12-31-2006, 06:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2006, 06:45 PM by Ruggedtouch.)
<i>May the peace of our Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ, find a way into your heart, RT.
</i>
Thanks, but I'm not worthy.
FHC - your comments are in blue highlight. The "quote" thingy isn't working.
<i>Round 2...</i>
You know what, kiddo, we could provide you with all the evidence in the world but you still wouldn't believe because for you to admit that we're right means admitting you've been wrong all along & that could have psychological effects on you
Ya’ know what, kiddo, no you can’t. I know where you’re going with this. The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge.
Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in <i>spite</i> of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.
Faith cannot be used as a tool to access knowledge because it is random. Faith-based assertions carry validity <i>(sic)</i> not because there is any criteria to back them up, but because a group of people deem it so, and by definition, faith asks that one does not question validity. If one is questioning their faith, it is considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it.
But who says that faith cannot be used as a tool to gather knowledge? Aren't there things in this world that fall under the heading of "mysterious" and thus must be believed simply because? While it is true that there are things that are mysterious, it is not true that they will always remain that way, nor is it true that simply believing in them from an unquestioning faith supports their validity. If this were the case, then anyone who had faith in the existence of leprechauns would have the same support of reality as those who profess a faith in the existence of gods. It is precisely our ability to reason that brings the mysterious to understanding-- one can have eternal faith in the sun rising and traveling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.
Ultimately, there is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor, and "faith" in one's friends, but I guarantee you it's really trust based upon their behavior-- if your doctor butchers you or a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.
With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you.
Biblically/scripturally speaking, god doesn't want us to discover-- he couldn't care less, and in fact punishes men for trying to attain knowledge he considers threatening (Tree of Knowledge, Tower of Babel) -- and in fact he tells us to not worry about where our meals will come from (the lilies of the field). No, Jehovah wants faith and adoration. That's it. There's not a single instance of Jesus saying,
"Consider your beliefs. Think them through. Scrutinize, and doubt claims of absolute authority without proof and support". In fact, he says precisely the opposite.
Matthew 8:13 - And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
Matthew 9:28 - And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.
Matthew 18:6 - But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:23 - Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
Mark 9:24 - And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
Mark 11:23 - For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Mark 11:24 - Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
1 Corinthians 13:7 - Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
(etc, etc, etc)
<i>Let me ask you, how do you know that your parents are really your parents? Have you ever undertaken a DNA test to ensure that you're their child or do you wholeheartedly accept it as truth on their authority (which is an act of faith)</i>?
I have <i>trust</i> that my father is, in fact, my father in part because I kinda’ look like him. More to the point, your analogy is a poor one. Whether or not my parents are my <i>real</i> parents or not still place both them and me in a demonstrable reality. Not so with your asserted god(s).
But consider where theism has an extraordinary standard within it's own assertions. If we are somehow wrong about my parents actually being who they claim, there really isn't any impact. A naturally occurring event or person's existence is fairly low yield in outcome if we're completely wrong. But theism makes claims of an eternal nature -- issues that affect our existence during <i>infinity</i> Doesn’t that raise the stakes considerably as opposed to whether or not I have a blood tie to my parents?
The second aspect of this argumentation follows under the aphorisms that when you make extraordinary claims, you need to provide extraordinary evidence. If the assertions you make cannot support the contention of even an ordinary claim (i.e., it's not extraordinary that two individuals claim to be my parents -- then how can <i>lesser</i> standards support a far more extraordinary claim, like there exists a supernatural realm?
<i>Hmmm... not quite! Catholicism on Islam...</i>
<b>"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race" (CCC 841-842).</b>
Hey – quote verses all you wish. Your argument is circular. I am “assuming” this empirically because countless culture after culture has done this same thing. Would you say the gods of Greece and Rome and Babylon and the Norsemen are all “real” or were they made up to explain things that couldn’t readily be explained? Assuming you admit these other cultures did do precisely that, why does the god of the desert you believe in not adhere to an obvious conclusion that men create gods for any number of reasons? Why does yours exist and theirs do not?
By what authority do you exempt the god(s) from the very discipline you insist must be in effect for all existence? It's an old counter argument, but its one the theist cannot solve. You cannot demand a standard for all of existence, and then exempt something that is in existence of the very standard you insist must be applied to all things. If you permit yourself to exempt one, then I can exempt one as well. Therefore, if your god is excused for being created from nothing, then why can't the universe be excused for being created by nothing?
<i>Out of curiousity... what's your philosophy on good & evil? Do you believe in universal morals or is everyone a god unto themselves? </i>
Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do before religion? How is it we are here despite our ancestor’s total lack of moral compass?
Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before there were religious beliefs. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.
Your idea that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).
Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.
I cannot logically resolve a vengeful, vicious god. “His” message comes with an underlying threat that <i>is</i> repulsive. He can wash away all sins if he wants to. He doesn't want to. Thus he permits the eternal condemnation of <i>most</i> of his children. If his concern was truly safety, he'd change his behavior to one that really embraces safety.
If I were "infinitely merciful" there would be no act that could possibly circumvent my infinite mercy. The comparisons to humans don’t ever work, even as an illustration, because theists insist on a perfect and ultimate and unlimited god. Infinite love and mercy should be what it is-- infinite love and mercy. Eternal damnation is a contradiction to those attributes, and there is no way to reconcile a god who establishes amorality as morality.
For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Furthermore still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned fairly successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?
Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.
Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.
Help me out here, FHC. So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal law of God is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46
________________________________________
<i>"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession." </i>
________________________________________
Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.
Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?
Thanks.
<i>I wouldn't bet on it if I were you!</i>
Bet on it. History proves it. Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.
Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.
Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.
It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods don’t return to this earth, as gods don’t prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.
<i>I think that's all I'll comment on for the time being. Submit (or another Muslim) can handle the rest on Islam.</i>
I'm taking on all of ya'. Praise Zeus (PBUH).
<i>I've turned the other cheek for ya :punch:</i>
Theists like to portray critical assessment as some sort of weakness to the naive, but it's really the strength of science: Eliminate the ideas that are proven or provable and make the mechanisms withstand all criticism. That is how we get to knowledge. In fact, FHC, it's how you came to your belief systems, to <i>some</i> extent. You just left out the critical assessment part. You wouldn't believe as you do if you hadn't eliminated competing concepts and ideas, assuming you chose your religion and didn't merely inheret the belief system you were born into. So don't use a process for yourself and then try to denigrate others for using the exact same process to come to a knowledgeable conclusion.