God forbid (hehe) someone makes an interesting topic on a Diablo 3 forum and actually brings well-written and informed arguments to the table.
I agree, though, that the manner in which he presents his views (arrogantly, in your book) makes it very intimidating to try and join the discussion. I'd argue that that is not his fault, but stems from the gap in knowledge on both rethorics and the topic at hand between himself and the average user. If only Don joined this discusion...
A proud and fearless leader and only member of the "Save the Diablo III" project I have been a game designer, modder and balancer. Link below is to my blog, where i discuss flaws of this game and offering solutions.
YOU can help this cause by sharing a link in your signature! Please do, if you like my ideas http://savediablo3.wix.com/diablo3#!home/mainPage
...Today there are Christians who, by virtue of faith in their dogma think that our secular state should pre-emptively strike a Muslim country (Iran) before the Jewish state (Israel) can do the same, or at the request of Israel...
How are you correlating Christian dogma with a pre-emptive military strike? I would point to a bilical reference specifically stating otherwise. (Love your enemiesMatthew 5:43-48) Undoubtably there are some self-proclaimed Christians who would have no problem pressing a launch button on missles aimed at Iran (as I'm sure we could find some athiests who feel the same way), however I would claim that if you do not adhere to biblical or catholic teachings then you are not actually a Christian.
What small but notable human tragedies have occured because of a life at conception veiwpoint? When do you believe human life occurs?
Regarding your proposal in the OP. I would propose that every human has a built in moral compass (except for the clinically insane). You have proclaimed that modern progessive thought is more capable than christianity in reaching a solution where "we all get along". Why do we need to reach a solution where we get along? Where does the morall compass or desire to avoid intrinsically evil things come from?
Original sin is simply the concept that people are born as sinners and there is no amount of right action possible to make a non-believer a good person. In point of fact, most Christians (the Catholics still retain their position as the largest denomination) do not even believe that Jesus has abolished original sin. One must grovel and praise the divine each day, receive the sacraments (one of which is to give a generous portion of your income to the church), and believe the nonsense before they are "saved."
If there is a notion of generosity being implied here, I certainly do not see it. The book says that you are sick and offers you a cure to that sickness; however, in the absence of that book you could (and for the 100k+ years humanity existed prior to the founding of monotheism, people did) live a positive and fulfilled life without this concept.
Original sin is a deprevation of sanctifying grace that Adam and Eve passed down to their offspring after The Fall. The only sacrament essential to receive santifying grace (be "saved") is baptism, in which all of your sins are forgiven including original sin. Donating to the church/charity is neither a sacrement itself nor required to receive the sacrements.
I would contend that humanity did not exist prior to the founding of monotheism.
I wonder what life must be like for the relatives of Proletaria. Can you imagine having him around during the holidays? If he talks the way he types, it would be like having dinner with a fusion of C.S Lewis and Hannibal Lecter. Even if he isn't one who is vocal about his stance, you sure as hell know that his family has access to his facebook, which is guaranteed to be jacked up beyond belief with propaganda that most of them wouldn't even be able to fathom.
Keep up the good work. Keep fighting the good fight. Take away every ounce of faith and hope that you possibly can from others. Keep prying away from them their hope in a god who they believe loves and cares for them; so that they too may find themselves lost in oblivion like the rest of us. Without hope and without reason. Ironically, it's sh!t like that that leaves me yet with an open mind.
Right (i think). I am speaking on behalf of my own perspective. My apologies for not clarifying, oh great philosopher, Socrates.
oh I wasn't picking on you, just throwing that out there. I didn't feel like going through 52 pages and I was hoping that semantic would fit in on one of the topics. If I wanted to pick on you I'd focus on your... educated statement of Facebook in a discussion like this but I rather not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
Evil is perspective, there is no such thing as good or evil.
You are basically saying that our perspective changes reality; that becase two people can disagree on what is good and what is evil, no such things exist.
If you really believed there is no such thing as good or evil, I don't think you would be alive today.
How are you correlating Christian dogma with a pre-emptive military strike? I would point to a bilical reference specifically stating otherwise.
You could easily justify either position, depending on the verses you select and the interpretation you wish to advocate for. This in no way changes the reality that social conservatives rally behind the idea of pre-emptive military action against Tehran for biblical pro-Zionist reasons.
What small but notable human tragedies have occured because of a life at conception veiwpoint? When do you believe human life occurs?
As I already mentioned, stem cell research being under-utilized and under-funded is a human tragedy. The sheer number of ailments which could be corrected and cured by this avenue of science is astounding and yet we're hamstrung by the conception argument.
