TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- atheism just another religion?
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Essentially, religion cannot answer questions about the mind of god, the afterlife, the meaning of life, or make accurate predictions about any of them. Pretty poor from an "ism" that claims divine knowledge.

Well...

The entire Bible is an insight into the "mind of God" even though "mind of God" is a questionable statement itself. To assume God has a mind is to assume that he created us exactly like himself and not just in his image.

The Bible gives detailed predictions about the judgment, it also gives insights into what the after life will be like.

Also, for Christians at least, we do not claim to have divine knowledge. We do have divine revelation which is different. We have some big answers revealed to us, with our full understanding to be achieved in the after life. The other answers come from our own inquisitive nature that was also given to us by God, IE: through philosophy, science etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Well... The entire Bible is an insight into the "mind of God" even though "mind of God" is a questionable statement itself. To assume God has a mind is to assume that he created us exactly like himself and not just in his image. The Bible gives detailed predictions about the judgment, it also gives insights into what the after life will be like. Also, for Christians at least, we do not claim to have divine knowledge. We do have divine revelation which is different. We have some big answers revealed to us, with our full understanding to be achieved in the after life. The other answers come from our own inquisitive nature that was also given to us by God, IE: through philosophy, science etc.

The problem of course, is that we cannot verify any of these claims until we're dead! a bit late for my mortal body's quest for knowledge

Well that's really where faith comes in to play, we put our faith in our beliefs that are grounded in earthly validity (which is obviously debatable between theists and atheists) that we will be invited into the paradise that is the after life and given the answers to all the questions we have.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Sure. How about the question "How should I lead a moral life?"? Let's pick the Ten Commandments, the ultimate Christian moral imperatives: [*] I am the Lord your God (well, all right, it doesn't really hurt);

the relation to morality being?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*] You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God (if only extremists didn't ignore this bit );

a bit useless, since it doesn't come bundled with a list of what qualifies a use as 'wrongful'.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*] Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy (woohoo, a day off once a week, so I can sit back and think about how awesome life is!);

relation to morality being?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*] Honour your father and mother (sounds fair);

sounds fair, perhaps. is fair? no. honour should be gained, not automatically received. not all parents equally deserve honour, most don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*] You shall not kill (sounds fairer);

sure, but as an absolute rule, it's not really the best one out there, so long as there are other groups who do not follow the same made up list of answers.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*] You shall not commit adultery (Good advice for not getting in trouble);

even in a polygamous society?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*] You shall not steal (hmm... yeah, I don't see anything wrong with this either);

robin hood.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*] You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour (should go without saying, but I'm glad someone bothered to make that clear);

what if the legal system is so inefficient that the only way to bust a 'bad' man would be to transgress this moral rule?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*] You shall not covet your neighbour's wife (specially if your neighbour owns guns );

tantamount to 'you shall not be human'.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira [*] You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour ("be happy with what you've got"? Sounds like a deal to me!).

tantamount to 'you shall not be human'.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Or.. are you perhaps sad, trying to cope with your depression, and you want to know how to overcome your sorrow? I think we could refer to the Four Noble Truths instead: The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha): "This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering." (kind of pessimistic but, such is life) Suffering's Origin (Samudaya): "This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." (sounds reasonable) Suffering's Cessation (Nirodha): "This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it." (doesn't really sounds like a bad idea to me) The Way (Mārga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering: "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." (I fail to see anything inherently wrong with this bit).

you're not happy? change most everything about yourself! you won't be much of yourself anymore, but hey, at least you won't be sad! ...or would you?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira But, Lira!, you may object, What about philosophy? Don't you think we're better off listening to philosophers rather than blindly following religious dogmas?.

listening to philosophers? no. being philosophers? certainly.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Sure. How about the question "How should I lead a moral life?"? Let's pick the Ten Commandments, the ultimate Christian moral imperatives: I am the Lord your God (well, all right, it doesn't really hurt); You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God (if only extremists didn't ignore this bit ); Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy (woohoo, a day off once a week, so I can sit back and think about how awesome life is!); Honour your father and mother (sounds fair); You shall not kill (sounds fairer); You shall not commit adultery (Good advice for not getting in trouble); You shall not steal (hmm... yeah, I don't see anything wrong with this either); You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour (should go without saying, but I'm glad someone bothered to make that clear); You shall not covet your neighbour's wife (specially if your neighbour owns guns ); You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour ("be happy with what you've got"? Sounds like a deal to me!).

Just a little adjustment, "Thou shall not kill" is actually wrongly translated in almost every modern version of the Bible, it should actually have been translated as "you shall not murder.

Sort of a distinction there because otherwise Moses would have gone to hell Which sort of would have been a bummer given he didn't get to enter the promised lands to Israel!

One of the few things Lutherans got right actually, and in more recent history the Catholic church had to clarify that they didn't advocate people just getting murdered because they didn't want to sin

Science explores the mind of god.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Science explores the mind of god.

So said Galileo!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i know you hate him but http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,1

i usually stay out of these threads because i don't pretend to have many of these answers but i was reading through and this struck me.

you and Dawkins are selling Einstein waaaaayyyy short. Einstein didn't think a God was merely anecdotal or even metaphorical, he beilieved God was essential and worthy of reverence equalling anything he and others before him took on in the fields of science

like Alex said, Einstein believed in a higher power. not only did he believe in it, he thought mankind and it's efforts to unlock the mysteries of nature would be lost without it.

he postulated continuously about the reconciliation between knowledge and belief. he thought correctly that knowledge without belief was completely one-sided and lacked beauty. he thought objective knowledge was a wonderful tool that brought mankind's achievements in thought to once thought impossible ends, but he also believed it was imperative to acknowledge that mankind's longing to achieve those ends should not be without a reverence to a power higher than man's.

he also gave the utmost reverence to what he thought was the ultimate expression of mankind's moral aspirations and judgements, the Judeao/Christian religious tradition. he thought those principles were essential to the development of the individual not only in behavior but without such principles an individual had no basis for a desire to become more knowledgable.

you see, the question of whether Einstein "believed in God" is pretty pointless. if he believed in anything he believed that mankind has little purpose and meaning without a belief in something omnipotently greater than himself. the man once regarded as one of history's foremost pragmatist and rationalizers, was as religious as the Pope himself...for all practical purposes of course.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre taking the easy way out. of course there are "answers" if say, i asked "where was jesus born?" well, the bible has the answer! in which book was god the bigger bastard? again, the bible has the answer.

It's somewhere in the old testament, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i think you'll find much better answers to depression by reading a psyche textbook or going to see your doctor.

Except, not everyone has access to those things in the world (and even in industrialised societies, you'd better have a doctor).

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T

I actually took the time to reply to each objection, but halfay through it, I just felt the need to ask you something: do you know anything at all about Christianity? Adultery refers to having sex with anyone other than your spouse(s), broadly speaking, so of course it applies to polygamous societies!

I don't know of many Christian polygamous societies though. Not even mainstream Mormons are polygamous any more...

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T listening to philosophers? no. being philosophers? certainly.

If you consider yourself to "be" a philosopher, and you don't listen to other philosophers, you're doing anything but philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I actually took the time to reply to each objection, but halfay through it, I just felt the need to ask you something: do you know anything at all about Christianity?

not much, but i do know some.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Adultery refers to having sex with anyone other than your spouse(s), broadly speaking, so of course it applies to polygamous societies!

sorry, just slipped my mind, i don't have a better example at the moment, so that argument failed.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I don't know of many Christian polygamous societies though. Not even mainstream Mormons are polygamous any more...

it was a hypothetical regardless. no need for real life examples.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira If you consider yourself to "be" a philosopher, and you don't listen to other philosophers, you're doing anything but philosophy.

care to be more specific? what is it that i would be doing in such circumstances?
anyways, i took your 'listen' a bit more dogmatically than you probably intended it. in practice, i consider myself a philosopher, and i do read the writings of other philosophers, usually just to have some idea to argue against; i also believe the combination of observation and meditation to be more interesting for synthesizing new philosophies than the synthesis of previous philosophies with meditations.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Essentially, religion cannot answer questions about the mind of god, the afterlife, the meaning of life, or make accurate predictions about any of them. Pretty poor from an "ism" that claims divine knowledge.

Just because you do not accept the answers does not mean they have not been provided.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Sure. How about the question "How should I lead a moral life?"? Let's pick the Ten Commandments, the ultimate Christian moral imperatives:

Just a point of clarification here... the 10 commandments are the ultimate Jewish moral imperatives... the ultimate Christian moral imperatives are:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Mathew 22:37-40

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T not much, but i do know some.

Because half of your objections don't make sense within a Christian framework. You can criticise a system of thought if it's not consistent, but you can't really say something is inaccurate if it doesn't even seek to explain what you want it to.

For example, you said that "honouring your parents" cannot be taken as a prerogative because "honour must be earned". But, how does that honour prevent you from being moral? If you live a Christian life, according to those premises, are you really doing something wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T care to be more specific? what is it that i would be doing in such circumstances

You would be just thinking. Just like a person doing experiments without a scientific context. They'd be just doing experiments, not science.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Because half of your objections don't make sense within a Christian framework. You can criticise a system of thought if it's not consistent, but you can't really say something is inaccurate if it doesn't even seek to explain what you want it to. For example, you said that "honouring your parents" cannot be taken as a prerogative because "honour must be earned". But, how does that honour prevent you from being moral? If you live a Christian life, according to those premises, are you really doing something wrong?

erm, there appears to be a rift between the light tone of your post (the 10 commandments one) and your expectations from my reply, marcus. i don't mind going about it seriously, i was just following the tone.

in case you do wanna go about it seriously, let's start with the first commandment: how does that commandment on its own guide one to having a moral life? if i were trying to guide people on how to lead a moral life should one of my rules be "I am Alon, your guide"? not to mention starting with it - cause we all know appeals to authority are the best way to convince someone you're right.
(sorry, can't seem to shake this light tone off when talking about the ten commandments )

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You would be just thinking. Just like a person doing experiments without a scientific context. They'd be just doing experiments, not science.

this seems to imply there is a 'philosophical method', i disagree that such exists.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T erm, there appears to be a rift between the light tone of your post (the 10 commandments one) and your expectations from my reply, marcus. i don't mind going about it seriously, i was just following the tone.

Huh?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T in case you do wanna go about it seriously, let's start with the first commandment: how does that commandment on its own guide one to having a moral life? if i were trying to guide people on how to lead a moral life should one of my rules be "I am Alon, your guide"? not to mention starting with it - cause we all know appeals to authority are the best way to convince someone you're right. (sorry, can't seem to shake this light tone off when talking about the ten commandments )

Well, first of all, it was supposed to have been handed down by God himself for that purpose (I'm sure Craig and Alex can give you a better explanation of what the context was). A commandment such as "Hey, guys, this is the guide you're supposed to follow, kay?" would be superfluous, therefore.

And, I think it's a pretty good way of telling someone to that you should obey that set of rules. Right from the start, you make it clear that God himself told people what to do, not just some guy crossing a desert

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T this seems to imply there is a 'philosophical method', i disagree that such exists.

What I meant to say is that both philosophy and science are social activities.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Just because you do not accept the answers does not mean they have not been provided.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN verifiable

"atheism just another religion"

No, that's stupid.

Weird analogy: Some people own boats, some own houses, some own farms. They are property owners. They're different, just like the different faiths. Then someone comes along who's a fucking bum who dont own shit. Why would you come along and say bums are just another type of property owner. NO.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Huh?

you were complaining that half of my objections don't make sense within a christian framework... well, half of the comments you've added to the ten commandments you pasted didn't seem to be taking the subject matter too seriously either.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, first of all, it was supposed to have been handed down by God himself for that purpose (I'm sure Craig and Alex can give you a better explanation of what the context was). A commandment such as "Hey, guys, this is the guide you're supposed to follow, kay?" would be superfluous, therefore.

that was my point, the first commandment is superfluous rather than a proper answer to 'how should i lead a moral life?'.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And, I think it's a pretty good way of telling someone to that you should obey that set of rules. Right from the start, you make it clear that God himself told people what to do, not just some guy crossing a desert

that way lies fundamentalism. if you should follow these commandments at all it should be for their value, and not because some god 'said so!'. and if those people trusted moses enough to go up the mountain on his own to have a chat with god, and waited 40 days for him... is it so unreasonable to expect them to trust the answers moses brought them are from god?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira What I meant to say is that both philosophy and science are social activities.

and again, i disagree. thought experiment: you exist alone in a universe. can you philosophize? can you use the scientific method?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you were complaining that half of my objections don't make sense within a christian framework... well, half of the comments you've added to the ten commandments you pasted didn't seem to be taking the subject matter too seriously either.

It's not a matter of taking it seriously, but being logically consistent. I just add bits of humour here and there so I don't sound like a drone

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T that was my point, the first commandment is superfluous rather than a proper answer to 'how should i lead a moral life?'.

Oh. I find it hard to defend the presence of God in the Christian tradition (so I won't), but I really think of that as a "dressing" for the arguments. So, in that case, it doesn't give a "proper" answer, but doesn't refrain you from leading a moral life either. It's more like a neat accessory you could do without, I guess.

Either that or God didn't know about Gricean Maxims

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T that way lies fundamentalism. if you should follow these commandments at all it should be for their value, and not because some god 'said so!'. and if those people trusted moses enough to go up the mountain on his own to have a chat with god, and waited 40 days for him... is it so unreasonable to expect them to trust the answers moses brought them are from god?

Well, men are fallible. God isn't. Makes sense both if you believe or not in the Christian tradition, doesn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T and again, i disagree. thought experiment: you exist alone in a universe. can you philosophize? can you use the scientific method?

Not at all. Firstly, there would be no reliable use of language (see the Wittgensteinian "Private Language Argument" for a more elaborate take on this problem), so you really can't do either properly.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It's not a matter of taking it seriously, but being logically consistent. I just add bits of humour here and there so I don't sound like a drone

i didn't mean my initial post on this to be a cohesive, consistent whole. rather ten individual arguments with little relation to each other.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Oh. I find it hard to defend the presence of God in the Christian tradition (so I won't), but I really think of that as a "dressing" for the arguments. So, in that case, it doesn't give a "proper" answer, but doesn't refrain you from leading a moral life either. It's more like a neat accessory you could do without, I guess.

let's nitpick then, shall we? it wastes your time. time that could be spent doing something 'moral'.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, men are fallible. God isn't. Makes sense both if you believe or not in the Christian tradition, doesn't it?

yet on one extreme, it leads to immoral actions.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Not at all. Firstly, there would be no reliable use of language (see the Wittgensteinian "Private Language Argument" for a more elaborate take on this problem), so you really can't do either properly.

i'm not in any rush to agree with Wittengstein's argument, nor to automatically agree that a public language is a prerequirement for philosophy. what makes it so in your opinion?

if you want to debate the private language argument, present your interpretation.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i didn't mean my initial post on this to be a cohesive, consistent whole. rather ten individual arguments with little relation to each other.

My bad, then.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T let's nitpick then, shall we? it wastes your time. time that could be spent doing something 'moral'.

Well, you could be doing something immoral as well, so this is keeping you from being wicked, don't you think?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T yet on one extreme, it leads to immoral actions.

Doesn't that happen to most ideas?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i'm not in any rush to agree with Wittengstein's argument, nor to automatically agree that a public language is a prerequirement for philosophy. what makes it so in your opinion? if you want to debate the private language argument, present your interpretation.

Fair enough.

No person, on its own, has ever managed to acquire language. Feral children, for example, even after being reintegrated in society, struggle to utter the most basic sentences. Why is that?

First of all, if there's no reason for you to speak, it's very unlikely that you will speak at all. There's no one for you to interact with anyway, and it's not probable that you will develop a refined sense of self if there's no "other" to even consider talking to yourself.

Without language, how can you even intend to philosophise?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, you could be doing something immoral as well, so this is keeping you from being wicked, don't you think?

not after reading the ten commandments! that's what they're there for!
adding a superfluous rule to a morality guide lengthens the time it takes you to live a more moral life.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Doesn't that happen to most ideas?

maybe. still, shouldn't a guide to morality strive to be among the few in which that doesn't occur?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira No person, on its own, has ever managed to acquire language. Feral children, for example, even after being reintegrated in society, struggle to utter the most basic sentences. Why is that?

i disagree unless you limit your definition of languages to the spoken languages only. we can understand when a feral child is in distress/pleased/etc based on their body language.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira First of all, if there's no reason for you to speak, it's very unlikely that you will speak at all. There's no one for you to interact with anyway,

i agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira and it's not probable that you will develop a refined sense of self if there's no "other" to even consider talking to yourself.

why do you believe so?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Without language, how can you even intend to philosophise?

do you not believe we generally have an innate desire to make sense of the world around us? i claim that it's that desire which forms our intent to philosophize.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T not after reading the ten commandments! that's what they're there for! adding a superfluous rule to a morality guide lengthens the time it takes you to live a more moral life.

But it does

And, I don't think being practical was among their top priorities

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T maybe. still, shouldn't a guide to morality strive to be among the few in which that doesn't occur?

Is that even possible? Aren't all ideas prone to distortion at some level?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i disagree unless you limit your definition of languages to the spoken languages only. we can understand when a feral child is in distress/pleased/etc based on their body language.

But body language can only go so far, reason why even deaf people have to resort to a highly sophisticated system of signs to communicate. Otherwise, it would be just like a dog. He can ask for attention, and may even 'tell' you to back off, but "no matter how eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell you that his parents were poor but honest"; let alone philosophise.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T why do you believe so?

Because knowledge does not come from within. We may be given the tools to make sense of the world around us, but without a world of experience to trigger them, these tools are useless.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T do you not believe we generally have an innate desire to make sense of the world around us? i claim that it's that desire which forms our intent to philosophize.

No, I don't think it is innate. I think it arises from an engagement with the world, reason why you can't even think of a problem that isn't somehow related to the world we live in.

For example, ever since humans left Africa, different groups have undergone different kinds of genetic mutation. Most people that left the continent have fair skin, some people headed Eastwards and their eyes became slantier, while some people went West and their eye colour as well as their hair colour also changed. Had these changes not happened, and we remained uniform after that possible populational bottleneck in pre-history, could we ever think of race and racism? We'd all be black, after all.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Is that even possible? Aren't all ideas prone to distortion at some level?

perhaps. let's take free speech for example - if it is meant to be absolute, how is it prone to distortion?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira But body language can only go so far, reason why even deaf people have to resort to a highly sophisticated system of signs to communicate. Otherwise, it would be just like a dog. He can ask for attention, and may even 'tell' you to back off, but "no matter how eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell you that his parents were poor but honest"; let alone philosophise.

different languages have varying levels of expressive potential on different things, those differences don't make one less of a language than another though. as for the dog-like point, if i remember correctly, dogs communicate far more with scents than they do with vocalizations.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Because knowledge does not come from within. We may be given the tools to make sense of the world around us, but without a world of experience to trigger them, these tools are useless.

there's plenty without for the knowledge to come from; if other people were the only source of knowledge, we'd have no knowledge at all. the world around us, regardless of whether it contains people or their products is full of experiences to trigger those tools.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira No, I don't think it is innate. I think it arises from an engagement with the world, reason why you can't even think of a problem that isn't somehow related to the world we live in. For example, ever since humans left Africa, different groups have undergone different kinds of genetic mutation. Most people that left the continent have fair skin, some people headed Eastwards and their eyes became slantier, while some people went West and their eye colour as well as their hair colour also changed. Had these changes not happened, and we remained uniform after that possible populational bottleneck in pre-history, could we ever think of race and racism? We'd all be black, after all.

we could've easily made an analogy (to 'race') from seeing the variance in other species, i'd say.

also, have we ever seen an omnipotent flying spaghetti monster? how about intelligent extra terrestrial beings? were they green humanoid beings btw?

lol @ slantier

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.