheistical, be it true or not; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill."
c)
"while the non-believer scientific crowd will only have to care about God when and if a scientific finding points in God's direction." It should care but it doesn't. While the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature has convinced some atheists that God must exist, others refuse to even consider the issue properly, as is evident from all the unbelievable and mostly uninformed fake excuses that I have read on the issue. As I had said before, those who are not willing to abandon naturalism will always find a way to convince themselves that it is not necessary.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 28, 2008, 03:33:23 PM
Consider what I find a piercingly incisive remark by Archbishop Fulton Sheen: You cannot make a man good against his will. No amount of logic ensures that anyone's will shall conform to what, logically, you demonstrate to be good to him.
Basically the same attitude, only in slightly milder form these days, which is behind what the churches practiced for a very long time and which is also behind Stalin's (and other hardline "communists'" and other ideological fanatics') "philosophy": the people need to be re-educated, and if they don't get that, we put them in labor camps, if they don't get that, we just deport them to remote places or simple execute them".
How nice of Mr Sheen to think of himself as a particularly good person who is in a position to tell other people what's best for them.
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 01:35:32 PM
Basically the same attitude, only in slightly milder form these days, which is behind what the churches practiced for a very long time and which is also behind Stalin's (and other hardline "communists'" and other ideological fanatics') "philosophy": the people need to be re-educated, and if they don't get that, we put them in labor camps, if they don't get that, we just deport them to remote places or simple execute them".
Actually, I think you'll find that one of the Church's great tenets is man's free will. It is commonly used to show how man is made in God's image. God is all knowing (complete, perfect knowledge) while man has intellect. God is all powerful (complete, perfect ability) while man has free will. In both cases, man has been given an ability in the image of God but not in the fullness of God.
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 01:35:32 PM
How nice of Mr Sheen to think of himself as a particularly good person who is in a position to tell other people what's best for them.
I hate to break it to you, but this is entirely a church's job.
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 01:35:32 PM
How nice of Mr Sheen to think of himself as a particularly good person who is in a position to tell other people what's best for them.
But,
M, that is an amusingly bizarre reading of the statement. You aren't
really missing the point, are you? Of all the people on this board to resort to strawmen and smokescreens . . . .
What is the point I am missing?
Quote from: Catison on September 29, 2008, 02:49:34 PM
I hate to break it to you, but this is entirely a church's job.
I think you are right about that. That's what they all try to do, all the different "faiths" and "denominations". And all the central party committees and propaganda ministeries etcetc of history and of today. That is why it is so good that we have gotten rid of that to a large degree. Although there is still work to be done.
Of course, if you personally decide to follow this or that prescribed "path" to "salvation", or "enlightenment", or even "resurrection", you should be allowed to do so, too. Religion shouldn't be outlawed as it mostly was under the communist systems.
Just don't tell other people what is best for them in that respect. Or actually, you can tell them, preach to them, try to convince them, why not? But there should be no worldly powers invoved in making people follow this or that religion or ideology.
Quote from: Catison on September 29, 2008, 02:49:34 PM
I hate to break it to you, but this is entirely a church's job.
And that's one of the primary reasons why I hate to be located in a religious facility. Tomorrow morning I'll be in one, and I'm already trying to get into the stupor mode.
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 03:56:09 PM
Just don't tell other people what is best for them in that respect. Or actually, you can tell them, preach to them, try to convince them, why not? But there should be no worldly powers invoved in making people follow this or that religion or ideology.
I couldn't agree more. Which is why, at least in this country, religious institutions don't
make people follow anything.
Ooops, sorry, all the time I thought you were located in the US. Where are you actually located?
Quote from: Bulldog on September 29, 2008, 04:11:31 PM
And that's one of the primary reasons why I hate to be located in a religious facility. Tomorrow morning I'll be in one, and I'm already trying to get into the stupor mode.
I was in one earlier, actually. A Catholic nun convent, if that is the right term. They called us because the Lord had decided to let their A/V presentation equipment go to hell (pun intended). I actually am more involved in the cinema/studio area, and A/V stuff is typically handled by our commercial sound department, but since they were all out and I couldn't come up with anything to pretend I was busy, so I went and fixed that for them. They were actually all very nice. So now, Jesus is back on screen, thanks to me!
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 04:19:22 PM
I was in one earlier, actually. A Catholic nun convent, if that is the right term. They called us because the Lord had decided to let their A/V presentation equipment go to hell (pun intended). I actually am more involved in the cinema/studio area, and A/V stuff is typically handled by our commercial sound department, but since they were all out and I couldn't come up with anything to pretend I was busy, so I went and fixed that for them. They were actually all very nice. So now, Jesus is back on screen, thanks to me!
God bless you.
That's what they said, too.
I said "sign here, please" (referring to the service report).
Quote from: Bulldog on September 29, 2008, 04:11:31 PM
And that's one of the primary reasons why I hate to be located in a religious facility. Tomorrow morning I'll be in one, and I'm already trying to get into the stupor mode.
Believing in something fervently often makes people want to talk about it...a lot. This behavior isn't unique to religions, although I don't know a single religious person who doesn't feel like s/he needs to spread the message. When you believe you've found the path toward true salvation, that experience is a little hard to contain. Then there are those who feel like they are not following their religion if they don't tell everyone to convert. Those people are plain annoying, and often do their faith a disservice.
But it isn't always that way. Churches, especially Protestant churches, are more often community centers than places of worship. When I was an Atheist, I used to play tuba in many churches for gigs. Eventually I got used to it, because I realized people didn't really care.
Its kind of like going to the gym for the first time. You think everyone is going to stare at you and think you're the fat one. You think everyone will be really fit and look great and be training for marathons. Then you get there are you are really self conscious, not knowing what you are doing. But after awhile you realize no one cares who you are, and what you are doing. If anything, they are glad someone else is taking care of themselves.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 29, 2008, 04:11:31 PM
And that's one of the primary reasons why I hate to be located in a religious facility.
Well, like any worthwhile human endeavor, there are many who go about it wrong; even criminally wrong -- I mean, consider
M: isn't all his rude bluffness an attempt to cow people into being "better" (by his lights)? And, does he much succeed?
I am inclined to think,
Don, that you agree that the unexamined life is &c. (And I am sure you examine your life.) A large reason why we train ourselves to examine our life, is to the end of improving ourselves. Not only improving our external lot, but improving our character.
Well, I've certainly found the input of other people (rather wiser than myself at various points in my life) of great value, to the end of improving myself. (I am guessing that you do not object in principle to the idea of other people contributing to the betterment of one's character.) And, in fact (in my experience), many of these people (and I owe far the greater part of my personal betterment to them) have been in the church.
Having said that, I can think immediately of a dozen churches I should run a mile in tight shoes rather than attend a service in them; so I rather think I take your point 0:)
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 04:19:22 PM
A Catholic nun convent, if that is the right term.
The right term, but (incidentally) redundant. In English,
convent implies nuns (a monastery for men would not be called a
convent).
Quote from: karlhenning on September 29, 2008, 04:24:51 PM
Well, like any worthwhile human endeavor, there are many who go about it wrong; even criminally wrong -- I mean, consider M: isn't all his rude bluffness an attempt to cow people into being "better" (by his lights)?
No, it's just letting them know when they are talking BS.
Plus, often giving them better information and context.
Plus, rasing the level of the discussion from "I have no clue but, anyway, blablabla" to "I have this information and/or opinion for you, and here is the background".
But it's not trying to make them "better". I am not a missionary. I am just M.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 29, 2008, 04:24:51 PM
And, does he much succeed?
Sometimes.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 29, 2008, 04:24:51 PM
Well, I've certainly found the input of other people (rather wiser than myself at various points in my life) of great value, to the end of improving myself. (I am guessing that you do not object in principle to the idea of other people contributing to the betterment of one's character.)
We can all benefit from such input, but not from self-appointed saints. From people who know and understand us (in other words, good friends) and who may have gone through similar experiences like ourselves and processed them. Not people applying rules from ancient fairy tales to other people's lives.
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 04:33:17 PM
We can all benefit from such input, but not from self-appointed saints. From people who know and understand us (in other words, good friends) and who may have gone through similar experiences like ourselves and processed them. Not people applying rules from ancient fairy tales to other people's lives.
You're clouding things, which you are apt to do in your eagerness to express scorn. "Self-appointment" is certainly insufferable, in a great many contexts. Sometimes, self-appointed BS-criers, for instance. It is not 'raising the level of discourse' to scream BS, when the actual matter is one of different opinion.
I won't even trouble to take the bait of your "fairy-tales." You really have trouble treating the fellow who sees things differently to you, with the respect that person may well deserve?
Sorry I missed you on your way through the home-town. I was still at the office when you rang; and traffic being an exogenous variable . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on September 29, 2008, 04:40:51 PM
You're clouding things, which you are apt to do in your eagerness to express scorn. "Self-appointment" is certainly insufferable, in a great many contexts. Sometimes, self-appointed BS-criers, for instance. It is not 'raising the level of discourse' to scream BS, when the actual matter is one of different opinion.
Have I ever accused you of BSing (I mean, in musical contexts)?
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 04:49:10 PM
Have I ever accused you of BSing (I mean, in musical contexts)?
Point, please?
Quote from: karlhenning on September 29, 2008, 04:24:51 PM
Well, like any worthwhile human endeavor, there are many who go about it wrong; even criminally wrong -- I mean, consider M: isn't all his rude bluffness an attempt to cow people into being "better" (by his lights)? And, does he much succeed?
M has nothing to do with my religious views. But if I see him tomorrow at the temple, I'll give him a big hug. 8)
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 04:23:01 PM
That's what they said, too.
I said "sign here, please" (referring to the service report).
That was funny. ;D
I also said, "you will get a heavenly bill". She looked at me a little puzzled, so I explained, "well, our office manager who processes all the service work and bills and all that is named Celine - which means
the Heavenly". She thought that was really funny.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 29, 2008, 04:57:02 PM
Point, please?