Human life begins at birth - life defined as a collection of cells absent conscious brain function doesn't make any sense to me, but I do sympathise with those who are against late-term abortion and might be convinced of a moral objection to abortion after brain function has been established. I'm no neurologist enough to argue the timeline of fetal development. Ultimately there is no position I can defensibly take on the matter other than it is a woman's right to choose.
Regarding your proposal in the OP. I would propose that every human has a built in moral compass (except for the clinically insane). You have proclaimed that modern progessive thought is more capable than christianity in reaching a solution where "we all get along". Why do we need to reach a solution where we get along? Where does the morall compass or desire to avoid intrinsically evil things come from?
I'm glad you find the concept of innate evolutionary social development and morality convincing, but I do have to wonder (if you are serious about that admission) how you can even ask those questions?
It's patently obvious we need to get along for the continuity of our species and the improvement sum-total of our collective lives and the lives of generations to come. To borrow Sam Harris' term: moving along the "moral landscape," to a point of greater well-being for everyone, requires a societal effort. If you don't expect people to get along, it's hard to imagine they would feasibly cooperate to that end.
The question of evil is something you more or less answered for yourself. Those who exhibit traits of sociopathy, psychopathy, and other nerological/genetic a-social disorders are always going to be a fount of "evil," which has to be dealt with. Dealing with that is best accomplished by understanding the genetic and environmental causes, not by branding everyone a sinner at birth or simply assuming an evil entity juxtaposed to an almighty good.
I would contend that humanity did not exist prior to the founding of monotheism.
Then you would be impressing upon your readers an entirely new definition of humanity, because (taking the accepted usage of the word) you are demonstrably wrong. Even the written historical record, in many places, positively pre-dates monotheism. Your assertion would be akin to saying most inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent is still something less than human. I would hope you know better than that.
I wonder what life must be like for the relatives of Proletaria. Can you imagine having him around during the holidays? If he talks the way he types, it would be like having dinner with a fusion of C.S Lewis and Hannibal Lecter. Even if he isn't one who is vocal about his stance, you sure as hell know that his family has access to his facebook, which is guaranteed to be jacked up beyond belief with propaganda that most of them wouldn't even be able to fathom.
Sweet mother of ad hominem! Just to correct a few points: Firstly, I don't have a facebook account, nor do I feel the urge to lambaste my few living relatives with the rhetoric I espouse here at all times. Free thinking and rationality are not the abandonment of tact. Secondly, I think it's positively ironic (in a cute way) that you should suggest my mode of speaking to be propagandist in nature. If anything, my goal is to dissuade people from accepting the truth of indoctrination and propaganda by fiat.
Keep up the good work. Keep fighting the good fight. Take away every ounce of faith and hope that you possibly can from others. Keep prying away from them their hope in a god who they believe loves and cares for them; so that they too may find themselves lost in oblivion like the rest of us. Without hope and without reason. Ironically, it's sh!t like that that leaves me yet with an open mind.
I fail to see a negative correlation between an open mind and accepting false premises or bad evidence (or no evidence at all). I will continue to "pry away," at the minds of others. The hope I have (founded in the observation of secular humanism in history) is that more people will abandon their fruitless delusions and attempt to improve our collective experience. To quote Marx:
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."
Evil is perspective, there is no such thing as good or evil.
You are basically saying that our perspective changes reality; that becase two people can disagree on what is good and what is evil, no such things exist.
If you really believed there is no such thing as good or evil, I don't think you would be alive today.
While I advocate for the position of objective, rather than abject relativism, I don't think you adequately appreciate the argument. Good and evil are simply ideas, characterizations of actions that society deems to be worthy of repetition or not and in the context they were carried out, based on the alternatives. If we know something about the common human experience (excising that of the mentally ill, because our social needs cannot be diluted by the will of a psychopath) then we have a basis upon which to articulate what makes things good or at least better than alternatives.
It's true that two people can disagree with what good and evil is, but one of them can - by extension - be demonstrably wrong in their assertion by objective means. If you were to say that castrating every other male child at birth was "good," because of a divine edict it would be just as silly as someone suggesting that a society built on this grotesque idea was operating under it's own unimpeachable moral sphere where it was an objectively "good," thing.
The more we understand about the mental and physical human experience, the better we can objectively identify and pursue "good," things. Evil will always be nothing more than a pejorative term for things that aren't even close to optimal in terms of attempting an outcome for humanity that is socially positive. To say any one action is "evil," (not by comparison, but by fiat) is to try and prove a negative. You are insisting that something is never good, always the lowest possible rung on the ladder. I think you'll find that is a trough position to argue for.
There are actions, in our present situation and society, which are bad or demonstrably worse for us than their alternatives. If you wish to use that as a context for "evil," then you have my support, but you should be clear in articulating this beforehand as it is not the common usage of the word.
