Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Belief without evidence is how atheists use the word faith. That is never how the church understood the word.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."
I got that reference from st aquinas 'Faith and Reason'.
Aquinas writes:
the intellect assents to something, not through being sufficiently moved to this assent by its proper object, but through an act of choice, whereby it turns voluntarily to one side rather than to the other: and if this be accompanied by doubt or fear of the opposite side, there will be opinion, while, if there be certainty and no fear of the other side, there will be faith.
The princile is also explicit in Papal bull 'Dei filius':
"there are other divine truths, the knowledge of which is necessary for salvation, that are beyond the power of natural reason and can only be known through divine revelation."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I think its yet another example of how bad our intuitions are about how our brains work. in fact we don't even have an intuition it is our brains doing the work of thinking and feeling - we have learn tht. The ancients believed we thought with our hearts or liver!
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I can fully explain my theory to you, but first admit you're just baselessly asserting common thoughts instead of well-justified conclusions.
I'm happy to admit that I am a total sheep!
I am not so happy about posting a defence of the status quo as a condition of hearing your argument against it - i am only mildly interested in what you have to say; I'm not motivated enough to do any work for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That does answer the question, certainly. It seems that essentially you are saying that your reasoning which you use to conclude that free will does not exist is guided by examining the evidence avaliable to you and forming conclusions based on that.Yes
I think that may be wrong! At every waking moment you have the experience of making choices - your raw experience indicates free will exists.
You reject free will because you cannot frame a theoretical mechanism by which free will could work. If you hadn't thought much about it, and based your beliefs on your empirical experience you would have no doubt at all that free will existed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
He'll call it a strategic withdrawl!I love it when the godist surrenders unconditionally.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am not sure there is much left to say. The issue can be stated as 'Can an individual appreciate the truth of Christianity purely rationally or is faith also neccessary?'.
Christian doctrine is that faith is required. Reason and intellect can only make Christianity seem reasonable; to know it 'fully' or 'in one's heart' (epignosis) requires faith to bridge the gap from reasonableness to certainty.
Faith cannot be justified in rational grounds - that is what makes faith faith! Nor is the exercise of faith and the 'achievement' of certitude easily stated in words - hence the use of impressionistic metaphors like 'pure heartedness'.
It is sometimes argued that such faith is not restricted to theistic belief; rationalism also depends on faith, that is on holding somethings as true without rational justification. I think there is some truth in that! I don't deny my rationalist, atheistic world-view involves faith; the difference is my worldview is right and the theistic worldview is wrong!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why that is so is is a good story. Some Jews will not eat dairy and meat within 6 hours of each other.Cheeseburgers ain't kosher, dude
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
but why assume a pedophile's brain is wired up wrongly? Why is it not others who heads are wired up wrongly? And how can we decide what is wrong or right? It all becomes a difficult project. what is normal? Who says what is normal?
You will note I put 'wrongly' in scare quotes for the reason you allude to. The question of who decides is what the rest ofthe post dealt with.
Why would you not want P to have sex with kids? and why not? So if the P and his friends lobby and get laws into place which allow P to have sex with children, we should see it as only competing actions?
I give no other reason than it is how my brain is wired up - ie 'normally'! Of course we should see them as competing factions and be ready to fight over it - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Of course it applies to all moral matters, not just pedophilia. We will live in a world defined by those who fight hardest to shape it. That's not how it should be - but it's how things always have been, are now and always will be.
After all, if absolute evil does not exist for the atheist - then evil can never be attributed speculatively or not to a hypothetical deity.
Many atheists are too busy kicking down theistic moral philosophy to have the time for constructing an atheist one!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Let's assume a pedophile's brain is wired-up 'wrongly' so it doesn't judge sex with infants as bad. Let's also assume that such a brain can't be rewired to be normal.
So pedophile P wants sex with kids, I want P not to. I can't stop P wanting sex with kids, but I (and people like me) can make it harder for him to do it,by having laws and punishing such pedophile behviour. P can of course lobby for very diffrent laws.
Which laws we end up with will not depend on who is 'morally right' because morality does not exist. The laws we get will be the result of a battle of wills between pedophiles and non-pedophiles. Good and evil are competing factions; which side you are depends on accidents of birth and how experience shapes the way your brain is connected.