Point is, I don't "attack" people who have a different opinion if it is based on a solid background rather than something they have read somewhere but not understood or some biased nonsense they came up with randomly. I don't "attack" people either who do that but are open to a discussion. I just can't stand - in real life just as online - people who pretend to be or know things they aren't or don't. And I don't think you have any reason to complain about me being mean to you.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 29, 2008, 04:57:40 PM
M has nothing to do with my religious views. But if I see him tomorrow at the temple, I'll give him a big hug. 8)
:)
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 05:05:52 PM
Point is, I don't "attack" people who have a different opinion if it is based on a solid background rather than something they have read somewhere but not understood or some biased nonsense they came up with randomly. I don't "attack" people either who do that but are open to a discussion. I just can't stand - in real life just as online - people who pretend to be or know things they aren't or don't. And I don't think you have any reason to complain about me being mean to you.
1. Why "attack" people who have a different opinion, at all? Why "attack" people who feel differently about discussion than you do?
2. Keep in mind that the question arises in a discussion about religious beliefs. Dismissing religious beliefs as "fairy-tales" or "some biased nonsense they came up with randomly" is arrogant and ill-mannered. An inability to learn how to treat people who hold religious beliefs with some respect, does not reflect well on you.
3. In general, a distaste for people "who pretend to be or know things they aren't or don't" is not a matter I have any quarrel to. You apply that a little too readily, and a little too unthinkingly, in certain types of discussion. This, too, is something very other than 'raising the level of discourse'.
4. You have not accused me of BS, so far as I can tell, in any discussion. I am not complaining, I am discussing.
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 05:05:52 PM
I just can't stand - in real life just as online - people who pretend to be or know things they aren't or don't.
In your effort to provoke, you also show your extreme naivety of Christianity. I don't mean to suggest that you should change your views or even consider the other side, but it is always more interesting to discuss with a knowledgeable person. And, with statements like the above, you do your conviction against hypocrisy a great disservice.
What do you guys have against fairy tales? I think fairy tales are wonderful. I am a big fan of fairy tales, legends, epics, mythologies. I find them very fascinating phenomena of our cultural heritage.
BTW, Catison, you really don't want to get into a discussion of Christianity with me. Believe me. That would get really ugly. I know tons more about that subject than you do. And not just from the Catholic angle and a few other prep books you may have read, but from many other angles and historical perspectives, especially about early and earliest Christianity. That is a subject I have studied for for a long time as it coincides with main interests for me such as the above stated, as well as history, archaeology, and other areas such as linguistics which deeply fascinate me. Unlike you, I have actually read most of the NT in the original.
So when you crack me up a little bit because you somehow decided that Catholicism is the ultimate truth for you, I am not even (in that context) laughing about Catholicism in particular, but rather about the naive (and desperate?) and pretty much random and uninformed decision of someone to suddenly check his brain at the entrance and subscribe to a given form of organized religion. Because it somehow "convinced" you that it was the one and only truth. Even though, as you said yourself, you never got around to checking out most of the other belief systems which claim the exact same thing.
I know, that may come a little as a surprise. I know you run into a lot of people who make fun of that subject but know next to nothing about it. It is easy for you to counter their "arguments" with the scripted answers to which you have also treated us here. But in a really serious discussion, you would run out of those almost instantly. So let's save ourselves the typing time.
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 05:39:31 PM
What do you guys have against fairy tales? I think fairy tales are wonderful. I am a big fan of fairy tales, legends, epics, mythologies. I find them very fascinating phenomena of our cultural heritage.
Excellent.
You were giving the impression, you know, that folks who have traffic with fairy-tales are, I dunno, verging on BS.
Of course, by BS you probably mean the abbreviation of some noble characteristic . . . .
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 05:39:31 PM
. . . the naive (and desperate?) and pretty much random and uninformed decision of someone to suddenly check his brain at the entrance and subscribe to a given form of organized religion.
I think we need to consider the actual meaning of
random.
Hmm. "Checking his brain at the entrance" . . . "a given form of organized religion." Yes, no remote possibility of reading that as an insult, right?
Let me think about that for a moment...no, I don't think a self-confident grownup would read that as a real insult. Especially not one who has found eternal truth.
That's just the impression someone makes on me when he tells me he didn't use to believe in anything, but then, he thought the supernatural might be real after all (which is a very reasonable thought as such), so let's see, who offers it as a complete package, oh, there are so many, hey, I don't have all the time (and patience?) to look into all of these, let's just go with the next best one and start quoting the scripted answers.
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 05:39:31 PM
BTW, Catison, you really don't want to get into a discussion of Christianity with me. Believe me. That would get really ugly. I know tons more about that subject than you do. And not just from the Catholic angle and a few other prep books you may have read, but from many other angles and historical perspectives, especially about early and earliest Christianity. That is a subject I have studied for for a long time as it coincides with main interests for me such as the above stated, as well as history, archaeology, and other areas such as linguistics which deeply fascinate me. Unlike you, I have actually read most of the NT in the original.
I am sorry, but I thought we
were discussion Christianity. I would be honored to discuss this topic with you, because you obviously have a lot to teach, if you have so carefully studied the subject. As you already know, I am in a turning point in my life, and this subject is at the top of my interests. Like you, this fascinates me.
And forgive me for mistaking your knowledge. I have missed a post or two, and I don't think I've read your religious arguments before.
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 05:39:31 PM
I know, that may come a little as a surprise. I know you run into a lot of people who make fun of that subject but know next to nothing about it. It is easy for you to counter their "arguments" with the scripted answers to which you have also treated us here. But in a really serious discussion, you would run out of those almost instantly. So let's save ourselves the typing time.
I have said many times that what I was writing was from the Catholic perspective, so it is probably natural that it appears scripted. My own learning has come mostly from the Church documents, and, for whatever reason, these have seemed to elucidate these issues in profound ways that I hadn't considered. I am, however, a new student, so bear with me.
I would honestly be interested in your opinion on some of these matters. What books have been the most influential in your studies? Have you found one source you value more than all others?
Or if you have a post or two which you think might summarize your views, then point me toward those. I know how easily these "big" discussion can take up your time. :)
lol, i bet this could go on forever
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 05:39:31 PM
I have actually read most of the NT in the original.
Την Καινή Διαθήκη; Which edition?
Quote from: Wanderer on September 29, 2008, 11:22:35 PM
Την Καινή Διαθήκη; Which edition?
Perhaps he meant the original German?
Quote from: karlhenning on September 30, 2008, 05:16:39 AM
Perhaps he meant the original German?
I am often reminded of the former governor of Texas, "Ma" Ferguson,
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas schoolchildren".Although wikiquote says its misattributed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Miriam_A._Ferguson). :(
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 05:46:27 AM
I am often reminded of the former governor of Texas, "Ma" Ferguson, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas schoolchildren".
Although wikiquote says its misattributed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Miriam_A._Ferguson). :(
Its even more unlikely she said it. Check out: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003084.html
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 05:46:27 AM
I am often reminded of the former governor of Texas, "Ma" Ferguson, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas schoolchildren".
Although wikiquote says its misattributed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Miriam_A._Ferguson). :(
Yikes! I've always heard this story as an ultra-rightwing Washngton Congressman saying it on the senate floor, in his support for an amendment to make english the national language! cool find!
Quote from: adamdavid80 on September 30, 2008, 05:50:28 AM
Yikes! I've always heard this story as an ultra-rightwing Washngton Congressman saying it on the senate floor, in his support for an amendment to make english the national language! cool find!
I have no problem with making English the national language. You want to be a citizen of this country, learn the language. It is a joke that driver license and other tests are given in different languages.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 30, 2008, 05:54:27 AM
I have no problem with making English the national language. You want to be a citizen of this country, learn the language. It is a joke that driver license and other tests are given in different languages.
That's whole different conversation. This thread is concerned with God reassembling lost limbs! :)
Quote from: orbital on September 28, 2008, 02:57:01 PM
Because if it did provide the answer, there would not be any logical reason why it would not be accepted by every sane person in the world. It is not like (all) the atheists have something against God and that they all bury their heads to what is obvious. As long as there are atheists around, it should be accepted that the religious answer is not all-encompassing. Just like the other way around. As long as religion is alive it also means that positive science has not answered the questions objectively and once and for all.
Also, I think saying "God created us" takes its credit from nothing else other than the only source that claims its existence.
To me, religion is like saying "Look, we are curious about a lot of things, but we can not answer them. However, if there was this entity called 'God' it would all make perfect sense."
This is a plausible way of thinking, no contest. But it does not provide an answer as much as it shows a way out. But that way out does not lead anywhere. And we are still curious about "how" he did it, but are given that we cannot know it, for he works in ways that we can never understand.
Great post! (all of it not just the excerpted bit). Just felt people hadn't given it sufficient praise or attention!
Why don't amputees heal God?
In my last link, I found the most interesting analysis of this cartoon.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
For some reason I felt compelled to post it. 8) :P $:)
Yes that's a classic! ;D
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 06:10:59 AM
In my last link, I found the most interesting analysis of this cartoon.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
For some reason I felt compelled to post it. 8) :P $:)
Excellent! Well, we've all been there, haven't we?
Quote from: Guido on September 30, 2008, 06:09:16 AM
Great post! (all of it not just the excerpted bit). Just felt people hadn't given it sufficient praise or attention!
I totally agree. It was a very well argued post.
However, a statement like this:
"As long as religion is alive it also means that positive science has not answered the questions objectively and once and for all." implies that religion could go away if only we knew everything. But I think we might all agree that science has not told us our purpose, nor will it try.
Yes, it was well-argued.
I am not saying either that God is all-obvious to everyone. However, if atheists would concede that believers can, in fact, be just as rational as they are, their position might deserve far more respect than with the current average attitude.
And I agree with Catison's last post: science cannot answer all the questions, and the atheist argumentation should not make itself depending on the pretense that one day, in principle it will be able to (I have recently pointed out that this is a fallacy).
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 06:18:32 AM
I totally agree. It was a very well argued post.
However, a statement like this: "As long as religion is alive it also means that positive science has not answered the questions objectively and once and for all." implies that religion could go away if only we knew everything. But I think we might all agree that science has not told us our purpose, nor will it try.
Right; the point has been made repeatedly in the past, that religion and science investigate different areas.
(And that the idea that science is fit to investigate all areas of life, is itself a faith-based initiative 0:) )
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 06:18:32 AM
However, a statement like this: "As long as religion is alive it also means that positive science has not answered the questions objectively and once and for all." implies that religion could go away if only we knew everything. But I think we might all agree that science has not told us our purpose, nor will it try.
There is also the common Atheist argument, "Who says there is a purpose?". This argument attempts to undermine religion's claim to understand purpose by denying it exists. But that clouds the issue. If a purpose doesn't exist, then science can still not tell us about it, by definition. It will always remain a thing of philosophy.
Yes, I do not believe in purpose beyond that of the social context in which we live (or perhaps the darwinian bioligical context) and do believe that religion creates the 'problem of purpose' and then solves it instantly - this to me is an artificiality and not inherrent to the human condition - it's just very ingrained because so many generations have been educated to believe that there is one. The same could be said of morality. While I find darwinian explanations of morality convincing (and perhaps Al will too given his naturalistic beliefs with regards to the evolution of humans), I find any discussion of the so called 'truth' of that morality bizarre... morality here is reduced to a (admittedly complex) survival mechanism, and social phenomenon, not a metaphysical, philosophical one. When philosophers start making claims like 'in all likelyhood, humans have the wrong morality, because it arose by natural selection and is as such the morality which most encourages survival and reproduction in human populations', this vexes me, as it presuposes that there is in fact a true morality. I find all these questions completely besides the point, whether philosophers think that our morality contains degrees of truth or not - when asked why they think a 'true morality' exists, and how it could (metaphysically) I have never been able to find anything beyond 'just an intuition' that there is. This to me screams out that this is a cultural (educational) phenomenon... Hmm I've wandered slightly ff track, but that has stopped anyone on religion threads before!
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 09:36:46 AM
There is also the common Atheist argument, "Who says there is a purpose?". This argument attempts to undermine religion's claim to understand purpose by denying it exists. But that clouds the issue. If a purpose doesn't exist, then science can still not tell us about it, by definition. It will always remain a thing of philosophy.
It doesn't cloud any issue. There is no good reason to believe humans have a purpose. Nothing points towards it, and so it is a very valid and neccesary thing to do to question its whole notion. If someone wants to claim we do have a purpose, then it is up to them to prove it, and that has not been done. Nor has any even far-out theory been suggested - theory being something useful to help explain something. Purpose is not at all useful.
Quote from: M forever on September 30, 2008, 10:15:37 AM
Aland.
And how did you cope with the constant back and forth between text and translation? Are you at least relatively fluent in deciphering basic syntax in Greek sentences? I may take these texts for granted, but I think the effort required for comprehension by a non-native speaker would be quite copious... and admirable.
Quote from: Guido on September 30, 2008, 10:19:47 AM
I find all these questions completely besides the point, whether philosophers think that our morality contains degrees of truth or not - when asked why they think a 'true morality' exists, and how it could (metaphysically) I have never been able to find anything beyond 'just an intuition' that there is.
Consider this example. A man kills his wife because she wasn't able to produce children, and then at trial explains, "Your honor, you only find my acts heinous because you have an old morality. My morality has evolved."
Without and understanding of a good, objective morality, how can we hold anyone responsible for their actions when we are only judging them by our personal morals?
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 10:57:59 AM
Consider this example. A man kills his wife because she wasn't able to produce children, and then at trial explains, "Your honor, you only find my acts heinous because you have an old morality. My morality has evolved."
Well, actually, this exists in some cultures. Except there's no trial or explanation to the judge, b/c it IS considered perfectly moral.
Quote from: adamdavid80 on September 30, 2008, 11:03:32 AM
Well, actually, this exists in some cultures. Except there's no trial or explanation to the judge, b/c it IS considered perfectly moral.
So, its ok, right?
Quote from: Norbeone on September 30, 2008, 10:38:43 AM
If someone wants to claim we do have a purpose, then it is up to them to prove it, and that has not been done.
Yes, this is my point. The question of purpose is outside the realm of science. It will forever remain in the realm of philosophy, as is the case of
your personal philosophy:
Quote from: Norbeone on September 30, 2008, 10:38:43 AM
There is no good reason to believe humans have a purpose.
Can't put it simpler than that.
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 10:57:59 AM
Without and understanding of a good, objective morality, how can we hold anyone responsible for their actions when we are only judging them by our personal morals?
There is no such thing as "objective" morals. Its all conventions. If there was, then it would be an exact and absolute science, which as people here keep pointing out, is something that doesn't exist.
There is no such thing as "personal morals" either. What you think is good and bad only applies to yourself, and you are free to think to think and do whatever you like (by "you are", I mean that in the sense of "one is", not necessarily of
you as a person, because you have apparently decided to give up your intellectual and spiritual freedom) - as long as it does not negatively affect other people.
At that point, negotiations begin between people about what is deemed acceptable and what not. And those standards change all the time. The so-called "moral teachings" of the churches have practially not affected that at all throughout history, despite all the nice things it says in the bible abd other textbooks about this and that. People just keep "interpreting" their "holy texts" according to their current definitions and needs.
These negotiations do not begin because at that point, "morals" kick in. They simply begin because of conflicting desires and ideas. Since we are a social animal, we do have to make "compromises" and overall, that isn't too difficult for us because we do have the desire to live in an organized social group.
However, what you think and do, in your private life, in your private and intimate sphere among the people who you decide to develop friendships and relationships with, has nothing to do with "morals". Whether you play with yourself or what you do with your boyfriend/girlfriend (or both) is nobody's business as long as all involved are acting freely. In other words, keeping your girlfriend/boyfriend (or both) chained to the wall in your basement is not OK, unless they actually dig that.
That has nothing to do with "morals", or rather, the interpersonal consensus makes it "moral".
On the other hand, I find it highly immoral if people want to dictate other people what to do in their personal and private spheres. That has nothing to do with "good morals". It has nothing to do with qualifying for the "afterlife" either. It is just an attempt to control and enslave people.
Quote from: M forever on September 30, 2008, 12:18:45 PM
- as long as it does not negatively affect other people.
Now who is imposing
his morals on other people?
Quote from: M forever on September 30, 2008, 12:18:45 PM
On the other hand, I find it highly immoral if people want to dictate other people what to do in their personal and private spheres. That has nothing to do with "good morals". It has nothing to do with qualifying for the "afterlife" either. It is just an attempt to control and enslave people.
I thought morals didn't exist.
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 10:57:59 AM
Consider this example. A man kills his wife because she wasn't able to produce children, and then at trial explains, "Your honor, you only find my acts heinous because you have an old morality. My morality has evolved."
Without and understanding of a good, objective morality, how can we hold anyone responsible for their actions when we are only judging them by our personal morals?
But I don't think morality has any real power - so it's irrelevant that his morality has evolved. I can acknowledge the fact that our morality has evolved, without then thinking that it is 'right' in any real sense or that we should be beholden to it in any way. It's just a very reasonable explanatory mechanism for why we have morality. As I said, it only has adaptive advantages, nothing else (I am taking evolution to include up to the evolution of early culture). For me, this is a legal issue, along with where that derives from. I don't think the law derives its power from God's goodness, or the moral code he has laid out for humans.
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 12:04:04 PM
So, its ok, right?
Well, that is the philophical $64,000 question. Which, I'm estimating, can also tie into the question of church doctrine that we were earlier discussing.
If something is the absolute norm in a culture - Romans enjoyed murdering amongst their lower class for sport - only an outside influence can make it alter or evolve, into a new understanding of what constitutes "morality". Hell, look at Darfur. Look at Nazi Germany. Look at U.S. foreign policy. Sometimes "immorality" and "homeland security" can find no common ground (but they can find interesting new phrases: "torture" becomes "enhanced interrogation techniques").
Uhmmm...let's say Jainism, the sect that beleives all killing - man, animal, insect - is wrong. They're vegans through and through and wear henkies over their mouths so as not to swallow microscopic insects while their mouths are open. So, according to them, we're all barbarians. But we look at that example (and, mind you, it is, I'm aware, an extreme example) and say, "Sheesh! Those people are CUH-RAAAAAZY!"
but are they wrong? Are we? End of the day, it's a matter of belief and philosophy.
I try to take it all from the viewpoint of empathy. In your view, the empathy would extend to the unborn. In mine, I might share that view, but - in regards to abortion - I do believe that it's an experience that should be decided by the individual having the direct experience.
Quote from: adamdavid80 on September 30, 2008, 01:20:33 PM
In mine, I might share that view, but - in regards to abortion - I do believe that it's an experience that should be decided by the individual having the direct experience.
Like...the fetus?
Quote from: JCampbell on September 30, 2008, 05:15:27 PM
Like...the fetus?
And this is where Brett and I keep going in circles (as with each side of the debate).
In one side, the belief is that a being is a living entity from the moment of insemination.
On the other, the belief is that that fertilized egg is not yet "alive", that it's a zygote.
We can discuss it back and forth for eternity, but the differing beliefs - I believe - should be respected. My own perspective is, I honestly think it's wonderful that you have that belief. However, if someone else does not, than the govt has no place telling her what she can and can't do with her body.
(also, as discussed earlier, it's largely a matter of economics.)
I have a question: it's my experience that the most fervent believers of the immorality of abortion are the most ardent supporters of the death penalty. Are these your own feelings (all y'all pro-lifers), and if so, can you explain the contradiction?
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 12:24:15 PM
I thought morals didn't exist.
I didn't say that. Please read again.
Quote from: Catison on September 30, 2008, 12:21:16 PM
Now who is imposing his morals on other people?
Explain how saying everyone should be free to do what they like is I "imposing my morals" on other people. It is the contrary. I am saying, let everyone find their own "morals". I don't care if they conform with mine. That people can't just do what they like in situations in which it affects others is self-explanatory, follows from that, and a matter of mutual respect and social behavior and solidarity. But mostly respect.
Give me a reasonable answer. No kindergarten stuff like the above.
Quote from: JCampbell on September 30, 2008, 05:15:27 PM
Like...the fetus?
Fetuses (feti?) aren't individuals. They are part of the women bearing them. Show a little respect for women, even though you may fear and resent them. Keep your filthy nose out of their private parts.
Quote from: M forever on September 30, 2008, 08:27:41 PM
Fetuses (feti?) aren't individuals. They are part of the women bearing them.
Evidently, that is what's being debated. Do you feel better about yourself now? You fabricated an attack on women, then stuck up for them! How brave!
No, I don't feel better, I feel sick every time I am reminded that some people - like you - have the nerve and the perversity to want to dictate to women what they should do with their bodies. No doubt, the age old resentment of and revenge on women which led to witch hunts and other forms of oppression, no doubt, the revenge of those who feel threatened by the eternal feminine.
Way to put words in my mouth. It's only your opinion that the fetus is a part of a woman (the entire point of the most recent part of this discussion), and you used that to launch on an unprovoked tirade against a straw man.
Don't call yourself a strawman; you don't have to put yourself down, even though, yes, your contributions don't have much original substance. BUt there is no need to be that harsh on yourself.
Since in many parts of this continent, there is little to no sexual education, I can understand that you don't actually understand where a fetus is located. It is, in fact, deep inside the woman. I guess you can google that or look it up on wikipedia.
That is not my opinion.
It is my opinion, however, that women and their intimate sphere should be highly respected (like anyone's intimate sphere), so it is really none of your or other religious hypocrites' business what is going on between their legs and inside their bodies.
Why are you so fixated with that? Because you normally don't get there? So you and your "religious" friends at least want jurisdiction over that area? Understandable, maybe, but very, very pitiful.
Funny, you sanctimonious people pretend to know about God and the deep mysteries of the universe an the holy spirit, but you get stuck in and totally fixated on these very, very earthly and fleshly issues.
As if we didn't have bigger problems. And as if the religion you pretend to adhere to didn't in its core texts preach understanding, forgiveness, and helping each other. Women in a critical, sensitive, and very personal situation like this can certainly be much better helped and supported than in those ways. But then you would have to take your noses out of their panties, and that you don't want to give that up is obvious.
Quote from: JCampbell on September 30, 2008, 08:32:28 PM
You fabricated an attack on women, then stuck up for them! How brave!
The usual method. Did you expect anything better? Two pages back, in order to intimidate another member and hint at some special insight on matters scriptural, he even claimed he has
"actually read most of the NT in the original" Greek. There are some (conveniently ignored?) questions on that claim some way up the (previous) page.
Quote from: M forever on September 30, 2008, 12:18:45 PM
you have apparently decided to give up your intellectual and spiritual freedom
M,
I refrained from intervening until now, but enough is enough! Although this will incur your wrath, I can't help but saying it loud and clear:
There are a lot of Catholic scientists, philosophers and artists whose intellectual and spiritual achievements far surpass anything you 'll ever achieve.
Actually, you may think you're a free and enlightened person, but you're just a slave of your hyperinflated ego, a prisoner of your pride and prejudice. It is really a pity to see a brilliant intelligence ruined by an empty heart.
Dixi et salvavi animam meam.
(And please, spare me your foppery and insults. They neither impress nor scare me)
Quote from: adamdavid80 on September 30, 2008, 05:35:11 PM
I have a question: it's my experience that the most fervent believers of the immorality of abortion are the most ardent supporters of the death penalty. Are these your own feelings (all y'all pro-lifers), and if so, can you explain the contradiction?
I'm against both types of killing.
M isn't here for the content of the discussion; he just gets kicks out of slinging personal remark. I forebear to speculate why.
He is perfectly happy to "negatively affect" others, so we're just back to the mote and the beam again, after all.
Quote from: Florestan on October 01, 2008, 12:12:10 AM
M,
I refrained from intervening until now, but enough is enough! Although this will incur your wrath, I can't help but saying it loud and clear:
There are a lot of Catholic scientists, philosophers and artists whose intellectual and spiritual achievements far surpass anything you 'll ever achieve.
Actually, you may think you're a free and enlightened person, but you're just a slave of your hyperinflated ego, a prisoner of your pride and prejudice. It is really a pity to see a brilliant intelligence ruined by an empty heart.
Dixi et salvavi animam meam.
(And please, spare me your foppery and insults. They neither impress nor scare me)
Bravo.
Well, it's obvious that in this discussion M couldn't even get a foot in the door -- thanks to the calm and collected responses of Catison and others -- and that is why he is fuming.
Quote from: M forever on September 30, 2008, 08:23:54 PM
I didn't say that. Please read again.
Ok, I did. I understand your post better now. Forgive me, because before I was short on time.
You said there are no objective morals. Then you said there are no personal (i.e. subjective?) morals. Your interpretation of morals is that they are the agreements between two consenting adults about what is right and wrong. Is that right?
Then how am I supposed to interpret a statement like this:
Quote from: M forever on September 30, 2008, 12:18:45 PM
On the other hand, I find it highly immoral if people want to dictate other people what to do in their personal and private spheres.
How, given your thesis above, is something immoral? Is something not moral because it was not agreed upon, in the sense that, if two adults don't discuss their imminent actions first
everything is immoral? Or can something only be immoral if it lies the outside the agreement?
In both cases, I don't see how you can call someone immoral in this context. In the former, if no basis for being moral exists, there shouldn't be a basis for being immoral either. In the latter, whoever these "people" are, you haven't made an agreement with them.
Can you please clear this up for me. :-\
Quote from: M forever on September 30, 2008, 08:23:54 PM
Explain how saying everyone should be free to do what they like is I "imposing my morals" on other people. It is the contrary. I am saying, let everyone find their own "morals". I don't care if they conform with mine. That people can't just do what they like in situations in which it affects others is self-explanatory, follows from that, and a matter of mutual respect and social behavior and solidarity. But mostly respect.
Give me a reasonable answer. No kindergarten stuff like the above.
Simple >:D. If I find my own morals, and these morals, however I found them, say it's OK to do what I want with whom I want, regardless of what they think, then I should be allowed that, correct? But you want to
arbitrarily deny me the right to those morals. It is arbitrary because you can make no appeal to an objective truth, i.e. a truth that is true for everyone, regardless of what they personally believe; you deny such a thing exists.
So you want to impose this part of your
personal definition of morals, but at the same time you deride others for doing the same thing. You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Florestan on October 01, 2008, 12:12:10 AM
M,
I refrained from intervening until now, but enough is enough! Although this will incur your wrath, I can't help but saying it loud and clear:
There are a lot of Catholic scientists, philosophers and artists whose intellectual and spiritual achievements far surpass anything you 'll ever achieve.
Actually, you may think you're a free and enlightened person, but you're just a slave of your hyperinflated ego, a prisoner of your pride and prejudice. It is really a pity to see a brilliant intelligence ruined by an empty heart.
Dixi et salvavi animam meam.
(And please, spare me your foppery and insults. They neither impress nor scare me)
Now - as you said re: your own post - I'm going to get flamed for saying this, and I understand that you were motivated to write this b/c you perceived M was attacking and insulting others, but, really, were the personal attacks wholly necessary? You say that he will never achieve much in life, a slave, an egotist, file with hubris and prejudice, pitiful, shallow, and, as if that were not enough, let's top it off with a quote (b/c, as Mark Twain used to say, "Quotes prove the speaker has authority and knowledge about the subject at hand"*) him a fop. Which, granted, is among the funniest words in the english language, but, come on, if you're challenging someone to raise the standards of the discussion and leave the insults out of it, well..."fop"?
*(actually, Mark Twain never said that. I just wanted to cite a quote to prove my point and give it authority)
Brett, thanks for the response re: capital punishment. Curious also...how do you feel about aborting a foetus if it endangers the life of the mother, or if it is the result of rape/incest, if the foetus is found to have some kind of abnormality? (Palin's recent birth to a Down's Syndrome child for example)
Quote from: Wanderer on September 30, 2008, 11:59:24 PM
The usual method. Did you expect anything better? Two pages back, in order to intimidate another member and hint at some special insight on matters scriptural, he even claimed he has "actually read most of the NT in the original" Greek. There are some (conveniently ignored?) questions on that claim some way up the (previous) page.
I am enjoying this discussion with M. Although occasionally it becomes difficult to extract the message of his posts from the ad hominem stuff, it usually gives me something to think about. You can always learn something from those you have disagreements with, and if you are truly strong in your beliefs, you come out better on the other end. And it is precisely at this moment that I am trying to shore up my knowledge (and faith) in God.
You refer to this post:
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 05:39:31 PM
BTW, Catison, you really don't want to get into a discussion of Christianity with me. Believe me. That would get really ugly. I know tons more about that subject than you do. And not just from the Catholic angle and a few other prep books you may have read, but from many other angles and historical perspectives, especially about early and earliest Christianity. That is a subject I have studied for for a long time as it coincides with main interests for me such as the above stated, as well as history, archaeology, and other areas such as linguistics which deeply fascinate me. Unlike you, I have actually read most of the NT in the original.
We should be willing to give M the benefit of the doubt. 0:) Although he doesn't think so, I
do want to discuss Christianity with him, if this is not what we are already doing. I am more than a little curious about the volumes of books he has read, and what insights from history, archeology and linguistics he can bring to the discussion. And although I trust the scholars who translated my NAB, I am sure there are more than a few things glossed over in an effort to construct an effective American English NT. (Remember the difference between the American Bible and New American Bible, is that the latter corrected many mistakes in the OT.) So I am interested in any of those mistakes and/or other errors found in the NT, especially from a non-Catholic or Atheist angle, as M mentions above.
Or if any other Greek speakers want to chime in, that would be cool too. 8)
Quote from: adamdavid80 on October 01, 2008, 06:31:00 AM
Brett, thanks for the response re: capital punishment. Curious also...how do you feel about aborting a foetus if it endangers the life of the mother, or if it is the result of rape/incest, if the foetus is found to have some kind of abnormality? (Palin's recent birth to a Down's Syndrome child for example)
I know my answers sometimes appear scripted by the Catholic Church, but I only try to use the ones I believe in. With that in mind, let me give you a Catholic answer. In these cases, when it is not clear what to do, you must feel comfortable explaining to the unborn fetus in heaven why you thought it was OK to kill it. If you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't support the abortion.
Quote from: Catison on October 01, 2008, 07:17:25 AM
I know my answers sometimes appear scripted by the Catholic Church, but I only try to use the ones I believe in. With that in mind, let me give you a Catholic answer. In these cases, when it is not clear what to do, you must feel comfortable explaining to the unborn fetus in heaven why you thought it was OK to kill it. If you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't support the abortion.
This is going to sound glib, but this is mirrors my attitude towards non-vegetarians (I eat fish, but not dairy, chicken, or cow, so strcitly speaking I'm a pescitarian): if you can look it in the eye before gutting or shooting it, then it's all yours.
What elements of religion give you the most trouble? Do you find anything contradictory in nature, does the question of, ultimately, many answers to some of the most demanding questions, simplify to "God works in mysterious ways". (And there's nothign wrong with that: that's the definition of Faith: believing in something though it may defy rationality)
Quote from: adamdavid80 on October 01, 2008, 07:33:58 AM
This is going to sound glib, but this is mirrors my attitude towards non-vegetarians (I eat fish, but not dairy, chicken, or cow, so strcitly speaking I'm a pescitarian): if you can look it in the eye before gutting or shooting it, then it's all yours.
No, not glib, but perfectly reasonable. However, heaven is for humans, the pinnacle of creation.
Quote from: adamdavid80 on October 01, 2008, 07:33:58 AM
What elements of religion give you the most trouble? Do you find anything contradictory in nature, does the question of, ultimately, many answers to some of the most demanding questions, simplify to "God works in mysterious ways". (And there's nothign wrong with that: that's the definition of Faith: believing in something though it may defy rationality)
There are many elements of religion which give me trouble. I actually wish I could just forget about questioning things and allow myself to believe, but my brain is not wired that way. Some of the things that trouble me are: the processes needed to detect truth, how to know when I am simply a pawn in God's plan and when I have a choice to follow, accountability to sin without full understanding of God, how prayer works, certain details about the Catholic mass, and many others. No doubt at some point I will have to "punt" on some questions and be content that there is an answer.
No doubt, God does work in mysterious ways, but to me, this is equivalent to saying that Nature hides her secrets. Just because we cannot fully know something doesn't mean we can't always be looking for more answers. And, because we are lucky, there will always be people, probably smarter than me, trying to find them.
Quote from: Catison on October 01, 2008, 07:17:25 AM
I know my answers sometimes appear scripted by the Catholic Church, but I only try to use the ones I believe in. With that in mind, let me give you a Catholic answer. In these cases, when it is not clear what to do, you must feel comfortable explaining to the unborn fetus in heaven why you thought it was OK to kill it. If you can't do that, then you probably shouldn't support the abortion.
Not to sound glib either, but if heaven is the pinnacle and the unborn fetus ascends there right away, why not kill it and let it ascend before it has a chance to commit any kinds of sin or suffer the misery of life on earth? By your logic, the unborn fetus has it better than all the rest of us. Sounds almost Swiftian (even though Swift of course was talking about killing year-old babies rather than fetuses):
I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food, at a year old in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of entailing the like or greater miseries upon their breed for ever.
Quote from: Florestan on October 01, 2008, 12:12:10 AM
Actually, you may think you're a free and enlightened person, but you're just a slave of your hyperinflated ego, a prisoner of your pride and prejudice. It is really a pity to see a brilliant intelligence ruined by an empty heart.
Dixi et salvavi animam meam.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 01, 2008, 04:20:11 AM
M isn't here for the content of the discussion; he just gets kicks out of slinging personal remark. I forebear to speculate why.
Quote from: Al Moritz on October 01, 2008, 05:23:25 AM
Bravo.
Well, it's obvious that in this discussion M couldn't even get a foot in the door -- thanks to the calm and collected responses of Catison and others -- and that is why he is fuming.
I am not fuming, I am just saying, people, keep your noses out of other people's underwear. The above "responses" show that I hit a nerve there. Because there isn't really anything that you can rationally say to explain your desire to regulate aspects of toher people's most personal and intimate sphere.
Even Karl, who is a fairly calm and collected person in real life, too, and who also knows me in real life, once again shows the mental captivity of religious people with his thrown in personal attack. Sad. I forebear to speculate why.
Just shows us once again that religion mentally handcuffs people and that we have to be constantly aware that they aren't just interested in their "spiritual truths", they also want to force other people - not by the power of discussion and persuasion, but by the power of secular laws - to conform to their mythologically based world views.
That reminds us that for many millenia, people have fought to escape from this irrational influence, and for nearly two millenia, people had to struggle against the so-called Christian churches of all kinds to shake off their influence and control over all aspects of their lives. We live in a time in which it is not too long ago that that control was still fairly tight and farreaching, and we still have some way to go to get rid of it completely. But we have come a long way.
It doesn't even matter what we are talking about, abortions, condoms, whatever, it's always something, and what it really is about is not even the content, it is all about power over and control of people.
Apparently, the religious world view is not self-sufficient. I can understand that for the illusion of a god-centered world which is so important for some people, it is essential that they can imagine they are worshippers of the one and only power that moves the universe, and everybody who doesn't conform to that view basically spoils that illusion and is a "fuming fanatic" even when the basic message of these "fuming fanatics" is nothing more or less than: leave other people alone who do not want to take part in your idol worshipping cult.
Quote from: M forever on October 01, 2008, 09:01:17 AM
Apparently, the religious world view is not self-sufficient. I can understand that for the illusion of a god-centered world which is so important for some people, it is essential that they can imagine they are worshippers of the one and only power that moves the universe, and everybody who doesn't conform to that view basically spoils that illusion and is a "fuming fanatic" even when the basic message of these "fuming fanatics" is nothing more or less than: leave other people alone who do not want to take part in your idol worshipping cult.
We have been over this before. I don't call all non-believers "fuming" or "fanatic", not by a long shot. There are some quite reasonable non-believers also on this board, as I had stated before. I don't feel threatened by unbelief, and I grew up in secular Europe where belief like mine was the exception rather than the rule -- I got along with everybody just fine. The opposition of unbelief just makes me think harder and question my positions in an intellectually rigorous manner, which is a good thing. If my convictions become stronger during this process (which they have done especially during my intense probing of all issues in the past 2 or so years), I am not against that.
QuoteJust shows us once again that religion mentally handcuffs people and that we have to be constantly aware that they aren't just interested in their "spiritual truths", they also want to force other people - not by the power of discussion and persuasion, but by the power of secular laws - to conform to their mythologically based world views.
I have changed my mind on opposition to abortion. While I personally still think it is murder and don't approve when others have it perform, I do not think anymore that the government should impose constraints. When life as a person exactly begins is partially a matter of faith, and statistics show that where abortion is illegal the frequency seems not significantly down while the health risks go up. Like many things, it remains a matter of individual conscience.
Quote from: Sforzando on October 01, 2008, 08:21:07 AM
Not to sound glib either, but if heaven is the pinnacle and the unborn fetus ascends there right away, why not kill it and let it ascend before it has a chance to commit any kinds of sin or suffer the misery of life on earth? By your logic, the unborn fetus has it better than all the rest of us. Sounds almost Swiftian (even though Swift of course was talking about killing year-old babies rather than fetuses):
Wow, I hadn't thought of that. My guess is that being alive allows a person to participate in God's plan. Taking that away is a sin.
That's a tough one. :-X
Whoever makes any further personal attacks, or generalisations that can be interpreted as direct attacks on others here; will find the entirety of their post deleted.
Knight
Quote from: Al Moritz on October 01, 2008, 09:32:08 AM
I have changed my mind on opposition to abortion. While I personally still think it is murder and don't approve when others have it perform, I do not think anymore that the government should impose constraints. When life as a person exactly begins is partially a matter of faith, and statistics show that where abortion is illegal the frequency seems not significantly down while the health risks go up. Like many things, it remains a matter of individual conscience.
That's basically what I think, too, especially because of the involved health risks in places where abortion is illegal, as you mentioned. In some people's imagined ideal world united through worship of the one and only god, that wouldn't be a problem because no one would do it. But we don't live in an ideal world - if we did, then none of these "moralistic" religious movements wouldn't have sprung into life as they obviously wouldn't even be needed -, so whether or not we call ourselves "Christians" or members of any other religious or other group which claims to be there for the good of the people, we should have the understanding and compassion not to deny women in such a situation medical and other support to make the right choice and make sure there are no unnecessary health risks.
Which is why I do think there should be some contraints, but not of a religiously based "moralistic" or legal nature, but because there are health risks as with any other medical procedure and it has to be ensured that the potential patient gets the right counseling and medical attention to make the right choice and be sure her health won't be affected negatively.
Now, if people think they are against that for whatever reason, they can of course still voice their opinions, preach, live under rules which do not allow that if they chose to do so freely. But they should not try to abuse the legal mechanism of the state to enforce their religious views on other people.
Quote from: Catison on October 01, 2008, 09:56:32 AM
Wow, I hadn't thought of that. My guess is that being alive allows a person to participate in God's plan. Taking that away is a sin.
That's a tough one. :-X
Maybe, maybe not. Dante does not deal with abortions in the Comedy, but in the Inferno he does place infants who die unbaptized in the Limbo area - along with the virtuous heathens like Plato, Aristotle, and (of course) Virgil. Dante's Limbo is in fact the first circle of of hell, in that its dwellers, though not sinful, did not accept Christ.
QuoteIn Roman Catholic tradition, limbo is a place to which the souls of
people go, if they are not good enough for Heaven or bad enough for
Hell. More exactly, according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, it is
"...the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and
others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the
beatific vision on account of original sin alone."
http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=103252
Under this reasoning, fetuses cannot wind up in heaven in the first place.
Quote from: Sforzando on October 01, 2008, 10:11:29 AM
Under this reasoning, fetuses cannot wind up in heaven in the first place.
But it is my understanding that Limbo (or Purgatory) is a place of temporary cleansing before finally reaching heaven.
Limbo is not official Catholic doctrine, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo
(see also heading "Modern era")
Quote from: knight on October 01, 2008, 10:04:00 AM
Whoever makes any further personal attacks, or generalisations that can be interpreted as direct attacks on others here; will find the entirety of their post deleted.
Knight
So, a moderator has the ability to abort a fully-born post, but it's wrong to delete a foetus? ;D
Quote from: Al Moritz on October 01, 2008, 10:32:28 AM
Limbo is not official Catholic doctrine, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo
(see also heading "Modern era")
Thanks for this. It looks like the official word, so to speak is here: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=13056992&CFTOKEN=76152441
Quote from: Catison on October 01, 2008, 10:21:00 AM
But it is my understanding that Limbo (or Purgatory) is a place of temporary cleansing before finally reaching heaven.
Dante's Inferno is just a book, like the bible, although a really cool one with many really striking images.
Quote from: Al Moritz on October 01, 2008, 10:32:28 AM
Limbo is not official Catholic doctrine
If not limbo, what about lambada?
Quote from: Catison on October 01, 2008, 10:21:00 AM
But it is my understanding that Limbo (or Purgatory) is a place of temporary cleansing before finally reaching heaven.
I know Dante. I don't know Catholic doctrine. In Dante, Purgatory is as you describe, but is distinct from Limbo - where these souls live permanently without hope of reaching heaven. (Except, apparently, in cases of divine intervention; for example, Adam and Moses wind up in the last canto of the Paradiso. I don't remember all the particulars since, compared to the Inferno and even the Purgatorio, Paradiso has always been for me something of a snooze and I didn't get through it last time I read the Comedy. But in Adam's case at least, since he started it all, placing him in heaven seems analogous to bailing out Wall Street.)
Quote from: adamdavid80 on October 01, 2008, 10:33:20 AM
So, a moderator has the ability to abort a fully-born post, but it's wrong to delete a foetus? ;D
Only if it had been viable. 0:)
Mike
Here is the doctrine of the Catholic Church as of 2007:
3.6. Hope
102. Within the hope that the church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism? We have carefully reconsidered this complex question with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the church through the ages and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised would lead his followers "into all the truth" (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel.
Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).
Quote from: M forever on October 01, 2008, 10:41:31 AM
Dante's Inferno is just a book, like the bible, although a really cool one with many really striking images.
Nice, I'll add it to my "to read" list.
So what about those other books you mentioned before? Or did you not study from books?
Quote from: M forever on September 29, 2008, 05:39:31 PM
BTW, Catison, you really don't want to get into a discussion of Christianity with me. Believe me. That would get really ugly. I know tons more about that subject than you do. And not just from the Catholic angle and a few other prep books you may have read, but from many other angles and historical perspectives, especially about early and earliest Christianity. That is a subject I have studied for for a long time as it coincides with main interests for me such as the above stated, as well as history, archaeology, and other areas such as linguistics which deeply fascinate me. Unlike you, I have actually read most of the NT in the original.
No books, I looked all of that up on wikipedia.
Speaking of purgatory, I remember a joke once....... (from a few years back, of course)
it was about some guy who died and went to purgatory. He talked to God and God told him to go wait in the waiting room. The thing is, you have a clock which measures how long you stay until you get to heaven. Each time you confess a lie, the clock winds back a minute of time.
The guy is excited, and he heads toward the waiting room but God says, "Hold on, there. It might be awhile...."
The guy asks, "Why?"
God replies, "Because Bill Clinton is using the clock as a ceiling fan."
Quote from: M forever on October 01, 2008, 11:15:09 AM
No books, I looked all of that up on wikipedia.
Sorry. Are you busy right now? I am just interested a few of the resources you found most helpful.
Quote from: M forever on October 01, 2008, 09:01:17 AM
Even Karl, who is a fairly calm and collected person in real life, too, and who also knows me in real life, once again shows the mental captivity of religious people with his thrown in personal attack. Sad. I forebear to speculate why.
Oh, gee, I know...... Karl's a viscious brute today, isn't he? ;D
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on October 01, 2008, 11:48:25 AM
Speaking of purgatory, I remember a joke once....... (from a few years back, of course)
it was about some guy who died and went to purgatory. He talked to God and God told him to go wait in the waiting room. The thing is, you have a clock which measures how long you stay until you get to heaven. Each time you confess a lie, the clock winds back a minute of time.
The guy is excited, and he heads toward the waiting room but God says, "Hold on, there. It might be awhile...."
The guy asks, "Why?"
God replies, "Because Bill Clinton is using the clock as a ceiling fan."
ROFL!
I agree!
Seriously, is there anyone who can answer this question?
Okay, God cannot be omnipotent, benevolent, and just at the same time. It doesn't make sense, because if he could do anything, then he could at least put a stop to the misery in the world. But, he chooses not to. Why? Because He wants to win your love. But, what kind of loving person would send you to hell for eternity because they don't love you back? And why does he need to be loved so much? Why is it necessary to inflict extended misery on a living being just so you might have the chance for them to love you back? How is that true love?
And in the end, if it's not supposed to make sense, how is this any different from any other religion? How is it being fair when you have to guess? Choosing means logic is involved, so if you're not choosing, you're guessing. Being sent to burn in hell for eternity seems a bit harsh for rolling a 4 instead of a 6.
Is there anything that could be said, to counter this, period?
It's called The Problem of Evil, and is very, very famous as a philosophical problem, and subject of theological debate.
At a more comfortable moment, I'll have a look for a couple of suitable references for your perusal (maybe even enjoyment), Greg. :)
(I hadn't noticed this thread before. Not that I'm saddened to any measurable extent, as I trust I really do not want to read the intervening 12 pages: but the main subject was easy enough to at least pinpoint!)
Awesome to know that, dude!
Now I have a name for my question- "Problem of Evil." Sounds more professional, doesn't it? 8)
The 12 pages aren't too exciting, but the link I give in the opening post is interesting, at least.
Quote from: G$ on January 24, 2009, 03:34:21 PM
Okay, God cannot be omnipotent, benevolent, and just at the same time. It doesn't make sense, because if he could do anything, then he could at least put a stop to the misery in the world. But, he chooses not to. Why? Because He wants to win your love. But, what kind of loving person would send you to hell for eternity because they don't love you back? And why does he need to be loved so much? Why is it necessary to inflict extended misery on a living being just so you might have the chance for them to love you back? How is that true love?
Maybe God is just very busy elsewhere - God creates, then moves on to other chores. We are simply left to our own devices.
You can assume that God is keeping track of us, but the opposite assumption can not be dismissed.
Quote from: G$ on January 24, 2009, 03:55:14 PMNow I have a name for my question- "Problem of Evil." Sounds more professional, doesn't it?
Yes Greg, here is a new vocabulary word for you:
Theodicy - a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent supernatural being.
:)
hehe ;D
I suppose God was busy helping out the Zyoolians from the galaxy Oombdiga when Jews were being forced to throw other Jews into ovens to burn them alive.
He comes back to Earth. "Oh, crap, what did I miss?"
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 24, 2009, 04:04:48 PM
Yes Greg, here is a new vocabulary word for you:
Theodicy - a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent supernatural being.
:)
Thanks, Eric. I found the Wikipedia article and am reading bits...
Quote from: G$ on January 24, 2009, 04:05:23 PM
hehe ;D
I suppose God was busy helping out the Zyoolians from the galaxy Oombdiga when Jews were being forced to throw other Jews into ovens to burn them alive.
He comes back to Earth. "Oh, crap, what did I miss?"
Why assume God comes back at all? Perhaps God only creates; that would readily explain why bad things happen to good people like you and me.
Quote from: Bulldog on January 24, 2009, 04:15:22 PM
Why assume God comes back at all? Perhaps God only creates; that would readily explain why bad things happen to good people like you and me.
That's what I also have thought as a possibility. :)
Found this:
Quote
No theodicy is needed or even appropriate. God is so far superior to]humankind, that God cannot be judged by humankind.
But it's not exactly people judging God, is it? The Bible says God is good, and he gives examples of what goodness is. Love is selfless.
However, God himself disproves he is love just by creating the tree that Adam and Eve ate off of.
Quote from: G$ on January 24, 2009, 03:55:14 PM
Awesome to know that, dude!
Now I have a name for my question- "Problem of Evil." Sounds more professional, doesn't it? 8)
The 12 pages aren't too exciting, but the link I give in the opening post is interesting, at least.
It's only an awesome problem if it stands in the way of a perfectly respectable god hypothesis. IOW, a god is likely but probably evil considering only human good matters for us humans. What spoils the fun is there's no hypothesis anywhere on the horizon that could credibly make "Problem of Evil" solutions a practical necessity. Anyway, my guess is that atheism is more often arrived at from a general sense of the utter hopelessness of these propositions. You never actually get to the Evil God, so instead we have horror films, which is much better.
:) Anyway, one realizes early on that the problem is that humans are capable of
anything, including the highest good and the lowest evil, and the other is a distraction. You don't need the supernatural to explain what the natural explains without breaking a sweat.
QuoteTheodicy - a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent supernatural being.
Watch me walk like a Theologian! How can we reconcile a Good God with a Bad World? Having created the problem I will invent a discipline to provide the super necessary solution. I know, lets say it's all a test! IOW, having invented the discipline we can forget about an answer. It's in the hands of experts.
:) G$, what if you just tried to reason this out for yourself and put all the Imams and Divines on hold for awhile? You can study history and even read a little philosophy (not too much though because it's awful stuff for the most part
:P). Now I know there are some questions that can't be answered by any reasoning about possible experiences you're likely to have. Yet curiously, this little bit of data is being used by the proponents, in the manner of saying we sceptics "can't disprove" their thesis. Shouldn't it work the other way, that if we can't know something exists we have no right to say it does?