You are basically saying that our perspective changes reality; that becase two people can disagree on what is good and what is evil, no such things exist.
If you really believed there is no such thing as good or evil, I don't think you would be alive today.
Whatever is the accepted norm is considered good and whatever the bulk of society doesn't accept is considered evil... how about a real life example. Many people in the Middle East could consider America evil... but does that make them evil? Who is right, who is wrong? How do you even prove it? If you can't prove it, then how can you classify ideal? If you believed that God never existed then I don't think you would be alive today because who/what created us?
EDIT: I don't believe in a God so don't try accusing me of being a bible thumper, just using your "wonderful" example against you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
Right (i think). I am speaking on behalf of my own perspective. My apologies for not clarifying, oh great philosopher, Socrates.
oh I wasn't picking on you, just throwing that out there. I didn't feel like going through 52 pages and I was hoping that semantic would fit in on one of the topics. If I wanted to pick on you I'd focus on your... educated statement of Facebook in a discussion like this but I rather not.
You don't think that someone who would post such a topic on a gaming forum, would also express his philosophical views all over his Facebook page? Heh, I'm pretty sure this is the type of person who would do such a thing.
You don't think that someone who would post such a topic on a gaming forum, would also express his philosophical views all over his Facebook page? Heh, I'm pretty sure this is the type of person who would do such a thing.
I think there is a lot of assumption on your part, I know a few whack jobs, and some don't even have Facebook. I see it more as a personal attack. I actually have this one friend whom has a very neutral stance on many ideals but damn he posts a lot of stupid shit, I just think a generalization of a person's Facebook usage is a poor way of getting a solid point across… kind of like using Wikipedia as a proper source.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
One might follow this with an explanation if the intention was to correct an error.
I did somewhat in the two posts. I will as we go along. I don't see making a laundry list of the mistakes in the first 52 pages condusive to a good discussion.
You could easily justify either position, depending on the verses you select and the interpretation you wish to advocate for. This in no way changes the reality that social conservatives rally behind the idea of pre-emptive military action against Tehran for biblical pro-Zionist reasons.
Please quote a verse that could be interpreted to advocate a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. Even if you can convolute some verse to support your position, the Church maintains that it is the authortiy on interpretation of the scripture. Your interpreation of the bible would need to be in line with the Church in order for me to believe it. Which is why I would also contend that Protestantism is not a reasonable reponse to Jesus Christ because thousands of demoninations who believe their own understanding of scripture to be the "Truth" is a logical fallacy.
A large part of the world, US social conservatives and Israelis included, regard Iran's acquisition of nuclear capabilites to be a threat to global safety. So does our very liberal president.
As I already mentioned, stem cell research being under-utilized and under-funded is a human tragedy. The sheer number of ailments which could be corrected and cured by this avenue of science is astounding and yet we're hamstrung by the conception argument.
Human life begins at birth - life defined as a collection of cells absent conscious brain function doesn't make any sense to me, but I do sympathise with those who are against late-term abortion and might be convinced of a moral objection to abortion after brain function has been established. I'm no neurologist enough to argue the timeline of fetal development. Ultimately there is no position I can defensibly take on the matter other than it is a woman's right to choose.
I think you would agree that the if people over the age of 35 started to produce stem cells in their brains it would absolutely wrong/evil to murder and harvest 35 year olds' brains to correct ailments and disease in the younger population. Which means the only thing we differ on is when life begins. You contend that you cannot even be sure that your defintion of "at birth" is true because of brain function beginning earlier. I contend that after conception, a group of cells will result in a person 100% of the time and therefore is a person already. Now obviously miscarriages/disease/etc result in a person never being born. My argument is that the conception between two humans components will always yeild a human result and deliberatly depriving that human from its life is murder.
I'm glad you find the concept of innate evolutionary social development and morality convincing, but I do have to wonder (if you are serious about that admission) how you can even ask those questions?
It's patently obvious we need to get along for the continuity of our species and the improvement sum-total of our collective lives and the lives of generations to come. To borrow Sam Harris' term: moving along the "moral landscape," to a point of greater well-being for everyone, requires a societal effort. If you don't expect people to get along, it's hard to imagine they would feasibly cooperate to that end.
The question of evil is something you more or less answered for yourself. Those who exhibit traits of sociopathy, psychopathy, and other nerological/genetic a-social disorders are always going to be a fount of "evil," which has to be dealt with. Dealing with that is best accomplished by understanding the genetic and environmental causes, not by branding everyone a sinner at birth or simply assuming an evil entity juxtaposed to an almighty good.
Again, why do you care about the well being of others? People commit acts of evil without having social disorders. People with true social disorders don't understand their acts to be evil which is why they don't apply to a "moral compass".
I would contend that humanity did not exist prior to the founding of monotheism.
