»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Labelling Atheism
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Labelling Atheism |
|
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Is Atheism generally good? This stems from a conversation about the pros and cons of religion in which a friend remarked, “Religion is generally good”. It would seem logical that if religion is generally good the lack of religion has obviously got to be bad. Any thoughts? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Grinch - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Otto Rank labeled psychology as pseudo religion. Most people will believe in something, even if professed as nothing. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I would disagree with the concept that being an atheist means you can't be religious. Religion isn't necessarily about God or gods. One's morals, beliefs, and disbeliefs even, can be a part of a personal religion. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
A prime example of that would be Confucianism Chris, as it was founded to be an ethical paradigm and without a deity. I don't think Atheism and Deity worship are necessarily polar opposites. Both assume absolute positions. There IS a god. There IS NOT a god. The opposite of either though would seem more to be, I know no god. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I don't think that either religion or atheism are generally "good" or "bad." I think it depends on how you apply them. There is a difference between someone simply accepting religion as a part of life because their parents took them to church and someone exploring their religion and believing in it fully, just as their is a difference between applying atheism toward a cynical worldview versus self-assuredness, or whatever. I'm neither (I'm just LR's definition of opposite  ) so I'm not trying to apply stereotypes to either- just a sort of general example. |
||
|
littlewing Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655New York |
I don't believe that ANY belief, religion, practice, whatever it may be named, is inherently bad - it is moreso the person practicing it where the battle between good vs. evil may lie. Spirituality comes from within. It is a personal quest for each individual. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Chris, Can I quote you, when someone tries to tell me, simplistically, that atheism is not "religious" in nature? You've confirmed something I've seen all along, and you're right. Atheism is simply another way to "stack the facts", a metaphysical presupposition, that ends up attributing personal god-like qualities to whichever first principles it lands on ... particularly nature itself. Though I've always felt it required a bit too much "faith" for me. I think the better question, is whether Atheism or any particular religious belief is true. Because what is judged "good" is not bare philosophical atheism, but the deeds of atheists. And Christians, for example, would have no problem conceding that Atheists do "good" things ... moral and all the rest. Christians would only try to point out, that the whole idea of goodness is really out of sync with the atheistic framework, and that at their best atheists are inconsistently philanthropic ... being made in the image of God, with a moral awareness, and with fascinating personal abilities. Of course that doesn't mean that they are "righteous" in spite of themselves, for the Bible talks about a necessary righteousness that comes only from God, in a more passive and direct way. But that's a whole other thread. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Try explaining atheism without referring to God, gods, or theism. I doubt you can. Hardly an "independently viable alternative theory" to theism. Must be related to ID |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Essorant, “Try explaining atheism without referring to God, gods, or theism. I doubt you can.” I honestly couldn’t, but then again I’m not trying to explain a viable alternative theory like ID. I agree Atheism is ‘like’ ID in one respect – it is after all based solely on disbelief, but Atheists, unlike the proponents of ID, aren’t trying to find an alternative theory, they don’t think there’s a need for a supernatural entity in the first place let alone something to replace it. Atheism doesn’t pretend to have an alternative they simply are by default the alternative to a belief in god. You can’t preach or teach Atheism to gain disbelievers, its followers don’t actively seek converts like most religious groups, you either believe or disbelieve in god. If you believe you’re religious and if you don’t you’re an Atheist anyone sitting on the fence is Agnostic (they’re arguably Atheists too in the purest sense). Atheism is ‘like’ a religion in the same way that Atheism is ‘like’ ID – superficially - it has followers or believers (or disbelievers to be more precise) but it has no priests, no holy book or spiritual texts, no symbolism, no chants and no discernable or rigid moral framework. It has none of the trappings of a recognisable religion, so can it really be classed as a religion? It doesn’t after all rely on a belief in anything so much as pure disbelief when it comes to one thing in particular – it’s wholly based on an argument against the existence of god and wouldn’t exist without it. Another thought – would Agnosticism be a religion using such an open definition, what about followers of bowling or wrestling? Would being a member of a fan club automatically make you religious? All these things are like a religion in some small respects but are they religions? I don’t think so but I’m willing to be coverted. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch "...they don’t think there’s a need for a supernatural entity in the first place let alone something to replace it" I don't think every atheist makes his hallway so narrow. Just because one disbelieves in God, doesn't mean he must disbelieve anything at all is a supernatural entity. For example, you may disbelieve in God, but still believe that Nature or a part of Nature, humans, or other beings, or even objects are supernatural. How is right to force the stipulation "no supernature" on a word that only literally expresses "no god" and on people that may not believe in a God or a god but still believe in a supernatural entity in Nature nevertheless? "Atheism doesn’t pretend to have an alternative they simply are by default the alternative to a belief in god." I may agree. But how do they say their belief makes sense when they must point at and refer to the selfsame entity or entities they say is/are not there to begin with? If it is not there then how and why are they pointing and referring at it in the first place? If you point at yourself in the mirror, and expect something more, if that something more is not there, that doesn't remove your existance. Instead I think it just means you are expecting too much, or something that presently doesn't belong to you and something that perhaps may never belong to you. There's no nonexistance in that equation to me. It is only an expectation of something to be something else, or have something else than it is or has. Everything still exists. "It doesn’t after all rely on a belief in anything so much as pure disbelief when it comes to one thing in particular – it’s wholly based on an argument against the existence of god and wouldn’t exist without it." I must disagree. I think atheism inevitablly relies on theism. Without theism and the belief in God what does Atheism have to negate and contradict? To me it seems that negation and contradiction of theism is what makes it what it is to begin with. Without theism, it has nothing to naysay. Most horseriders ride a horse because they believe in the horse they ride. Atheism, though, rides a horse it doesn't believe in: theism, backwards. But no matter how much it disbelieves though, the horse still pulls thro and moves on. That doesn't betoken weakness to me, but rather truth and strength. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-27-2006 08:47 PM).] |
||
|
Katerie Member
since 2006-01-27
Posts 92Central New York |
Religion is good if the decision to accept said beliefs are thought through thouroughly, and not simply accepted for the sake of tradition. As displayed in many great works of literature, including Fahrenheit 451, and The Fountainhead, the acceptance of ideas without proper thought lead to ignorance rather than "strength in numbers." Atheism and religion can only be labeled negatively by those not on a single given term's side. If you are a religious person, and are essentially devout, then I'm sure you'll say that to believe there is no god is foolish. As an Atheist, one would argue that the possibility of such higher power existing is simply not present. It depends on your experiences, quite frankly. Like a ship blown from it's mooring by a wind off the sea... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Ess, here's the thing. I have often said that I am an agnostic Christian. What does that mean? It means that my ethical system is derived from the Christian heritage that surrounds me -- but that I don't adhere to, or require any supernatural belief in order to enact that ethos. Think of it like this, there are John 3:16 Christians -- who would dwell on the deity of Jesus. I am a Matthew 25:31-46 agnostic Christian -- here's what Matthew says; quote: Of course I take the eternal punishment and reward part as metaphorical -- but find there to be little reason to be concerned about the deity of God or Jesus and moreso about my own behaviour towards my human family. That same ethos can be extended into the ecological backdrop that enables and empowers us (while threatening and constraining us) still without regard to supernatural beings or forces. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Reb: quote: Yeah, what does that mean? I think you would do better to merely say "I'm not a Christian. But I'm a moral person", than to reconstruct the meaning of the word "Christian". Of course the word has already been stretched (extra-Biblically) to mean many things, but your statement goes beyond even these. Following an ethos that merely "surrounds" you, is not necessarily a virtuous claim. It does fit the egoistic "contract theory" of Lock and others, but doesn't deserve the epithet "Christian". Besides, Jesus did not exactly establish any new ethos at all. The ethical insight of Pagan philosophers, and religions, before him, had the right ethos. If anything he only amplified the signal ... widening the jurisdiction of the law, rather than changing it's personality. Just read the appendix in C.S. Lewis' "Abolition of Man", where Lewis presents a basic harmonization of ethical systems, to show that they are more alike (and have always been so) than people admit. So is the approval, and sporadic practice of a prevailing ethical system "enough" to call yourself Christian? There are some things Guatama said that I respect, recognize as truth, and practice, but I don't call myself a "Christian Buddhist". I am a Christian. You are an agnostic. The thing is, is that Jesus himself never made a distinction between any "kinds" of Christians. John 3:16 and Matthew 25:31-46 give us elements of the same whole. The agnosticism of Matthew 25 is not about who Jesus himself is, (those being judged call him 'Lord'), but of the nature of the forgotten recipients of their kindnesses. The agnosticism that is illustrated, is of the organic connection between their good works to the "common" needy people in life, and the