QuoteLaura, this is why I suggest that the faithful enjoy their faith, draw strength from it but don't try to rationalize it.  The whole "pick-and-choose" approach of selecting some parts as "true" and dismissing the logically flawed parts as "wrong" or subject to interpretation is, in itself, a logical fallacy.

Naturally. IF you are referring to the revelation itself. But I'm not talking about the Revelation, I'm talking about human being's understanding of that which has been revealed.
In fact, I used to rail against exactly that approach because it allows one to pick out the parts they can handle and dismiss the parts that don't work for them and that calls into question whether or not any of it is true.
But as I've grown older, I've come to the opinion that it is in fact logical (not in the sense of formal debate but in the sense of taking a rational approach) to believe that given that the entire Christian religion is built on the principle that humanity is fallen and hopelessly flawed and CANNOT think or act or reason perfectly...
then it logically follows that religions that are instituted and operated by men and built upon the reasoning of men MUST have made errors.

Therefore all that any reasonable person can do is try there best to understand God's will (in there own broken and flawed way) and NOT be bound by the broken and flawed reasoning of men who have gone before him just because it has become the majority view.

In that since it is somewhat like the scientist who has concluded that some popular theory is in fact incorrect. For years he may labor in disrepute and disregard simply because the great majority is convinced of the currently popular view. but if he makes his case well enough he MIGHT be able to convince them they have erred.

No, of course, if you do not take the "fallen man" approach that is inherent to Christianity this line of reasoning falls apart. But given that starting place, I think it is perfectly reasonable and logical to conclude that the church and human theology do not, and CAN not, perfectly reflect God's mind.

Quote
Ok, let's chalk this inconvenient contradiction up to "interpretation" as a teaching. Well, what does it teach?  Whether it is literal or parable, it still profoundly illustrates *human* judgement in argument with god.  Ignoring that glaring aspect to this "teaching" takes some pretty determined mental blinkers, wouldn't you say?.

A variety of things. The most obvious of which is that God is not above testing his followers, and that he does not, in fact, take umbrage when his follower questions or challenges the "common knowledge" (Divine wrath was the common understanding of any sort of God in those days)

One of the main things to remember here is that it is not necessarily true that God ever intended to be as harsh as he was letting Abraham believe. From the Biblical world view, God always has to deal with us as we might deal with a toddler (and even that analogy isn't strong enough) and it's even more true for the primitive mind than the modern one.

So it's not a given that God's side of the conversation is as simple as it seems. One might say to a toccler "Daddy spank!" about something he's about to do, and Daddy's real intention is FAR more complex and reasoned than "I want to hurt my kid"

Just for one possible understanding.

Quote
That's a bold assertion, given that philosophers have been wrestling with this question for some time

Meh. The nature of philosophy is to try to understand the universe in terms that work for you. i do not presume to be deeper or smarter than the philosophers...I just find a rubric that works for me. YMMV.

QuoteNo!  You're (hopefully inadvertantly) playing intellectual sleight of hand here.  The point of argument here is not on the philosophical origins and emergence of morality, it's about the arbitrary definition of a fundamental frame of reference...in this case "god".  Your whole argument is based on your intrinsic belief system

I don't believe I understand what you are saying here well enough to directly address it. My posts here follow this chain of thought:

Why do you think there is a god? > "I have trouble believing there can be any absolutely moral or immoral thing without a superhuman source for absolute morality" > the discussion of the nature of morality which follows from that being an argument for the existence of a Supreme Being.

That said, the bit you quoted from me in order to reply thusly was - to state it in a perhaps more clear way - If I believe that absolute morality exists, why do I not have the imperative to impose that morality on others? My reply is that part of absolute morality is that true morality is arrived at by your own free will choice. I can, at most, hope to TEACH you about it but at the end of the day, it's up to you to choose it or reject it.
This is limited of course - your right to free moral agency ends where harming others begins - and it is obviously far more complex than what can be stated here. but what I'm driving at is that it IS logically possible to believe in SOME absolute morals without believing they must be enforced upon others against their will.