Then you would be impressing upon your readers an entirely new definition of humanity, because (taking the accepted usage of the word) you are demonstrably wrong. Even the written historical record, in many places, positively pre-dates monotheism. Your assertion would be akin to saying most inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent is still something less than human. I would hope you know better than that.
I am simply impressing the biblical view of the start of the universe in which Adam and Eve knew God. I do not contend that everyone on earth has been exposed to monotheistic teaching. Catholocism does not exclude those who have not.
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)," "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation" (no. 16).
You are basically saying that our perspective changes reality; that becase two people can disagree on what is good and what is evil, no such things exist.
If you really believed there is no such thing as good or evil, I don't think you would be alive today.
Whatever is the accepted norm is considered good and whatever the bulk of society doesn't accept is considered evil... how about a real life example. Many people in the Middle East could consider America evil... but does that make them evil? Who is right, who is wrong? How do you even prove it? If you can't prove it, then how can you classify ideal? If you believed that God never existed then I don't think you would be alive today because who/what created us?
EDIT: I don't believe in a God so don't try accusing me of being a bible thumper, just using your "wonderful" example against you.
My example was awful. What I was trying to convey is that if you have no belief in good or evil you would have most likely done some things in your life that would have led to your death. To have a different understanding of what is good and what is evil is one thing. To believe that nothing is good and nothing is evil is something totally different. I'm having a hard time rationalizing such a viewpoint. I would think the most likely scenario after drawing such a conclusion would be suicide. If nothing is good why live?
I doubt this will win me any friends but I don't understand why we should consider someone to be an individual entitled to rights before they have the ability to understand what that means. Don't get me wrong -- I think that there are plenty of reasons why a society should have laws against killing 6-month-olds. I just don't think those reasons have much to do with the rights of the infant but rather with the rights of the family and because of the difficulty in determining at exactly which point an individual meets my criteria, as examples. Birth seems a pretty good dividing line to me, regardless of whether or not a fetus is capable of the most basic of thoughts and while I find abortion distasteful, I don't find it immoral.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...and if you disagree with me, you're probably <insert random ad hominem attack here>.
Please quote a verse that could be interpreted to advocate a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. Even if you can convolute some verse to support your position, the Church maintains that it is the authortiy on interpretation of the scripture. Your interpreation of the bible would need to be in line with the Church in order for me to believe it. Which is why I would also contend that Protestantism is not a reasonable reponse to Jesus Christ because thousands of demoninations who believe their own understanding of scripture to be the "Truth" is a logical fallacy.
I think you're conflating "the church," as in the catholic church with it's own doctorine, with christianity and the plethora of protestant spinoffs. The evangelical movement which uses passages such as this one from Romans: "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin," to justify Zionism and support for it's aggression against neighbor states are majority protestant. As for the idea that anyone's interpretation of the biblical mythos is more valid than another, I think it's entirely foolish to attempt that argument. If it all comes down to taking one or another line on faith, there is no distinguishing factor between which interpretation is correct. All I need to do is point out one way in which something is being interpreted to comment. You; however, have to prove the validity of your specific counter-interpretation. I don't suggest what they're arguing is right. I think you're both flattering a millennial book with far more import than it's value. But I can tell you, logically, you have no way to prove an irrational assertion with another irrational assertion.
A large part of the world, US social conservatives and Israelis included, regard Iran's acquisition of nuclear capabilites to be a threat to global safety. So does our very liberal president.
I never said there are no good reasons to fear that outcome. I simply cited the irrational forces at work and attempting to influence policy.
I think you would agree that the if people over the age of 35 started to produce stem cells in their brains it would absolutely wrong/evil to murder and harvest 35 year olds' brains to correct ailments and disease in the younger population.
Full-stop with the stawman argument. I'm not going to take you seriously if you're going to compare a collection of unaware cell matter to a living human being who has had a lifetime of experience.
People commit acts of evil without having social disorders. People with true social disorders don't understand their acts to be evil which is why they don't apply to a "moral compass".
I don't think evil has any meaning in that liberal of a context. If you mean to say "anyone would steal," (under certain circumstances) than you'd be right. But, is there never a time when theft is not so bad or perhaps a lesser good? Do you think the character of robin hood was inherently evil? What about stealing from a dictatorial government in the modern day? What about taking someone's harmful drugs away from them to facilitate their recovery?
The problem with the bipolar worldview is that it's oversimplified.
I am simply impressing the biblical view of the start of the universe in which Adam and Eve knew God. I do not contend that everyone on earth has been exposed to monotheistic teaching. Catholocism does not exclude those who have not.
Adam and Eve being a myth, your contention is just wrong then. Monotheism is not some kind of innate way of thinking. There are many more polytheistic religions in history and still are quite a few polytheists to this day.
