I am Christian. If your world view is more rational than mine please come show me.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

us Discordians like to stick apart

Do you know any polkas?



If not - I'm going back outside to enjoy the rest of this sublimely beautiful American Northern-Hemisphere, land-locked, midwestern spring day.

Have a good one, everybody. Talk to you all tomorrow!
Sleep tight.

Namaste

a reply to: celticdog

Why wouldn't it be rational there many people that never had the bible, even in recent times the tribes in the amazon. They had a small view of the world but they were doing just fine without the bible.

The question wasn't what if you had never heard of the Bible. The question was what if the world never had a bible. If you are going to discuss philosophy with me you need to be very careful with diction. I myself make mistakes with wording sometime that don't properly convey my intended meaning. If the world didn't have a Bible then obviously the Biblical world view that I have couldn't exist. That argument is similar to me saying "What if the biblical God existed?" If I had never heard of the Bible, it wouldn't change whether or not the bible was true. At what point in my post did you get the idea that people need the Bible in order to be enjoy life on earth.

I don't have doubts due to personal experience. Personal experience however is not a form of argument which is why I approach the topic as which is more rational rather than which is true. God is what philosophers would call a properly basic belief . That is only a conversation I have in person as its specifics are quite irritating to people online.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: nonspecific

I see we are just going to disagree here, I thought you were looking for different view points to expand your understanding. I never said I was right but that was my belief, If it contradicts yours and you feel the need to argue the point then thats fine

I am sorry if I offended you, but dissecting your statements is exactly what a philosophical analysis is. I am trying to discover why so many people attack the Christian world view when so far I haven;t seen anyone produce a more rational world view. I didn't argue againt your belief because it contradicted mine. i argued against it because it seemed to be internally incoherent or irrational.

All I intended to say was that right and wrong are subjective and I choose to decide on my actions based on circumstance as opposed to predetermined ideals.

How do you know what you choose in a circumstance is right or wrong? There is no standard to which you can appeal to other than your own ethical view if morals are subjective. I personally don't think they are. I don't care if everyone in the world thought it was good to torture you and rape your mother it would still be morally wrong. In your view of ethics if everyone thought it was good to torture me and rape my mother their would be no reason for you to say it was wrong of those people to say it is good. So as we analyze the idea of subjective right and wrong we can see it will lead us right back to ethical nihilism with the existence of a moral illusion each person seems to give themselves. The very fact we are having a discussion about morals seems to imply the existence of a Right and Wrong outside of you and me but hey whatever floats your boat.

So if I were to ask you what you think I should believe and how I should base the decisions I make in my life what would you reccomend?

What would your advice be and what would your reasons for me to adopt them be?

Genuine question.

a reply to: nonspecific

I will not say that I am an ethical nihilist as that would put me in a group and I do not like bieng labled.

That is more than a label. Either ethical nihilism describes your ethical view or it doesn't.

If it doesn't you need to explain how Right and wrong can exist as real values without some form of external moral code to appeal to.

I will however admit that I do what most of us do deep down in that we make it up as we go along and hope we make the correct decision based on the information at hand.

Don't you see this statement presupposes that their is a correct decision to be made? If morals are subjective there is no correct decision there is just your personal preference. You seem to constantly contradict your own ethical view. It seems internally incoherent. Again I am not trying to offend you, but if you believe something irrational wouldn't you like to realize it?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: celticdog

I don't have doubts due to personal experience. Personal experience however is not a form of argument which is why I approach the topic as which is more rational rather than which is true. God is what philosophers would call a properly basic belief . That is only a conversation I have in person as its specifics are quite irritating to people online.

I would suggest that rationally it is more likely that man has an innate desire to create a perfect being to strive to, the same way that they have an innate desire to eat, breathe, reproduce, than some deity created us out of dust and woman kind out of a rib. The same way sports people strive to be the best. It's a human characteristic a basic desire like the desire to be loved.

Ancient man created 'gods' in their image, modern man creates super-heroes like Superman. They are of the same ilk... an entity with powers above our own that we will never possess but aspire to.