QuoteMorality is a mutable and highly subjective point of view, as clearly demonstrated by the change in moral concensus over history and between societies.  Whatever your philosophical stance, it's clearly not a set of static parameters!

And obviously if that is your worldview then you do NOT need any Supreme being (at least, as to the question of morality).

But if that is the place you proceed from, then it still leaves the unanswered question - is a thing moral simply because TPTB, whether an autocrat or a majority, view it to be - was Slavery moral in 1600 because society didn't view it otherwise?

Quote
This is another logical fallacy.  The wrongs of others don't diminish the wrongs of the one.  The "lesser of two evils" (assuming we agree on the lesser) doesn't automatically equate to "good"

Of course not. nothing in my comment implied otherwise. I was simply pointing out that what you fear - or should fear - is people with too much power and bad ideas. It matters not at all whether those ideas are derived from religion or not.

Quote
Ultimately, this discussion may well be futile because faith requires assumptions outside the scope of objective, rational analysis.

At a minimum, it requires an unprovable assumption - both ways - about the nature of morals and ethics, to wit whether or not there are absolutes.


I'm not so much arguing for God here (in this extended tanget) as arguing for intellectual consistency.

My original reply was, basically, "because I believe in moral absolutes - even if I'm not sure what all of them are - I therefore have to believe in a Supreme source for said absolutes"
But as we have drifted into this tangent, I of course have to concede that absolutes, or their absence, are not logically provable - so my argument becomes "IF you believe in absolutes, then..."

Which of course leaves an obvious "agree to disagree" situation as a possibility.

In that since it is somewhat like the scientist who has concluded that some popular theory is in fact incorrect. For years he may labor in disrepute and disregard simply because the great majority is convinced of the currently popular view. but if he makes his case well enough he MIGHT be able to convince them they have erred.
OK, let's start here shall we?  Why not?  That is not how science works.  Science is easy.  All you have to do is prove it in such a way - and this is a basic rule of science - that others can duplicate your experiment and find the same results.  As it is, some long held theories of science have been disproved overnight.  Hubble and Chandra both did that.  OVERNIGHT, what has long been held, that there are tens of thousand of galaxies (at most), turned out to be in fact, billions of galaxies (at the very least), and real scientists had little trouble changing their minds - though getting their minds around it is a different deal, and I don't even begin to think that laymen who are not science buffs have even begun to deal with what those photos have proven to us.  I'm sure you are among that group.

Now of course, you ignored what I said about China - does not fit with your system - and what I said about most societies throughout history conforming to almost the same moral code.

Now, on to the entree.

I'm not so much arguing for God here (in this extended tanget) as arguing for intellectual consistency.
One.  You most certainly are, and either your being intellectual dishonest with yourself, or your lying to us.  One or the other.

Point one point one.  Tangent is misspelled.
So, Jesus loves me this I know, 'cause my spelling sure can blow?
Dear, I went to a Methodist (or it was once) university as an undergraduate (under what I now view as the 'ancient regime'), and they insisted on spelling, long after they gave up mandatory chapel. And I'm not saying I'm smarter because I can spell.  I can't spell to save my life, even with a PhD, but I'm smart enough to know that and use an on-line spell check. And 'tangent' is a sixth grade word, because that's when geometry is introduced and you begin to need words like 'tangent.'

Two. Intellectual consistency?  Your kidding me right.  Honey, your cracking me up more than Bill Maher or Jon Stewart does. 

There is nothing, zero, less than zero, even less than that, intellectual consistency in the basic story of Christianity.  Does that story have any consistency, much less intellectual basis, to it at all?  Nah.

I used to rail against exactly that approach because it allows one to pick out the parts they can handle and dismiss the parts that don't work for them and that calls into question whether or not any of it is true.  But as I've grown older and needed far more out's to that system, I've sure found them. So don't do as I say, hell, might as well do as I do.  And dear, I did, I gave it all up.