It may seem pedophilia is objectively bad, but if we examine why it seems it's objectively bad we might start with 'it causes pain and suffering'. But that means having to say why pain and suffering are objectively bad. If you try the exercise - going down the levels - you will pretty soon give up and say 'X is just bad,OK?', ie a subjective judgement. There is no such thing as morality - there are only moral judgements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Once upon a time, many many billions of years ago, our universe exploded into existence from a singularity for no reason, no intention, no purpose...It is not a matter of a feel-good religion but what is trueAnd the point is?
The point is that an origin with "no reason, no intention, no purpose" is - I believe -true. A cosmic reason, intention and purpose exist is 'feel good religion'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't even know what the subject is!I don't respect you as an authority on the subject
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Would you prefer I write a book for everyone here on the infinite variations of pagan practice?
It seems you don't know much about "the infinite variations of pagan practice" as you admit you don't know what 'purity of heart' means in a muslim context.
Purity of heart in a Muslim context I imagine means something very different than an Orthodox context.
so it wouldn't be very good book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have heard the term 'false dichotomy' before? The choices are not limited to theistic religion or hedonism.I never made such a claim, so I am not making a dichotomy at all.
Maybe, but you offered this either/or choice earlier when you wrote:
Compare The Truth is God, love God by purifying the heart.ToThe Truth is God. Love God through hedonism.Which is true worship? Which is right belief?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The method is heart purification.
...and here's how to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Compare The Truth is God, love God by purifying the heart.ToThe Truth is God. Love God through hedonism.Which is true worship? Which is right belief?And that is what Orthodoxy means. True worship. Right belief.
You have heard the term 'false dichotomy' before? The choices are not limited to theistic religion or hedonism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So utility. Survival of species.Yes, this is certainly an example of a common moral philosophy. Very worldly. Really probably a lot more arbitrary than you like to think.
But it is very probably true - and you worship the truth, don't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I think the argument simplifies to
Evil does not exist, but good does. Evil is only the absence of good. (a parallel is light and dark).
Evil appears to exist therefore good does exist.
God is required for good to exist.
Therefore god exists.
is that a fair summary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But why are they good things to do?
I'll recycle a reply i made to tradesecret.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Because you got triggered by the word "godless", which is really another. way of saying wicked
Not according to Merriam-Webster it isn't!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Isn't it possible to do those things simply because they are good things to do?And what purer religion is this? For we take care of orphans, widows, the poor, and love those around us without being pietists. The works themselves are not the faith, and indeed such a faith is empty. We do these things because we love God, who is sure and eternal.
If people don't do good works 'orphans and widows' will starve, while we wait for a god to do anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am certain there are many crackheads, alcoholics, and smokers who call their slavery an exercise of their freedom.
'Many' is a weasel word.
I suppose that someone who is not free cannot choose to be a crackhead, but somehow I don't see that as a good reason to not judge freedom to be a good thing. I'm not even sure why we are having this discussion...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
And although sometimes people might suggest it is a set of bad things - which in many ways is the same thing - we need to define or at least measure good or bad or right and wrong or evil and bad.
Evil = the 'set of bad things' works very well in the context of the OP syllogism.
1 An all good God would want to eliminate all bad things
2 An all powerful God could eliminate all bad things
3 Some bad things exists
4 therefore an all good, all powerful God does not exist.
For us to recognise evil - we must have a measure, otherwise it is simply an opinion. An opinions might be incorrect, but otherwise like someone mentioned in a different place - it is also subjective - to the point that "rape" may not be evil but just that we have an opinion that it is evil.
If we accept evolution, our behaviour is the product of evolution. To survive we have to be encourged somehow to do what is good for survival and avoid what is bad for survival. it appears the 'somehow' is that we have evolved a sense for what is good [for survival] and bad [for survival].
But subjectively the way we perceive things is as [morally] good and [morally] bad. It is important to note that what we perceive as [morally] good is only an approximation to what is good [for survival]. The match is not perfect because the mapping ws produced by the hit-and-miss process of mutation and natural selection. The relationship between good[for survival] and [morally] good is (after millions of years of refinement) not too bad, but it's not perfect.