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)," "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation" (no. 16).
This is how dogma prevents becoming obviously irrelevant and contrived in a modern setting where people actually know of other religions and good people who are their adherents. In the past, the church would have said they're all heretics and pagans. Today they are simply knowing the grace of god in another way. If this isn't obvious ass-covering I don't know what is. The bible says nothing of this sort about non-jew/christians.
In my opinon, there are 2 extremly annoying groups: the believers and non believers. In my opinion, they are no difference between them. Both groups believe in something and why should some one prove anything? This doesnt make sense. The title of this thread, could also be "Prove me god doesnt exists". What is the difference?
So we have this annoying group of athiests, if we ask them, why, they will usually answer with "because i believe in science". Did you know, even the greatest of scientists(people who knows better than you and i)believes in god? Fair enough if you think god doenst exists, but its so dumb to use this as your argument. It would be better, if you could tell people, why religion is nonsense and because you actually know something about religion.
The believers are not better, just in another way.
I went over the crucial, rational, difference between the position of the believer and that of the atheist. I wish I could link it for you, but alas I've lost track of it. The jist of it is: We simply say there is no evidence and thus no reason to assume god. There's no "we're smarter," or any snobbishness of the sort. There is a great deal of pleading to realize the value of evidence, but I think those two are easily conflated by someone who simply isn't reasonable (by no fault of their own) due to indoctrination.
Prove to me that dragons exist, is a logical question posed to someone who claims to know about dragons. Prove to me that dragons don't exist, is a useless question. You can't prove a negative and assuming that something exists simply because we have a claimant is not the least bit rational.
Also, great scientists by-in-large don't believe in any god at all and the few who do are majority deistic (a position which is insurmountable, but still a lackadaisical assumption). Only the very few are theists and even they are defenders of scientific rationalism, evolution, and the rest of it. As for the reason why religion is actually not helpful or worthy of criticism. It's on almost every page of this thread. You should take a look.
To believe in G-d takes a leap of faith, but in all of science everything tends to chaos. All except living organic things. They tend to get more and more complex. Look at your hand or a leaf this isn't random it is very very organized and each generation is more so. Just saying. Jewish by choice, but beleive your G-d is also probably the one that is mine.
of course believers can't prove god exists. if there were proof then more people would belong to the religion with proof. some would still deny it just like people still deny evolution, but that's typical.
you could try something easier. instead of asking them to prove their god exists, ask them to prove their god is the correct one. but, they can't do that either obviously.
you could set the bar even lower. instead of asking them to prove something about their god's existence or dominion over other imaginary deities, ask them to prove that something in their religion actually works. a good example would be prayer. ask them to pray for an amputee to have their missing limb regrown. they can take as long as they need and even enlist the help of their entire church or religious group. but we know how that would end, don't we?
okay, okay. let's make it even easier. let's ask them to prove that belonging to their faith prevents a person from committing atrocities that their religion prohibits. after all, even if a god doesn't exist, but the religion keeps people in line, then it's worth something right? for example, murder would be against the christian religion. it's not something they are suppose to do. therefore, if the christian religion works then no christian would ever be guilty of murder. if that isn't true, then what is the religion accomplishing? but we all know the answer.
they can't prove god exists. they can't prove their god is the right one. they can't prove integral parts of their religion actually function (like prayer). they can't prove that their religion causes its members to follow a code of ethics or morality (religious people commit horrible crimes everyday).
what can they prove? that they are just as susceptible to parental/community brainwashing or fear of the unknown as billions of other humans. both those currently living and the billions of humans who are long dead that belonged to thousands of different religions or belief structures.
To believe in G-d takes a leap of faith, but in all of science everything tends to chaos. All except living organic things. They tend to get more and more complex. Look at your hand or a leaf this isn't random it is very very organized and each generation is more so. Just saying. Jewish by choice, but beleive your G-d is also probably the one that is mine.
The entropic principle you're referring to isn't a means to necessitate divinity. If anything it is a part of the huge body of understanding we have that shows how the universe works in absence of a theologically inclined source. The evolution of living things and non-living (starts, planets, and all manner of technically non-living things have evolved with the developing universe too) shows the source of diversity is not abjectly random events or organized designs, but rather the selection (by environmental pressures) of random mutations/changes over a very long period of time.
You're right that the god of the aberhamic traditions is the same, theologically, across the three faiths that share it as a concept. However, this doesn't wash with other faimilies of religions. The god of Aberham is not anything like Vishnu or Zaroaster. Ultimately, the attempt to coagulate dogma in this manner is simply to round-off a serious divide in irrational claims by making yet-another irrational claim (that all the myths are pointing in the same direction).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree, though, that the manner in which he presents his views (arrogantly, in your book) makes it very intimidating to try and join the discussion. I'd argue that that is not his fault, but stems from the gap in knowledge on both rethorics and the topic at hand between himself and the average user. If only Don joined this discusion...