I've come to the opinion that it is in fact logical (not in the sense of formal debate but in the sense of taking a rational approach) that logic is pretty much what I define it as being.  But sugar, I was trained in a manner of logic pretty much beyond your comprehension, and logic, as I was taught, lead people of similar skills to similar results.  Whatever your definition of 'logic' is, it's radically different in both means and ends from what the Jesuits taught me, and since they have an entire school of logic named after them, you know what, I'm going to go with them and not me.

he entire Christian religion is built on the principle that humanity is fallen and hopelessly flawed and CANNOT think or act or reason perfectly
Nothing made by man can be perfect, so its pretty much a given that with all its ills, Christianity is not god made, but man made.

The most obvious of which is that God is not above testing his followers
Exactly for what reason?  Since god by definition is omniscient, doesn't he/she/them/it know the outcome before the little test begins?

God ever intended to be as harsh as he was letting Abraham believe
Proof, or is that just your - or your preacher's - opinion?  Lots of people would differ.

it's even more true for the primitive mind than the modern one.
Pretty much true for the entire story.

Daddy's real intention is FAR more complex and reasoned than "I want to hurt my kid"
Perhaps, but the kid doesn't get it - so its wasted on them - and I'm not sure that at heart, is daddy wanting to do violence as a way to compel obedience.  If nothing else, science sure teaches us that children who are subject to abuse are more likely to be abusers, and children who are taught that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems, turn into adults who use violence to solve problems.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 19, 2009, 02:47:43 PM
[...]
In fact, I used to rail against exactly that approach because it allows one to pick out the parts they can handle and dismiss the parts that don't work for them and that calls into question whether or not any of it is true.

That's why we assess the veracity of hypotheses by looking for substantiating evidence.

Quote
In that since it is somewhat like the scientist who has concluded that some popular theory is in fact incorrect. For years he may labor in disrepute and disregard simply because the great majority is convinced of the currently popular view. but if he makes his case well enough he MIGHT be able to convince them they have erred.

Again, that's why we assess the veracity of hypotheses by looking for substantiating evidence.  Eloquence is irrelevant, only be presenting the evidence does he convince them.  (Galileo springs to mind).

Quote
I can, at most, hope to TEACH you about it but at the end of the day, it's up to you to choose it or reject it.

There's a difference between teaching and preaching, the former term is often misused in place of the latter.

Quote
I'm not so much arguing for God here (in this extended tanget) as arguing for intellectual consistency.

Well aside from the founding argument you made that you think a supreme being is required to define a fundamental yardstick for morality, I find this statement rather ironic.  You're entitled to your opinion but without any substantiation, your opinion is simply that...an opinion.  You claim you're arguing for intellectual consistency when you're entire position is based solely on faith with all the inherent inconsistencies therein.

In summary, you have your subjective view on the origins of morality and, for you, this seems to require a supreme being.  All the interpretations of the intentions and attributes of god are just seeing shapes in the clouds - you see what you want to see.  Given that the underlying assumption that god exists is entirely without evidence, this whole position is intellectually inconsistent.

Q. "How do you know god exists?"
A. "Without god, how can we explain 'x'?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

QuoteThat is not how science works.

I can't tell you how many such discussions I've been in in which some one condescended to assume I had no idea how science worked. what's one more.

QuoteNow of course, you ignored what I said about China

Now, I declined to respond to your entire post. I'm well aware how these things turn out and I have no desire to band my head against the metaphysical wall.

Quote
One.  You most certainly are, and either your being intellectual dishonest with yourself, or your lying to us.  One or the other.

Ummm...ok? If you know what I'm arguing and you know I'm wrong then there's very little point in me responding, right? I decline to provide you more material to work with (beyond this post)

QuotePoint one point one.  Tangent is misspelled.

Oh the shame. I see i used the wrong form of "sense" too and there are likely a dozen other odd  grammatical errors there.

Quotebut I'm smart enough to know that and use an on-line spell check.

Right. And I'm not. Clearly.

THIS is what passes for civil discourse?

Quote
....