So when we judge rape as bad it isn't 'just' an arbitrary random opinion with no basis - it reflects evolutions 'best guess' what is good for survival the species, expressed as a moral judgement.
As every brain is unique,differnt brains may make different judgements of what is good and bad, and good and how bad. For most humans the 'badness' we feel towards rape is more than enough to block that behaviour, but obviously that does not apply to everyone.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm guessing the problem is that the scenario is unimaginble to a certain type of theist. A trolley problem can be visualised without creating a paradox but my 3-sided square cannot. It could be that a disproof of god (or of their particular conception of god) appears paradoxical to mopac et al in way it does not seem padoxical to non-believers.
Or maybe theists aren't much good dealing with hypotheticals!
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Suppose you were presented with a three-sided square. Would you still believe squares had four sides?And Mopac, you're coming from you believe in Jesus and even when presented with incontrovertible proof that there wasn't any jesus or god or ultimate truth, you chose to deny it anyway and be punished forever. Again, where is that incorrect?
I hope that makes no sense to you, because it was intended to be nonsensial! The point is that to mopac 'presented with incontrovertible proof there wasn't any jesus' makes no more sense than me presenting you with a three-sided square and expecting you to make some sort of meaningful response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, it is pretty obvious to this one here that sin is very influntial in the motivations of the ungodly, even to the point of being the primary motivation.
That is why the 'slavery' metaphor is agood one. But an addiction to drink or drugs is only figuratively slavery, it's not slavery in its literal sense.
But I'm interested in the word 'ungodly'. What makes a person an 'ungodly' person? I am an atheist, but I sin very little, at least not in the ways that cause any harm to anyone. On the other hand a pedophile priest believes in god but sins in a big way. Which of us is 'ungodly'? Perhaps we both are, but to lump me and James Fletcher together loses a lot of fine detail!
I don't think that many people take up atheism in order to sin more easily. If you are the sort of person prone to being light-fingered or are attracted to young children then the fear of god might act as a disincentive, but that holds whether god is real or not - all that matters is the belief is present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The examples of Stalin and Pol Pot etc show you are not necessarily wrong!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
'Slavery to sin' uses slavery in a figurative sense.
A miscommunication exists between you and DD over 'conclusion'. DD means 'inference', you mean 'ending'.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Honestly, Is anyone not a bigot with you? I think if If Nelson Mandela posted something you'd call him a bigot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Mopac is a great one for theological jargon!
'gnosis' and 'epignosos' are different forms of knowlege.
I think 'epignosis' is close to 'knowing in one bones'. That is to say that it's not 'intellectual knowlege' but unshakable certainty. For example I know 'citizen kane' is a great movie but I don't feel it in my bones. I'm not going to die for the cause of that films greatness.
But I do know freedom is good - I feel its truth and cannot imagine it to be false. 'freedom is good' is not a neutral fact but part of my being. Knowing Citizen Kane is good' is gnosis, knowing 'freedom is good' is epignosis.
Mopac is saying that an objective of orthodoxy is to turn mere 'gnosis' of god into 'epignosis' of god.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I can't imagine any atheist not having second thoughts if a god manifested itself.
However I would point out to anyone who cared that my previous atheism was entirely reasonable and rational and whilest theists had obviously made a lucky guess, I would stress that they hadn't got it exacty right either so they shouldn't get too cocky over it.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is a morally repugnant character who had the power to send out Jephtha's favorite dog, right?
It was only a woman, for Pete's sake. It's not like God chose anything valuable.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I think most rapists know it is wrong but do it anyway. Theologically God never condones or commands evil; people do evil of their own free will.Of course if rape was objectively wrong then it wouldn't exist because everyone would know that it was wrong.
God has voluntarily given up full control over humans' minds in order they should be free to choose good or evil.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Consider yourself reamed!
Not on this occasion!
A difference with trolley problems is that trolley problems resemble real world problems. i'm thinking 'driverless cars'. Soon we are going to have face up to writing software that makes trolley-problem like decisions. Do you want your driverless car to prioritise your safety or third-parties? I wonder if people could choose the 'moral options' installed in their newcar along with its colour! It would probably effect insurance premiums...