NOW STOP THIS NONSENSE AT ONCE
I have been a game designer, modder and balancer. Link below is to my blog, where i discuss flaws of this game and offering solutions.
YOU can help this cause by sharing a link in your signature! Please do, if you like my ideas
http://savediablo3.wix.com/diablo3#!home/mainPage
How are you correlating Christian dogma with a pre-emptive military strike? I would point to a bilical reference specifically stating otherwise. (Love your enemies Matthew 5:43-48) Undoubtably there are some self-proclaimed Christians who would have no problem pressing a launch button on missles aimed at Iran (as I'm sure we could find some athiests who feel the same way), however I would claim that if you do not adhere to biblical or catholic teachings then you are not actually a Christian.
What small but notable human tragedies have occured because of a life at conception veiwpoint? When do you believe human life occurs?
Regarding your proposal in the OP. I would propose that every human has a built in moral compass (except for the clinically insane). You have proclaimed that modern progessive thought is more capable than christianity in reaching a solution where "we all get along". Why do we need to reach a solution where we get along? Where does the morall compass or desire to avoid intrinsically evil things come from?
Original sin is a deprevation of sanctifying grace that Adam and Eve passed down to their offspring after The Fall. The only sacrament essential to receive santifying grace (be "saved") is baptism, in which all of your sins are forgiven including original sin. Donating to the church/charity is neither a sacrement itself nor required to receive the sacrements.
I would contend that humanity did not exist prior to the founding of monotheism.
Keep up the good work. Keep fighting the good fight. Take away every ounce of faith and hope that you possibly can from others. Keep prying away from them their hope in a god who they believe loves and cares for them; so that they too may find themselves lost in oblivion like the rest of us. Without hope and without reason. Ironically, it's sh!t like that that leaves me yet with an open mind.
oh I wasn't picking on you, just throwing that out there. I didn't feel like going through 52 pages and I was hoping that semantic would fit in on one of the topics. If I wanted to pick on you I'd focus on your... educated statement of Facebook in a discussion like this but I rather not.
You are basically saying that our perspective changes reality; that becase two people can disagree on what is good and what is evil, no such things exist.
If you really believed there is no such thing as good or evil, I don't think you would be alive today.
One might follow this with an explanation if the intention was to correct an error.
You could easily justify either position, depending on the verses you select and the interpretation you wish to advocate for. This in no way changes the reality that social conservatives rally behind the idea of pre-emptive military action against Tehran for biblical pro-Zionist reasons.
As I already mentioned, stem cell research being under-utilized and under-funded is a human tragedy. The sheer number of ailments which could be corrected and cured by this avenue of science is astounding and yet we're hamstrung by the conception argument.
Human life begins at birth - life defined as a collection of cells absent conscious brain function doesn't make any sense to me, but I do sympathise with those who are against late-term abortion and might be convinced of a moral objection to abortion after brain function has been established. I'm no neurologist enough to argue the timeline of fetal development. Ultimately there is no position I can defensibly take on the matter other than it is a woman's right to choose.
I'm glad you find the concept of innate evolutionary social development and morality convincing, but I do have to wonder (if you are serious about that admission) how you can even ask those questions?
It's patently obvious we need to get along for the continuity of our species and the improvement sum-total of our collective lives and the lives of generations to come. To borrow Sam Harris' term: moving along the "moral landscape," to a point of greater well-being for everyone, requires a societal effort. If you don't expect people to get along, it's hard to imagine they would feasibly cooperate to that end.
The question of evil is something you more or less answered for yourself. Those who exhibit traits of sociopathy, psychopathy, and other nerological/genetic a-social disorders are always going to be a fount of "evil," which has to be dealt with. Dealing with that is best accomplished by understanding the genetic and environmental causes, not by branding everyone a sinner at birth or simply assuming an evil entity juxtaposed to an almighty good.
Then you would be impressing upon your readers an entirely new definition of humanity, because (taking the accepted usage of the word) you are demonstrably wrong. Even the written historical record, in many places, positively pre-dates monotheism. Your assertion would be akin to saying most inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent is still something less than human. I would hope you know better than that.
Sweet mother of ad hominem! Just to correct a few points: Firstly, I don't have a facebook account, nor do I feel the urge to lambaste my few living relatives with the rhetoric I espouse here at all times. Free thinking and rationality are not the abandonment of tact. Secondly, I think it's positively ironic (in a cute way) that you should suggest my mode of speaking to be propagandist in nature. If anything, my goal is to dissuade people from accepting the truth of indoctrination and propaganda by fiat.