Nah screw it. This "I'm so much better and smarter and everything else than you are" routine is kinda cute at first but it gets old really fast.

Your differing opinion is noted and logged. Best wishes to you.

---

Post Merge: July 20, 2009, 02:37:08 AM

---

QuoteYou're entitled to your opinion but without any substantiation, your opinion is simply that...an opinion.

That's pretty much what the OP asked for.

Look, you have been more than gracious and I have enjoyed our exchange but I really didn't join this board for this kind of debate (my own fault for ever answering in a thread like this but still) and I sure as heck didn't join to play dancing monkey to tekla's intellectual superiority.

This whole pro-god/anti-god busines, including it's political manifestations, just drains the joy out of this place for me. I'd much rather talk about  "passing" or what the heck ever and call everyone here sister or brother than I had to win an argument or impress anyone with my reasoning (or lack thereof) so ...um...whatever.

My intellectual superior up thread can congratulate herself that I ran away from my betters. I don't care. I'm not having any fun here.

band my head against the metaphysical wall

See dear, that is the problem, as the China/Civilization/god issue is not a metaphysical one.  Its a historical one, a real one.  You asked, "If there were not a god, then how could we ever get morality and ethics?" and I replied, well China did it for thousands, and thousands, and thousands, and thousands, and thousands of years now.  That seems like a pretty valid example of how it might be done.  Most Native American tribes in Pre-Colombian North America had morals and ethics without a highly structured concept of a "god-given man-received" moral order.  How did they do it?

Actually, in all, there are exactly 3 religions where a "god-given man-received" moral order is taken for granted.  And in some sense, not metaphysical, but very real, they are kinda all the same religion, or at least spring from the same source.  We refer to them as 'people of the book" with the books being the Old and New Testament and the Koran.

Like I said, I've never studied China enough to know how they did it, but I've looked at to close enough to know that they did do it.

I can't tell you how many such discussions I've been in in which some one condescended to assume I had no idea how science worked. what's one more.

One of my favorite teachers was very fond of telling me that if I found I was in disagreement with just about everyone else, then it could be I had some profound insight that no one else had, on the other hand, I most likely was just wrong.  Kinda like the old saying that 'if you can keep your head about you when all others are losing theirs, then you obviously don't understand the situation.'

You seem to think of science as an 'alternative' to faith, it is not.  It's not another faith based system, it a material based system.  It's not a system for 'knowing' like faith is, its a system for examination of the material world, just that, and no more. Science runs not in absolutes, but in probability.  I could drop my pencil and its going to hit the ground in like the 99th percentile range, but there are other variables that might keep that from happening on rare occasions. Where faith is always 100%, science never is. Where faith has to be believed, science in that sense does not.  No amount of belief can conquer the laws of physics, where punishment for violation is swift and merciless. The laws of physics work even if you don't believe them.

Oh the shame. I see i used the wrong form of "sense" too and there are likely a dozen other odd  grammatical errors there.
Right. And I'm not. Clearly.
THIS is what passes for civil discourse?

Oh I just thought that being a huge advocate of home schooling...
And yes, very clearly.  I can't spell to save my life.  So I use technology to help me.  I also was taught (forced really) to learn to proof-read what I write.  I don't always get it right, but I do care about the people reading it, so I make an effort.  Sloppy spelling and sloppy grammar lead to faulty writing - i.e. what you think you are saying is not what you really are saying on paper - and that leads to faulty conclusions.

It may be possible that you can get the big huge thing right and miss all the little details on the way, but I've never seen it happen.  More likely, when you get all the details right, the big thing works its own self out for the most part. The devil is not in the details, god is in the details.  It's not the big huge systematic failure that tends to blow things up, its the failure of little bits and pieces that cascade on each other and create the big failures.

You remember the big blackout back in the sixties up in the Northeast?  Here's what happened.  One $5 part blew out.  That's it, one five dollar part.  That failure of a tiny thing pushed more energy downstream, which caused the failure of other five dollar parts, which pushed even more energy downstream, which started causing the failure of bigger parts, which sent even more downstream, causing even bigger failures - until from Cape Cod to Detroit and up to Toronto, one by one, silently and without any fuss, all the lights went off.

Of course older civilizations knew that too:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Of course in physics, that's called the butterfly effect.  Same deal.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 20, 2009, 02:28:19 AM
I can't tell you how many such discussions I've been in in which some one condescended to assume I had no idea how science worked. what's one more.

if you keep getting told something along those lines, by different people, then maybe you should consider the possibility that it's not all of them who got it wrong.

Quote from: Carolyn on July 04, 2009, 06:07:29 AM
I wish to know something, it has been on my mind since I was 12 and I no longer believed in the Christian God known as Yahweh (Yasuwa or Jesus) whatever you wish to call it. So hey is my request, can someone explain in a logically and reasonable way how someone could believe in a god(s). I wish to know. I would also like to know the exact reasoning behind said belief, and whither or not said person who believes in said god(s) has actually done any research about said belief. I will gladly explain what I believe if any asks of it.

Personally I am the opposite, as I grew up as an atheist, but then became Christian as an adult. And what I can say is that my views as an atheist was based on logic, but I can't say the same as a Christian. My belief is not something that can be put under a microscope to be analyzed. I can't present any empirical evidence for God, or any rationalistic explanations.

All I can explain it with is that God is spirit, and this also make my faith something spiritual. My experience with God is not something that has to do with my brain or my body, but my soul. And if you don't believe the same, then there's nothing I can do about it.

If I would try to use logic's to defend my faith, then I would run into a lot of problems. So all I can hope for is that people that have no faith will respect this lack of ability to explain it. That I am not viewed as a liar or a lunatic, but that I have something that words can't explain. And since no one can give evidence for the opposite, that there is no God(s), then I don't think there is any views that are more logical then others.

Quote from: tekla on July 20, 2009, 07:34:44 AM
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Of course in physics, that's called the butterfly effect.  Same deal.

Richard III. Yep, the same as Shakespeare painted as a nasty villain.

Of course, Shakespeare was working under the governance of the house whose champion won the Battle of Bosworth, not the house whose champion was slain there. So, history (and a memorable play) is written by the victor.

Richard fell from his falling horse. And no one could re-mount him. After a manful fight Richard III was slain. Whereupon Richard's army stopped fighting; and Henry of Bolingbroke Tudor became Henry VII on the field.

All for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Quote from: Miniar on July 20, 2009, 07:37:49 AM
if you keep getting told something along those lines, by different people, then maybe you should consider the possibility that it's not all of them who got it wrong.

No, it's a dodge. People who disbelieve in religion arrogantly assume those who believe in some sort of God are dolts. So they look for every opportunity to crow about it.

Like my purposely misinterpreting a comment in order to say "that's not how science works!" or by nitpicking spelling errors or whatever.

The possibility MIGHT just be that the person they are talking too was just typing "stream of thought" and neglected to proof their post. I'll cop to being too lazy to proof-read as I should. (you will see a lot of uncapitalized "i" errors if I don't) - but it serves the "I'm smarter than you" meme much better to assume the person is too damned stupid to even use spellcheck.

And of course, anyone that dumb clearly doesn't even know the earth is round and etc.

Condescension. nothing more.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 20, 2009, 12:12:52 PM
No, it's a dodge.

OK, luv. It's a dodge, but who's dodging what?

Isn't it easier and more comfortable to just admit that faith, in whatever guise, is just faith and let that be without ontological or any other sorts of arguments for or agin it?

Fact is, that by focusing on what you find personally insulting you are avoiding answering the question of substance with your argument or tekla's, or finewine's or Miniar's. And taking the conversation to personalities.

Let's give ya the admission that tekla made a personal insult to you. OK. Done.

Now, what about the actual discussion sans insults? Does that take any priority in the discussion?

In matters of faith as my earlier longer post here is likely to have shown I quite agree with you in regard to your faith, just would rather use some other designation than god.