But while driverless cars are becoming a reality, God is not going make a personal appearance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
1 An all powerful God could eliminate evil2 An all good God would want to eliminate evil.3 Evil exists4 therefore God probably does not exist.But the question is - what is evil?
4 should read 'an all good,all powerful god does not exist'
Does an entity have to be infintely good and infinitely poweful to be a God? Wouldn't 'very good' and 'very, very powerful' be sufficient?
I suggest 'evil' is 'the set of all bad things'.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't know what I would do, and - i submit - neither does anyone else know how they would react.
Imagining a scenario is very different from it actually happening and there is no way to test if anyone would really do what they say they would!
I think the scenario suggested is too bizarre to generate a reliable forecast of the response. If it happens then we will see, but I won't worry about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I think you can ask someone to define 'moral values' or to list 'their moral values'. I am not sure you can as someone to define 'their moral values'.
You wont find an entry for 'supadudz's moral values' in the oxford dictionary!
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hence it is part of image, nature, written indeed on our hearts. Some might call it intuition - others subjective morality - but whatever we label it - it is there.
It's been there longer than you might imagine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I can post what you did without any modification.
If you really worshipped the truth, you would recognize what I am saying as being truth worship.
I don't believe you can accept what I am saying because you don't want Christianity to be what I am telling you it is. If you were to, that would necessitate a serious paradigm shift and the discarding of a great deal of baggage that you perhaps feel very invested in.
As I said, one of us must be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Because - like you - I worship truth. One of us is wrong about what is true.I don't know why you would want me to commit apostasy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Not even trying anymore, eh?
You obstinacy has finally worn me down!
You're not right - you're incorrigible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You've obviously never played "Silly Buggers"!I suppose you could say it is a game, but usually when I think of a game there is a winner or winners and a loser or losers, which in this case there clearly is not.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes, keith but you will have noticed I started my sentence with "for me", so whether you agree or not is irrelevant from my point of view. The fact that you think they are false is just your opinion and is not based upon any objective evidence. As for Sarah Palin, is she still alive?
You will have noticed I started my sentence with 'I think', so whether you agree or not is irrelevant from my point of view. The fact that you think they are true is just your opinion and is not based upon any objective evidence. Sarah palin is michael palin in drag.
Except disagreement is not irrelevant - it's the raison d'etre of this sort of forum. Can you support, for example, 'justice must eventually occur' with an evidence-based argument, or is it the brainless assertion you claimed it to be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Be fair....you never told anyone the game is 'street epistemology'.
It's a rubbish game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And so in their hearts The Truth is killed by them, and buried in a tomb.
Pretty prose, but obviuosly you don't mean actual hearts, neither can truth be killed or put in a tomb. What does it actually mean? For verily your liver is but frozen and the Lie walks in its multitude, and rides in a hovercraft.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
what you call "apodictic truth", that being the same as what everyone else calls "being correct"
I think everyone else calls "apodictic truth" "the bleedin' obvious".
wikipedia;
"Apodictic" or "apodeictic" (Ancient Greek: ἀποδεικτικός, "capable of demonstration") is an adjectival expression from Aristotelean logic that refers to propositions that are demonstrably, necessarily or self-evidently the case.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I agree that the text indicates that jesus'death and resurrection was pre-ordained by god. One can quibble whether it is an instance of 'human sacrifice' - Jesus was not ritually offered up to a god by its worshippers as is the case within the usual meaning of 'human sacrifice'.
i think the crucifixion of jesus threw the early church into a crisis - jesus was supposed to be a messiah; he was supposed to lead the jews out of Roman subjugation into greatness. Instead he died as a blasphemer.
The consequence was remarkable - instead of being forgotten as yet another messianic pretender (as he is considered in judaism) he was turned into a martyr for a new, non-jew centric religion invented (or at least actively promoted) by Paul that succeeded outside judea as it failed within.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Agreed. He manifests the hatred and intolerance he castigates religion for. I had never read any of his posts before, and I won't again. He and his posts do not exist.
Created: