|
atheism just another religion? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| 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. |
:stongue:
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. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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 |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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 :p)
| 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. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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? :p
| 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 :p) |
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 :p
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 |
;) |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
"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 ing bum who dont own . Why would you come along and say bums are just another type of property owner. NO. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Huh? :p |
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 :p |
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? |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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 :p
| 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 :p
| 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. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| 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 :p |
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. |
|
|
|
|