Quote from: drogulus on January 24, 2009, 04:23:11 PM
It's only an awesome problem if it stands in the way of a perfectly respectable god hypothesis. IOW, a god is likely but probably evil considering only human good matters for us humans. What spoils the fun is there's no hypothesis anywhere on the horizon that could credibly make "Problem of Evil" solutions a practical necessity. Anyway, my guess is that atheism is more often arrived at from a general sense of the utter hopelessness of these propositions. You never actually get to the Evil God, so instead we have horror films, which is much better. :) Anyway, one realizes early on that the problem is that humans are capable of anything, including the highest good and the lowest evil, and the other is a distraction. You don't need the supernatural to explain what the natural explains without breaking a sweat.
Watch me walk like a Theologian! How can we reconcile a Good God with a Bad World? Having created the problem I will invent a discipline to provide the super necessary solution. I know, lets say it's all a test! IOW, having invented the discipline we can forget about an answer. It's in the hands of experts. :)
G$, what if you just tried to reason this out for yourself and put all the Imams and Divines on hold for awhile? You can study history and even read a little philosophy (not too much though because it's awful stuff for the most part :P). Now I know there are some questions that can't be answered by any reasoning about possible experiences you're likely to have. Yet curiously, this little bit of data is being used by the proponents, in the manner of saying we sceptics "can't disprove" their thesis. Shouldn't it work the other way, that if we can't know something exists we have no right to say it does?
Wow, as usual, your posts are advanced and a bit hard for me to understand. ;D
QuoteYou don't need the supernatural to explain what the natural explains without breaking a sweat.
That's what I'm thinking... if you accept there are all sorts of possibilites, it makes sense. Mainly, the universe is random. What is perceived to be as non-random is random, too. Nothing stays- the sun with eventually burn out, stars die all the time, etc. There's possibilites for an illusion of order, too. For example, sound- there's triads, which sound "orderly". However, a composer can choose to write music which doesn't sound "orderly" and full of triads, or tonal. But then again, one person can see order in atonal music while another can't. The illusion of order just "happens" since it's just one of the possibilities of randomness. And compared to the amount of randomness in the universe, it makes sense.
Renfield did suggest a book summarizing Schopenhauer theories. Haven't gotten to it, yet, still...
i'll get there! ;D
Quote from: G$ on January 24, 2009, 04:37:23 PM
Renfield did suggest a book summarizing Schopenhauer theories. Haven't gotten to it, yet, still...
i'll get there! ;D
Though I didn't suggest it as a cure - excuse me, a
solution; or should that be
resolution? - to these sort of threads. ;)
haha, the wordplay...
Quote from: G$ on January 24, 2009, 04:35:59 PM
Wow, as usual, your posts are advanced and a bit hard for me to understand. ;D
Seriously, it's really simple. I don't have to prove something's not there. I can't, but I don't have to.
:DQuote from: G$ on January 24, 2009, 04:35:59 PMThat's what I'm thinking... if you accept there are all sorts of possibilites, it makes sense. Mainly, the universe is random. What is perceived to be as non-random is random, too. Nothing stays- the sun with eventually burn out, stars die all the time, etc. There's possibilites for an illusion of order, too. For example, sound- there's triads, which sound "orderly". However, a composer can choose to write music which doesn't sound "orderly" and full of triads, or tonal. But then again, one person can see order in atonal music while another can't. The illusion of order just "happens" since it's just one of the possibilities of randomness. And compared to the amount of randomness in the universe, it makes sense.
A random universe should have lots of order in it. Flip a coin a zillion times and you'll end up with a binary version of
The Merchant of Venice somewhere in the sequence. The way I like to think of it is everything that can happen does, given enough space and time. And it just so happens that's exactly what we do have.
Quote from: drogulus on January 24, 2009, 07:03:48 PM
Seriously, it's really simple. I don't have to prove something's not there. I can't, but I don't have to. :D
A random universe should have lots of order in it. Flip a coin a zillion times and you'll end up with a binary version of The Merchant of Venice somewhere in the sequence. The way I like to think of it is everything that can happen does, given enough space and time. And it just so happens that's exactly what we do have.
Awesome. I totally get you here- have to say this makes complete sense. And, if you consider the amount of "order" that is required for life to even exist, it's no wonder we haven't been visited by aliens yet (besides Ubloobideega).
Recently I figured out that the song I'm playing on my avatar is
Gypsy by the
Moody Blues. I kept looking at that C chord and thinking about the song. I though it was
You're a better Man Than I by the
Yardbirds but there's no C in that.
Maybe we should retitle the thread
"Why Won't God Make Me Jeff Beck?". What do you think?
:-\ Quote from: G$ on January 24, 2009, 07:11:48 PM
Awesome. I totally get you here- have to say this makes complete sense. And, if you consider the amount of "order" that is required for life to even exist, it's no wonder we haven't been visited by aliens yet (besides Ubloobideega).
That's preposterous. What aliens haven't we been visited by? Now you're just being silly.
::)
Quote from: drogulus on January 24, 2009, 07:15:57 PM
Recently I figured out that the song I'm playing on my avatar is Gypsy by the Moody Blues. I kept looking at that C chord and thinking about the song. I though it was You're a better Man Than I by the Yardbirds but there's no C in that.
Maybe we should retitle the thread "Why Won't God Make Me Jeff Beck?". What do you think? :-\
Well, I'm not sure why you'd actually want to
be Jeff Beck. Maybe you could be "Drogulus who can play anything by Jeff Beck?" :D
How did this thread start back up again!?
Greg.
Quote from: Brian on January 25, 2009, 08:30:52 AM
How did this thread start back up again!?
Greg healed it.
Quote from: drogulus on January 25, 2009, 08:42:58 AM
Greg healed it.
I'm a White Mage apprentice, after all...
Quote from: G$ on January 24, 2009, 03:34:21 PM
Seriously, is there anyone who can answer this question?
Okay, God cannot be omnipotent, benevolent, and just at the same time. It doesn't make sense, because if he could do anything, then he could at least put a stop to the misery in the world. But, he chooses not to. Why? Because He wants to win your love. But, what kind of loving person would send you to hell for eternity because they don't love you back? And why does he need to be loved so much? Why is it necessary to inflict extended misery on a living being just so you might have the chance for them to love you back? How is that true love?
And in the end, if it's not supposed to make sense, how is this any different from any other religion? How is it being fair when you have to guess? Choosing means logic is involved, so if you're not choosing, you're guessing. Being sent to burn in hell for eternity seems a bit harsh for rolling a 4 instead of a 6.
Is there anything that could be said, to counter this, period?
I dunno.............does hell have to be a literal, eternal place? And is it necessarily a final destination? This life on earth can be unbearable enough--in its own way, a hell during difficult times. Maybe I'm a bad Catholic, but I can't see Christ's life and death ("which taketh away the sin of the world", St. John 1:29) as not being able to cover and finally reconcile the lives of those who may reject Him here on Earth. But then again I'm just speculating and offering my personal view here; personal digressions over now!
Quote from: drogulus on January 24, 2009, 07:15:57 PM
Maybe we should retitle the thread "Why Won't God Make Me Jeff Beck?". What do you think? :-\
I'm thinking it would be easier to heal an amputee. ;)
>:D
Quote from: Bu on January 25, 2009, 08:22:29 PM
I dunno.............does hell have to be a literal, eternal place? And is it necessarily a final destination?
So says the Bible. Oh yeah, and God is "fair". I suppose some sort of "higher" logic is what goes on. :-X
Quote from: Bu on January 25, 2009, 08:22:29 PM
I dunno.............does hell have to be a literal, eternal place? And is it necessarily a final destination? This life on earth can be unbearable enough--in its own way, a hell during difficult times. Maybe I'm a bad Catholic, but I can't see Christ's life and death ("which taketh away the sin of the world", St. John 1:29) as not being able to cover and finally reconcile the lives of those who may reject Him here on Earth. But then again I'm just speculating and offering my personal view here; personal digressions over now!
Are you looking for a poetic or a factual understanding? Which is important to you? Are you trying to get some benefit or learn what's actually there? You could be a wiseass and say getting the truth is a benefit....but it's a rather strictly defined benefit which you ought to have little opportunity to fiddle with through belief. If, that is, you really want to know something like if there is a Hell or New Jersey instead of just defend their existence weakly against the mockery of....you know,
moi.
:P Quote from: Szykniej on January 26, 2009, 12:18:10 PM
I'm thinking it would be easier to heal an amputee. ;)
>:D
That's hardly relevant.
>:(
Quote from: Bulldog on January 24, 2009, 04:15:22 PM
Why assume God comes back at all? Perhaps God only creates; that would readily explain why bad things happen to good people like you and me.
Good. An unemployed God, though, can hardly be said to be an improvement over a nonexistent one, can it? Does it really matter that much whether nonexistence is the reason or "Hey man, don't look at me...it's your problem!" is? Effectively the ball is in our court either way. This is not usually the way I go since existence isn't affected by circumstances like this. If a God exists it doesn't have to be useful or moral. Still if you're stuck at the "what's a God good for?" stage you could consider that nothing is the most likely answer for a being that is not supposed to be in the business of intervening.
Quote from: G$ on January 26, 2009, 02:30:27 PM
So says the Bible. Oh yeah, and God is "fair". I suppose some sort of "higher" logic is what goes on. :-X
Maybe, if our hermeneutics is static and sterile. Or the interpretation could be wrong or a little off. If you think, as a Christian, that every single verse should be viewed literally and that there's no room to maneuver or modify passages--and I'm sure some might claim doing so is an affront to the intentions of the original writers, whoever they
really were (we can't question that now, either!)--then we
should keep our lips sealed.
Quote from: drogulus on January 26, 2009, 04:41:41 PM
Are you looking for a poetic or a factual understanding? Which is important to you? Are you trying to get some benefit or learn what's actually there? You could be a wiseass and say getting the truth is a benefit....but it's a rather strictly defined benefit which you ought to have little opportunity to fiddle with through belief. If, that is, you really want to know something like if there is a Hell or New Jersey instead of just defend their existence weakly against the mockery of....you know, moi. :P
Hmmmm............... I don't know if I believe in the traditional hell as supposedly elaborated in the Bible. Wether its a place or condition doesn't always concern me, but offering a differing view can at least provide G$ with another perspective. He did notice the apparent contradictions of thought in the texts (eg, God as an all-loving deity who seeks the redemption of His creation as opposed to eternal punisher for rejecting his love). I'm only pointing out that, with such radical differences in character and mood, perhaps our hermeneutic is limited and off because, in the example given, a literal fundamentalism just doesn't work here.