So, I will ask you a direct question again in the hopes of a reply... Do you believe in ALL the Bible stories as the true word of god or do you just pick and choose your favourites as do most religious types and suggest the rest are metaphors open for interpretation?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: nonspecific

I will not say that I am an ethical nihilist as that would put me in a group and I do not like bieng labled.

That is more than a label. Either ethical nihilism describes your ethical view or it doesn't.

If it doesn't you need to explain how Right and wrong can exist as real values without some form of external moral code to appeal to.

I will however admit that I do what most of us do deep down in that we make it up as we go along and hope we make the correct decision based on the information at hand.

Don't you see this statement presupposes that their is a correct decision to be made? If morals are subjective there is no correct decision there is just your personal preference. You seem to constantly contradict your own ethical view. It seems internally incoherent. Again I am not trying to offend you, but if you believe something irrational wouldn't you like to realize it?

You cannot offend me, please do not worry about that!

I understand your need to understand and to compartmentalise but why do you feel the need to find a box for me?

If my opinions seem to create contradiction in your interpretation of my ethical view then why does that create an issure with you?

If I could explain myself then I would, I find the fact that I cannot the thing that makes me Me.

There are nearly seven billion humans on the panet as far as I know and everyone is different and has the right to decide what they think is "right" or "wrong" and also to adapt or change that view at any given moment. We all have the freedom of choice do we not?

a reply to: nonspecific

So if I were to ask you what you think I should believe and how I should base the decisions I make in my life what would you reccomend?

My world view is that God created you a moral creature. He wrote what is objective right and wrong on the heart of every human. So I don't think you need me or book or anything to tell you what is right. I think that is something you know inherently . I also think that code is what you may appeal to when someone is doing something wrong. It is that code that gives human life value.

What would your advice be and what would your reasons for me to adopt them be?

As you can probably tell i don't think you need to adopt them. I think you have known them all along. I would simply say continue to believe that right and wrong are known instinctively.

I don't know if it was you who gave this, but someone said to me what if a greedy man had 1000 apples and I stole one to feed a starving child? Would that be wrong? Instinctively I feel stealing is wrong regardless of circumstance. I also feel it is wrong to let a child starve. The right choice would be to feed the child in a respectful manner. As you did earlier you sold everything you had to help a friend. Why didn't you steal the money for a "good cause"? Because you knew the right choice was to help him in a respectful manner. So in short friend you have already adopted my moral code. My advice to you would be to consider the philosophical implications of an objective Right and Wrong.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AinElohim
Rome's Dark Legacy outweighs any contributions they may have made.

Irrelevant to the conversation as this has nothing to do with your erroneous historical claims.

no need to decry it is erroneous...

show me!

the Romans got Christianity 300 years after the death of Christ, the Jews surely didn't bring Christianity to Rome.

it was already part of Greek life even before Antioch.

the Greek brought Christianity to Rome... (or better yet, Rome came to it)

originally posted by: AinElohim

show me!

I already did. You claimed modern law is based on Mosaic Law and that Roman Law is not an influence. I provided links that demonstrated otherwise.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: nonspecific

So if I were to ask you what you think I should believe and how I should base the decisions I make in my life what would you reccomend?

My world view is that God created you a moral creature. He wrote what is objective right and wrong on the heart of every human. So I don't think you need me or book or anything to tell you what is right. I think that is something you know inherently . I also think that code is what you may appeal to when someone is doing something wrong. It is that code that gives human life value.

What would your advice be and what would your reasons for me to adopt them be?

As you can probably tell i don't think you need to adopt them. I think you have known them all along. I would simply say continue to believe that right and wrong are known instinctively.

I don't know if it was you who gave this, but someone said to me what if a greedy man had 1000 apples and I stole one to feed a starving child? Would that be wrong? Instinctively I feel stealing is wrong regardless of circumstance. I also feel it is wrong to let a child starve. The right choice would be to feed the child in a respectful manner. As you did earlier you sold everything you had to help a friend. Why didn't you steal the money for a "good cause"? Because you knew the right choice was to help him in a respectful manner. So in short friend you have already adopted my moral code. My advice to you would be to consider the philosophical implications of an objective Right and Wrong.

thank you for your response, It seems we have similar ideals up until the point that I do not belive in God and you do, am i right?

If so I appriciate your sentiment but will need more to make such a huge leap of faith. Feel free to convince me.

If I have misunderstood then I appologise.

a reply to: nonspecific

thank you for your response, It seems we have similar ideals up until the point that I do not belive in God and you do, am i right?

Well it depends. Before our conversation, you said morals were subjective and therefore what Hitler thought was Good was actually Good when Hitler did it. If you have a similar view to me then your believe RIght and Wrong are values that exist outside of human opinion.

Now the reason I tell you to consider the implications of Right and Wrong being real values that exist outside our opinions is that moral rights and wrongs are laws that govern human interaction. If a their is a law their must be a law giver.

We come to some philosophical issues after that as well though..Such as where does the Law giver get his law? The Christian God is the very essence of Good. The moral law is a reflection of his nature. This gives the Christian a perfectly rational and coherent world view. Now I will say this argument merely gets one to the idea that there is a God who is the essence of Good and is the creator of the universe. So a deist might could use this argument as well. Though I think it would be hard for a deist to explain why their God would create a moral code or care about humans at all .

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: nonspecific

thank you for your response, It seems we have similar ideals up until the point that I do not belive in God and you do, am i right?

Well it depends. Before our conversation, you said morals were subjective and therefore what Hitler thought was Good was actually Good when Hitler did it. If you have a similar view to me then your believe RIght and Wrong are values that exist outside of human opinion.

Now the reason I tell you to consider the implications of Right and Wrong being real values that exist outside our opinions is that moral rights and wrongs are laws that govern human interaction. If a their is a law their must be a law giver.

We come to some philosophical issues after that as well though..Such as where does the Law giver get his law? The Christian God is the very essence of Good. The moral law is a reflection of his nature. This gives the Christian a perfectly rational and coherent world view. Now I will say this argument merely gets one to the idea that there is a God who is the essence of Good and is the creator of the universe. So a deist might could use this argument as well. Though I think it would be hard for a deist to explain why their God would create a moral code or care about humans at all .

Ineresting points, You say that the Christian God is the essense of Good?

I am not a Christian but from the outset the difference between the "GOD" of the old testament and the "Teachings" of Jesus are very different.

To take this one small step at a time would you say that the Old testament "GOD" fits your description of the very essense of good?

a reply to: Mister_Bit

I would suggest that rationally it is more likely that man has an innate desire to create a perfect being to strive to, the same way that they have an innate desire to eat, breathe, reproduce, than some deity created us out of dust and woman kind out of a rib.

As I said I don't really like discussing this online as its specifics are complicated to articulate. Simply put i don't think you can rationally justify that humans can have knowledge unless you presuppose the existence of God. Meaning your statement "I would suggest that RATIONALLY..."You are appealing to rationality as a form of evidence. That presupposes that Humans can derive knowledge and truth. My world view gives me the ability to rationally explain why we can have knowledge and know truth. It can do that because it presupposes their is a God who created us. If there is no God the premise then becomes that evolved star dust and chemical reactions can produce truth. I see simply no good reason to believe that.

So, I will ask you a direct question again in the hopes of a reply... Do you believe in ALL the Bible stories as the true word of god or do you just pick and choose your favourites as do most religious types and suggest the rest are metaphors open for interpretation?

I read the Bible objectively. If something is meant to be taken as a metaphor due to context, sentence structure, and diction then I take it as a metaphor. If the Bible implies it was a literal event I take it as a literal event.

If your trying to get me to say I believe in the miracle claims made by the Bible. Yes.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AinElohim

show me!

I already did. You claimed modern law is based on Mosaic Law and that Roman Law is not an influence. I provided links that demonstrated otherwise.

you used these words... so they are apparently your claims?