I fail to see a negative correlation between an open mind and accepting false premises or bad evidence (or no evidence at all). I will continue to "pry away," at the minds of others. The hope I have (founded in the observation of secular humanism in history) is that more people will abandon their fruitless delusions and attempt to improve our collective experience. To quote Marx:
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."
While I advocate for the position of objective, rather than abject relativism, I don't think you adequately appreciate the argument. Good and evil are simply ideas, characterizations of actions that society deems to be worthy of repetition or not and in the context they were carried out, based on the alternatives. If we know something about the common human experience (excising that of the mentally ill, because our social needs cannot be diluted by the will of a psychopath) then we have a basis upon which to articulate what makes things good or at least better than alternatives.
It's true that two people can disagree with what good and evil is, but one of them can - by extension - be demonstrably wrong in their assertion by objective means. If you were to say that castrating every other male child at birth was "good," because of a divine edict it would be just as silly as someone suggesting that a society built on this grotesque idea was operating under it's own unimpeachable moral sphere where it was an objectively "good," thing.
The more we understand about the mental and physical human experience, the better we can objectively identify and pursue "good," things. Evil will always be nothing more than a pejorative term for things that aren't even close to optimal in terms of attempting an outcome for humanity that is socially positive. To say any one action is "evil," (not by comparison, but by fiat) is to try and prove a negative. You are insisting that something is never good, always the lowest possible rung on the ladder. I think you'll find that is a trough position to argue for.
There are actions, in our present situation and society, which are bad or demonstrably worse for us than their alternatives. If you wish to use that as a context for "evil," then you have my support, but you should be clear in articulating this beforehand as it is not the common usage of the word.
Whatever is the accepted norm is considered good and whatever the bulk of society doesn't accept is considered evil... how about a real life example. Many people in the Middle East could consider America evil... but does that make them evil? Who is right, who is wrong? How do you even prove it? If you can't prove it, then how can you classify ideal? If you believed that God never existed then I don't think you would be alive today because who/what created us?
EDIT: I don't believe in a God so don't try accusing me of being a bible thumper, just using your "wonderful" example against you.
You don't think that someone who would post such a topic on a gaming forum, would also express his philosophical views all over his Facebook page? Heh, I'm pretty sure this is the type of person who would do such a thing.
I think there is a lot of assumption on your part, I know a few whack jobs, and some don't even have Facebook. I see it more as a personal attack. I actually have this one friend whom has a very neutral stance on many ideals but damn he posts a lot of stupid shit, I just think a generalization of a person's Facebook usage is a poor way of getting a solid point across… kind of like using Wikipedia as a proper source.
Please quote a verse that could be interpreted to advocate a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. Even if you can convolute some verse to support your position, the Church maintains that it is the authortiy on interpretation of the scripture. Your interpreation of the bible would need to be in line with the Church in order for me to believe it. Which is why I would also contend that Protestantism is not a reasonable reponse to Jesus Christ because thousands of demoninations who believe their own understanding of scripture to be the "Truth" is a logical fallacy.
A large part of the world, US social conservatives and Israelis included, regard Iran's acquisition of nuclear capabilites to be a threat to global safety. So does our very liberal president.
I think you would agree that the if people over the age of 35 started to produce stem cells in their brains it would absolutely wrong/evil to murder and harvest 35 year olds' brains to correct ailments and disease in the younger population. Which means the only thing we differ on is when life begins. You contend that you cannot even be sure that your defintion of "at birth" is true because of brain function beginning earlier. I contend that after conception, a group of cells will result in a person 100% of the time and therefore is a person already. Now obviously miscarriages/disease/etc result in a person never being born. My argument is that the conception between two humans components will always yeild a human result and deliberatly depriving that human from its life is murder.
Again, why do you care about the well being of others? People commit acts of evil without having social disorders. People with true social disorders don't understand their acts to be evil which is why they don't apply to a "moral compass".
I am simply impressing the biblical view of the start of the universe in which Adam and Eve knew God. I do not contend that everyone on earth has been exposed to monotheistic teaching. Catholocism does not exclude those who have not.
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)," "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation" (no. 16).
My example was awful. What I was trying to convey is that if you have no belief in good or evil you would have most likely done some things in your life that would have led to your death. To have a different understanding of what is good and what is evil is one thing. To believe that nothing is good and nothing is evil is something totally different. I'm having a hard time rationalizing such a viewpoint. I would think the most likely scenario after drawing such a conclusion would be suicide. If nothing is good why live?
I think you're conflating "the church," as in the catholic church with it's own doctorine, with christianity and the plethora of protestant spinoffs. The evangelical movement which uses passages such as this one from Romans: "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin," to justify Zionism and support for it's aggression against neighbor states are majority protestant. As for the idea that anyone's interpretation of the biblical mythos is more valid than another, I think it's entirely foolish to attempt that argument. If it all comes down to taking one or another line on faith, there is no distinguishing factor between which interpretation is correct. All I need to do is point out one way in which something is being interpreted to comment. You; however, have to prove the validity of your specific counter-interpretation. I don't suggest what they're arguing is right. I think you're both flattering a millennial book with far more import than it's value. But I can tell you, logically, you have no way to prove an irrational assertion with another irrational assertion.
I never said there are no good reasons to fear that outcome. I simply cited the irrational forces at work and attempting to influence policy.
Full-stop with the stawman argument. I'm not going to take you seriously if you're going to compare a collection of unaware cell matter to a living human being who has had a lifetime of experience.
I don't think evil has any meaning in that liberal of a context. If you mean to say "anyone would steal," (under certain circumstances) than you'd be right. But, is there never a time when theft is not so bad or perhaps a lesser good? Do you think the character of robin hood was inherently evil? What about stealing from a dictatorial government in the modern day? What about taking someone's harmful drugs away from them to facilitate their recovery?
The problem with the bipolar worldview is that it's oversimplified.
Adam and Eve being a myth, your contention is just wrong then. Monotheism is not some kind of innate way of thinking. There are many more polytheistic religions in history and still are quite a few polytheists to this day.
This is how dogma prevents becoming obviously irrelevant and contrived in a modern setting where people actually know of other religions and good people who are their adherents. In the past, the church would have said they're all heretics and pagans. Today they are simply knowing the grace of god in another way. If this isn't obvious ass-covering I don't know what is. The bible says nothing of this sort about non-jew/christians.
I went over the crucial, rational, difference between the position of the believer and that of the atheist. I wish I could link it for you, but alas I've lost track of it. The jist of it is: We simply say there is no evidence and thus no reason to assume god. There's no "we're smarter," or any snobbishness of the sort. There is a great deal of pleading to realize the value of evidence, but I think those two are easily conflated by someone who simply isn't reasonable (by no fault of their own) due to indoctrination.
Prove to me that dragons exist, is a logical question posed to someone who claims to know about dragons. Prove to me that dragons don't exist, is a useless question. You can't prove a negative and assuming that something exists simply because we have a claimant is not the least bit rational.
Also, great scientists by-in-large don't believe in any god at all and the few who do are majority deistic (a position which is insurmountable, but still a lackadaisical assumption). Only the very few are theists and even they are defenders of scientific rationalism, evolution, and the rest of it. As for the reason why religion is actually not helpful or worthy of criticism. It's on almost every page of this thread. You should take a look.
you could try something easier. instead of asking them to prove their god exists, ask them to prove their god is the correct one. but, they can't do that either obviously.
you could set the bar even lower. instead of asking them to prove something about their god's existence or dominion over other imaginary deities, ask them to prove that something in their religion actually works. a good example would be prayer. ask them to pray for an amputee to have their missing limb regrown. they can take as long as they need and even enlist the help of their entire church or religious group. but we know how that would end, don't we?
okay, okay. let's make it even easier. let's ask them to prove that belonging to their faith prevents a person from committing atrocities that their religion prohibits. after all, even if a god doesn't exist, but the religion keeps people in line, then it's worth something right? for example, murder would be against the christian religion. it's not something they are suppose to do. therefore, if the christian religion works then no christian would ever be guilty of murder. if that isn't true, then what is the religion accomplishing? but we all know the answer.
they can't prove god exists. they can't prove their god is the right one. they can't prove integral parts of their religion actually function (like prayer). they can't prove that their religion causes its members to follow a code of ethics or morality (religious people commit horrible crimes everyday).
what can they prove? that they are just as susceptible to parental/community brainwashing or fear of the unknown as billions of other humans. both those currently living and the billions of humans who are long dead that belonged to thousands of different religions or belief structures.
The entropic principle you're referring to isn't a means to necessitate divinity. If anything it is a part of the huge body of understanding we have that shows how the universe works in absence of a theologically inclined source. The evolution of living things and non-living (starts, planets, and all manner of technically non-living things have evolved with the developing universe too) shows the source of diversity is not abjectly random events or organized designs, but rather the selection (by environmental pressures) of random mutations/changes over a very long period of time.
You're right that the god of the aberhamic traditions is the same, theologically, across the three faiths that share it as a concept. However, this doesn't wash with other faimilies of religions. The god of Aberham is not anything like Vishnu or Zaroaster. Ultimately, the attempt to coagulate dogma in this manner is simply to round-off a serious divide in irrational claims by making yet-another irrational claim (that all the myths are pointing in the same direction).