But, aside from agreement, I am not seeing that you are discussing what they are. Instead you are discussing what you perceive as one of your interlocutors insulting you. A sort of reverse ad hominum tactic. Or so it seems to me.

Perhaps addressing the substance rather than the perceived personal insult might do more to bolster your thoughts? I dunno. I can be a rather dull girl sometimes.

Quote
Now, what about the actual discussion sans insults? Does that take any priority in the discussion?

In my experience, it can't be done. People with that point of view have an innate sense of superiority.

It's ok, really. It's not a big deal. i really can live with being thought a dullard. What I choose not to do is continue to have the discussion. First of all, no one takes anything a dullard says seriously, and second, I might inadvertently misspell a word and provide more evidence.

When I joined here it felt like, as kristi says, a refuge...a happy place. I am making a conscious choice NOT to ruin that for myself by joining the debate team.

Don't sweat it, it's all good on my end. Just mark it down as I quit or I ran away or i just got tired. Feel free to press on without me.

Don't think of yourself that you're a dullard Laura, It's not true, I read a couple of your post in the Christianity forum and you seem very intelligent with lots of interesting things to say.

Quote from: Carolyn on July 19, 2009, 02:29:59 PM
First and foremost I'm agnostic, now moving on to what I believe.

1/The Scientific method is as of currently the best way to find out what is true and what is false.
2/I want to see evidence in something before I will believe any of it.
3/From what we know of energy is that it cannot be created nor destroyed and thus for the most part reincarnation (of the energy not the mind) is true. Hence energy is transmigrated from one being or form to another or perhaps it disperses in the area in which the person's life ended.
4/Life is a gift, but it is not a super natural gift
5/Everything we do means absolutely nothing in the hind sight of things, for one day all we know will cease to exist, however everything we do while we exist matters for it is the moment we exist in this world.
6/Good and Evil are subjective and thus they don't exist.
7/All forms of religion are viruses on the human race, it's okay to believe in a deity if you must, but to believe in any man-made religion is a fools act.
8/I don't know is a better answer than claiming to know what happens after we die.
9/Last but not least, everyone on this world has unlimited rights or no rights at all. I lean towards unlimited rights.

I will explain more at a later date.

10/ My views of things are in a constant change
11/ I do not play the emotional card for myself or anyone
12/ If there is a god, it is one we do not know, Religion is false and man-made.
13/ The Universe is much grander than anything Religion can offer
14/ Reality is more interesting then fiction.
15/ The darkness isn't something to be afraid of, it's just something to uncover
16/ I will gladly cut down anyone who tries to hinder me from my goals.
17/ Education is highly important, to learn new things should be everyone's goal
18/ If you can not or will not provide equal rights to others, your life is forfeit

More will emerge at a later date

Hi...
     After a few years you learn .....   well do we  now ...I... wonder . what i would say is this its not a matter of who.s right or wrong . lets look at our selfs . are we wrong because we are different . we have many differentces in our community . am i like others here well in many ways no . you know i.m andro . so does that stop us from having friendships or get to gethers . a cupper or what ever.    Do i not have friends who are trans..dresses..t v.s or what ever or who ever . none  of us have the answers . wether from the bible or studing the earth . or what ever . does that stop us from being who we are ..  if we work to gether . we will help each other in so  many ways . why ..OH.. why do we have this continuing fight as to whos right . & wrong. its  such a shame i.v been through the bible yes all of it . i still dont know much about it . it was not in our tounge  . so i miss what the people said 1000.s of years ago . i like talking about it . its neat . i wont tell you or others what we should or not belive or accept . thats only for each person to make up there mind about . like us . we can tell others what we are.    trans or what ever . we can not make them change thier minds . . so whats the answer .
Well what i see is we live our lives we get on with people . & if they dont accept us we walk away . & may be they will come back & accept us one day . its the same with the bible some will accept it some wont . dont put that as a division between us . same with science. let me put it this way with out what we have to day . we would not have our friendships that we do have ..
...noeleena...