Byzantium went on over 1100 years after Rome was buried and gone, Byzantium wasn't part of the Western European Dark Ages.

You tell me who's culture had more influence on western civilization and hence yes even law?

---

I'm just trying to help you out buddy, as so you don't go around insulting brothers from another lodge by pinning that Roman statue up with Masonic imagery... (do it to something Greek)

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

New Jersey...

there's probably not a single Catholic in that whole state

it's all Eastern Orthodox up there...

a reply to: nonspecific

So the first thing I would like to bring up is the nature of evil. It might not be necessary but I want to clarify. Evil in itself does not have existence. Logical argument: Light exist. Darkness does not exist but is the absence of light. If darkness existed you could make a room with absolutely no light darker. Heat exist. Cold doesn't it is merely the absence of Heat. If cold existed absolute zero could be made colder. Good exist. Evil doesn't it is merely the absence of Good. So in my world view Evil is the absence of God because God is Goodness.

To take this one small step at a time would you say that the Old testament "GOD" fits your description of the very essense of good?

I would. I believe Justice is Good. So before we get into the difference between the Old and New testament i must ask you a question. If God is perfect in all his attributes and therefore Perfect in Justice, how many evil actions can he allow to go unjudged and remain Perfectly Just?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: nonspecific

So the first thing I would like to bring up is the nature of evil. It might not be necessary but I want to clarify. Evil in itself does not have existence. Logical argument: Light exist. Darkness does not exist but is the absence of light. If darkness existed you could make a room with absolutely no light darker. Heat exist. Cold doesn't it is merely the absence of Heat. If cold existed absolute zero could be made colder. Good exist. Evil doesn't it is merely the absence of Good. So in my world view Evil is the absence of God because God is Goodness.

To take this one small step at a time would you say that the Old testament "GOD" fits your description of the very essense of good?

I would. I believe Justice is Good. So before we get into the difference between the Old and New testament i must ask you a question. If God is perfect in all his attributes and therefore Perfect in Justice, how many evil actions can he allow to go unjudged and remain Perfectly Just?

So you believe that the god of the old testament is the very essense of good.

We can talk about concepts and discuss the difference between light and dark and the nature of evil all day long, these conversations lead nowhere.

They are designed to distract from the truth of the matter and are a great way to deflect questions that one does not wish to answer.

Would you permit me to redefine my question please?

Why do you think that the "GOD" of the old testament is the essense of good and could you justify his "justice" in a way that would be appropriate to a modern world?

Again I look forward to your answer!

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Evil is done by the right hand of the ignorant, unlearned and fearful.

Light is more rare than darkness, but the ignorance (that which is evil) can not overcome the light.

The light always shines in the darkness...


Electromagnetism

Stress-energy tensor

Electromagnetic stress–energy tensor

www.godandscience.org...

originally posted by: AinElohim
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Evil is done by the right hand of the ignorant, unlearned and fearful.

Light is more rare than darkness, but the ignorance (that which is evil) can not overcome the light.

The light always shines in the darkness...


Electromagnetism

Stress-energy tensor

Electromagnetic stress–energy tensor

www.godandscience.org...

Honest question if I may?

Why whenever religious debate ensues does it always come down to almost nonsensical comments about light and dark?

I get it but why cannot anyone just give an answer?

It all seems a little smoke and mirrors to me but I would love an explanation from anyone.

(this is not directed at you bty) anyones answer will do.

originally posted by: AinElohim

you used these words... so they are apparently your claims?

No, you did:

originally posted by: AinElohim
the Bible is the base foundation of our law...

Claiming Biblical Law (Mosaic Law) is the foundation of modern law is erroneous.

You tell me who's culture had more influence on western civilization and hence yes even law?

The Eastern Empire used the same laws that were developed during the Republic and Principate. If you have evidence to the contrary then post it.

I'm just trying to help you out buddy, as so you don't go around insulting brothers from another lodge by pinning that Roman statue up with Masonic imagery... (do it to something Greek)

You should worry more about helping yourself since you obviously have some gaping holes in your knowledge of history and worry less about my avatar.