Quote from: drogulus on January 26, 2009, 04:58:08 PM
Still if you're stuck at the "what's a God good for?" stage you could consider that nothing is the most likely answer for a being that is not supposed to be in the business of intervening.
That's what I concluded...
Why won't God heal amputees?
Because he gets a chuckle out of watching them try to turn a double play?
Quote from: DavidRoss on January 27, 2009, 03:02:07 PM
Why won't God heal amputees?
Because he gets a chuckle out of watching them try to turn a double play?
Your avatar matched this post.
It's like, "Let me try a one-liner here- don't know if it's gonna work or not, but I think I'll just throw up my hands in a silly gesture anyway."
;D
I just had this thought...
Alright, imagine this story.
One day, a guy named Bob goes out to play. Bob was always a good Christian; followed every rule, tried his best to do the right thing- sure, sometimes he slipped up, but whenever he did, he always asked for forgiveness immediately.
However, since he was playing golf on a Florida golf course with dark clouds overhead like an idiot, he got struck by lightning and died.
He awakens at the judgement seat of God. However, he noticed something odd. God was wearing a turban! :o
"You have disappointed me, almighty Allah!" screamed God.
Bob was a bit surprised. "Ummm... is this a joke?"
"Stop mocking me! I have given you fair enough chance! Ever hear of a little thing called Islam? You do know what happens to nonbelievers, right?"
"Uhhhh... yeah, I have studied a little bit of it before."
"Good, then you shouldn't be surprised. I never knew you- depart from me."
And then, good ole boy Christian Bob was thrown into the Lake of Fire, where his flesh melted slowly, for all eternity.
...
...
...
Is this just?
What if "Bob" were "Arif" and "Allah" were "Jehovah"?
Quote from: Greg on August 18, 2009, 06:21:57 PM
I just had this thought...
Alright, imagine this story.
One day, a guy named Bob goes out to play. Bob was always a good Christian; followed every rule, tried his best to do the right thing- sure, sometimes he slipped up, but whenever he did, he always asked for forgiveness immediately.
However, since he was playing golf on a Florida golf course with dark clouds overhead like an idiot, he got struck by lightning and died.
He awakens at the judgement seat of God. However, he noticed something odd. God was wearing a turban! :o
"You have disappointed me, almighty Allah!" screamed God.
Bob was a bit surprised. "Ummm... is this a joke?"
"Stop mocking me! I have given you fair enough chance! Ever hear of a little thing called Islam? You do know what happens to nonbelievers, right?"
"Uhhhh... yeah, I have studied a little bit of it before."
"Good, then you shouldn't be surprised. I never knew you- depart from me."
And then, good ole boy Christian Bob was thrown into the Lake of Fire, where his flesh melted slowly, for all eternity.
...
...
...
Is this just?
What if "Bob" were "Arif" and "Allah" were "Jehovah"?
Ooh, did chick tracts (http://www.chick.com/default.asp) serve as the inspiration for that example, inverted as though it might have been?
I think the only ones who might consider the examples just would be the fundamentalists of the respective religions; others? Not very much.
Quote from: Daidalos on August 18, 2009, 06:37:20 PM
Ooh, did chick tracts (http://www.chick.com/default.asp) serve as the inspiration for that example, inverted as though it might have been?
I think the only ones who might consider the examples just would be the fundamentalists of the respective religions; others? Not very much.
Actually, no, at least not at first- though I did realize how what I started to think was similar to what I've seen. ;D
I think it was the one where this guy (probably named "Bob") was undecided about what to believe in, and then at the very last frame, you see him falling into fire, as he burns for eternity.
Quote from: Greg on August 18, 2009, 06:46:55 PM
Actually, no, at least not at first- though I did realize how what I started to think was similar to what I've seen. ;D
I think it was the one where this guy (probably named "Bob") was undecided about what to believe in, and then at the very last frame, you see him falling into fire, as he burns for eternity.
I have a better one. Bob is hooked up to a robot from the future (let's call him Omega I, in honor of Teilhard de Chardin
:P).The robot knows everything. It is just as materialist or otherwise as the truth, which it knows, calls for. The robot asks Bob a question: "Bob, does God exist?" If Bob gets it wrong, the robot tortures him forever. What should Bob say?
Quote from: drogulus on August 19, 2009, 12:20:29 AM
I have a better one. Bob is hooked up to a robot from the future (let's call him Omega I, in honor of Teilhard de Chardin :P).The robot knows everything. It is just as materialist or otherwise as the truth, which it knows, calls for. The robot asks Bob a question: "Bob, does God exist?" If Bob gets it wrong, the robot tortures him forever. What should Bob say?
Nothing. Bob should just pour acid all over the stupid robot for being such a jerk, and then casually walk away.
But when it explodes, he shouldn't look back. After all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/Sqz5dbs5zmo
8)
Cheater. ;D
Quote from: Greg on August 19, 2009, 06:12:47 AM
Nothing. Bob should just pour acid all over the stupid robot for being such a jerk, and then casually walk away.
But when it explodes, he shouldn't look back. After all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/Sqz5dbs5zmo
8)
I was going to say the safest answer would be one that didn't "get it wrong" by being unresponsive. So the right answer would be "Splunge!" or "Nice robot!". But you've got the right idea.
However you could decide to accept the challenge. Since the robot is an omniscient entity that threatens to torture you forever the answer would be yes. That's a god in my book.
:)
Quote from: drogulus on August 19, 2009, 12:26:25 PM
I was going to say the safest answer would be one that didn't "get it wrong" by being unresponsive. So the right answer would be "Splunge!" or "Nice robot!". But you've got the right idea.
However you could decide to accept the challenge. Since the robot is an omniscient entity that threatens to torture you forever the answer would be yes. That's a god in my book. :)
I would say yes.
Then I would say yes to any other robot that threatens to torture me forever, as well. 0:)
Gort!
>:(
Be Nice!
Leave his guitar alone!
(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4816/gortmovie2.jpg)
:o*
* You can't leave him alone for a minute!
Quote from: Bu on January 25, 2009, 08:22:29 PM
I dunno.............does hell have to be a literal, eternal place? And is it necessarily a final destination? This life on earth can be unbearable enough--in its own way, a hell during difficult times.
Short answer? No, it has to not be that. There is no that, words meaning what they do.
As for what it might be, could hell just be a stupid, evil idea grandfathered into the modern world by old beliefs? Is that too far-fetched? Not at all. It happens all the time. As a matter of fact, new stupid, evil ideas are produced even now. So it shouldn't surprise you that the old ones can hang on. Perhaps a more pressing question (for me, at least) is why you appear to be confused about the difference between ideas that are just that and other ideas that actually refer to something. Also, it is not the case that the falsity of the most literal view implies the truth of some less literal version. If hell does not "literally" exist that does not mean it's any more likely that it exists in a "sort of" way. There is no mid-point between existence and metaphor to rescue false beliefs.
If you pay attention to what words mean you might begin to have trouble with all of the "quasi-existent" modes non-literalists are fond of. They are escape hatches, pure and simple, a way of maintaining that something
really exists though it literally doesn't. The absence of "literal" hell closes the subject. The miseries of human life are something else, and shouldn't be used to prop up this shitty concept.
Quote from: Greg on January 26, 2009, 02:30:27 PM
So says the Bible. Oh yeah, and God is "fair". I suppose some sort of "higher" logic is what goes on. :-X
It's the higher logic of Madman Mundt.
(http://www.ugo.com/movies/nightmare-neighbors/images/nightmare-neighbors-barton-fink.jpg)
I'll show you the life of the mind!
Quote from: drogulus on August 20, 2009, 05:08:13 PM
(http://www.ugo.com/movies/nightmare-neighbors/images/nightmare-neighbors-barton-fink.jpg)
(http://ardfilmjournal.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/delmarfromobrotherwhereartthou.jpg)
We was beat up by a bible salesman and banished from Woolworths.
I dont know, Everett, was it the one branch or all of them?
"Stay the hell out of the Woolworths!"
;D
Quote from: drogulus on August 20, 2009, 05:08:13 PM
It's the higher logic of Madman Mundt.
(http://www.ugo.com/movies/nightmare-neighbors/images/nightmare-neighbors-barton-fink.jpg)
I'll show you the life of the mind!
Didn't recognize that until I saw the picture of that other guy. :D
Actually, I watched about 30 minutes of that movie just the other day. Before that, I saw it 2 or 3 times...
Quote from: Greg on August 21, 2009, 08:22:57 AM
Didn't recognize that until I saw the picture of that other guy. :D
Actually, I watched about 30 minutes of that movie just the other day. Before that, I saw it 2 or 3 times...
It's a sneaky good movie that only the Coens could make. Everyone should be forced to watch it until I'm satisfied that they've had enough and not a moment before. Is that too strict? Anyway, every time I watch it it gets better.
Mastrionotti: Started in Kansas City. Couple of housewives.
Deutsch: Couple days ago we see the same M.O. out in Los Feliz.
Mastrionotti: Doctor. Ear, nose and throat man.
Deutsch: All of which he's now missin'.
Mastrionotti: Well, some of his throat was there.
Deutsch: Physician, heal thyself.
Mastrionotti: Good luck with no fuckin' head.
Watch for Tony Shalhoub, he practically steals the film, even though it's impossible to steal a film from Goodman and Lerner.
Geisler: Mayhew, some help, the guy's a souse!
Barton: He's a great writer...
Geisler: A great souse!
Barton: You don't understand...
Geisler: Souse!
Barton: He's in pain, because he can't write...
Geisler: Souse! Souse! Can't write? He manages to write his name on the back of his paycheck every week!