God that they worship who is anything but common. This is seen elsewhere in Jesus' teaching where he said "don't let your left hand know what your right hand does" (Matthew 6:3). That can't be interpreted as, "it's not necessary that both hands serve God". So on scripture's own terms, in context, this is not the definition of a "Christian". Who Jesus is is always central to that definition. Without it, you have an ethos which is neither new, or greatly different from what has always been. There have always been moralizers. Now whether those moralizers have had a rational reason behind their morals beyond social contracts and egoism, is another question. Without God, I don't think so. For true morals will always, at some points, contradict self interest, and the "crowd" mentality. It will cause you to deny both yourself and the mob. And without an ultimate judge, who represents more than human subjectivism, all ethical systems are doubtful. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I do know one thing that is not new, and that is for Christians to be trying to tell me who I am or what I am -- or more importantly that I'm not one of them. Don't worry -- I'm not one of you. The reason I use the term Agnostic Christian is for the same one that Einstien described himself as an 'Agnostic Jew'. The cultures that produce us are important to identify so that our thought processes and biases are understood. I'm not an agnostic Jew. I'm not an agnostic Hindu. I'm not an agnostic Zoroastrian. I'm an agnostic Christian. The point that you missed in your last post though is what DID differentiate the Christian ethos. Love your enemy. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, Einstein was geneologically Jewish, hence the name. So I would naturally understand his self-identifying statement to mean: "in my physical heritage I am Jewish, in my religious views, I am agnostic". I would feel perfectly comfortable calling him an agnostic Jew, for that reason. However, I would ask you, did he try to expound on Jewish scripture and reinterpret it according to his own agnosticism? If so, religious Jews would be apt to point out that his religious views were anything but "Jewish". And they would be right. However, even the religious Jews would have no problem (that I can see) identifying him as "Jewish" by birth. Your identification with "Christian" doesn't have the advantage of physical descent ... to really substantiate your use of the term. The only way you can really use the term, is in a religious sense. This is evident by your usage of the scripture in Matthew ... setting it over and against the scripture in John. You really shouldn't be surprised when a Christian points out what he perceives to be a serious interpretive problem. Because it seems you have, in your self-identification, sought to remake what "Christian" means ... on the basis of misinterpreting what Jesus said in his own context. If you're admitting that you're disregarding the context in order to describe your own position ... okay. Then scripture becomes an artistic vehicle for you, rather than an expression of religious truth. I simply wanted to point that out. You can't be too hard on me for doing so, seeing that I feel that people's perceptions about what "Christianity" is, is extremely important, can you? You certainly aren't my enemy, on that account. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Who gets to define Christianity? Who gets to say, "You are, but you aren't?" |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Essorant, “Just because one disbelieves in God, doesn't mean he must disbelieve anything at all is a supernatural entity. For example, you may disbelieve in God, but still believe that Nature or a part of Nature, humans, or other beings, or even objects are supernatural.” I don’t believe in any supernatural entity, if it exists it is natural if it’s supernatural it doesn’t exist. “But how do they say their belief makes sense when they must point at and refer to the selfsame entity or entities they say is/are not there to begin with? “ You seem to be stuck on the idea that Atheism is an alternative choice, a different kind of belief – it isn’t. I didn’t wake up one day and decide I was going to be an Atheist I was just labelled as one because I don’t believe in God(s). Think of it this way: If you take part in a race and win you’re called a winner, if you take part but don’t win you’re labelled a loser. Nobody sets out to be a loser they just are based on the fact they’re not in the set labelled winner. Now apply that to how I became an atheist. I studied the world’s religions and found no evidence to suggest that God(s) existed; my disbelief means I can’t be included in the set labelled religious so I have to be in the set labelled atheist. I didn’t actively set out to be an atheist; I’m just labelled as one due to my disbelief. “I think atheism inevitablly relies on theism. Without theism and the belief in God what does Atheism have to negate and contradict? To me it seems that negation and contradiction of theism is what makes it what it is to begin with. Without theism, it has nothing to naysay.” I agree 100%, you can’t be taught atheism in the same way you can’t be taught IDT, both aren’t arguments FOR an alternative they’re just disbelief in the alternative(s) on offer. Where IDT falls down is that it purports to be an alternative. LR, I’m an atheist atheist by your definition Through a series of flukes I managed to avoid religion to a great extent until I was 14, being introduced to it at that age and devoid of any ingrained preconceptions was a bit of a shock and an eye opener. In my first Religious Education lesson at school the teacher may just as well have been trying to convince me that Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy existed. I devoured the bible though, I even bought one with my pocket money convinced that the teacher had just failed to state the evidence clearly enough but wherever I looked the evidence was conspicuous by it’s absence. When it comes to ethics I don’t feel religion in any shape or form is necessary, social interaction naturally leads to a workable system regardless of any underlying religious preference. "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, Dictionary.com includes both what you are expressing as Christian and what Local Rebel seems to be expressing: Christian 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No Stephan, I wasn't implying that we're enemies -- I only wanted to point out that there is a clear difference in the Christian ethos (or is supposed to be). Matthew 25 presents a complication to the simplicity of John 3:16. I understand why my bringing it up is a hot button. quote: Anthropologically speaking I don't think it's so easy to separate religion from collective human bahavior. The establishment of cultures/governments was congruent to religion. Whether we're discussing Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Chinese, Indian -- whatever culture West or East civilization formed in conjunction with the religious mind. As a cooperative species we have a mechanism that allows us to percieve who is cooperating more than others. Some would call this a sense of justice. Whatever we want to call it there is a means by which we can determine who is playing by the rules and who isn't -- rules are really just an established agreement (or terms of cooperation). The development of a sense of 'sacred' with regard to the rules over time is understandable -- as well as a need to have a final 'judgement'. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch "I don’t believe in any supernatural entity, if it exists it is natural if it’s supernatural it doesn’t exist." I respect that. I was just trying to emphasize that your athiesm that includes "no supernature" isn't necessary every atheist's athiesm. Many people and groups of people may disbelieve in God or a god, but still believe someone or something is supernatural in one way or another. "You seem to be stuck on the idea that Atheism is an alternative choice, a different kind of belief it isn’t. I didn’t wake up one day and decide I was going to be an Atheist I was just labelled as one because I don’t believe in God(s)." No one is forcing you to express your belief with negations (no, not, never, nonexisting, nothing etc) and then apply those to the God/gods that others believe in. That is your choice and expression. You aren't giving us anything else, so how may we intepret or refer to it otherwise? "I studied the world’s religions and found no evidence to suggest that God(s) existed;" Yes, but if you will make that out as evidence for the nonexistance of God/gods--and also treat it as if it empties everyone elses claim to positive evidence--how may I refer to that as anything but atheism or a disbelief in God/gods? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
LR, “Anthropologically speaking I don't think it's so easy to separate religion from collective human bahavior. The establishment of cultures/governments was congruent to religion. Whether we're discussing Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Chinese, Indian -- whatever culture West or East civilization formed in conjunction with the religious mind.” I agree, separating religion from cultural development isn’t easy, almost every culture has invented or adopted a religion but if one were to be found in some far-flung outpost I suspect an ethical framework would still be evident. Your earlier posts seemed to infer that a person’s ethics were solely a construct of religious influence, I may have misunderstood but that seems to suggest that religion or religious teaching is the only source of a viable ethical framework. “As a cooperative species we have a mechanism that allows us to percieve who is cooperating more than others. Some would call this a sense of justice. Whatever we want to call it there is a means by which we can determine who is playing by the rules and who isn't -- rules are really just an established agreement (or terms of cooperation).” See this is how I’d define an ethical framework without reference to religion. “ The development of a sense of 'sacred' with regard to the rules over time is understandable -- as well as a need to have a final 'judgement'.” And this is why religions are invented but you seem to tie the two together but in reverse order. Religion leads to an constructed ethical framework instead of an ethical framework leads to a constructed religion. Essorant, “No one is forcing you to express your belief with negations (no, not, never, nonexisting, nothing etc) and then apply those to the God/gods that others believe in. That is your choice and expression. You aren't giving us anything else, so how may we intepret or refer to it otherwise? “ You’ll have to excuse me I’m obviously not explaining myself clearly. I am not arguing for atheism, that isn’t possible, as you and I have already pointed out, atheism is not an alternative to religion it’s a statement of disbelief with regard to god(s). I don’t know any way of stating that disbelief without ‘negations’ or without mentioning the thing I disbelieve, if you know of a way I’d be happy to hear it. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is not absence of evidence that makes an approach or expression, "atheism" But rather treating that absence as if it is the evidence, and furthermore as if it is evidence of universal absence of God/gods just because some people didn't find what they were looking for in the way they wanted it to be. When one refers to what he didn't find and then makes that absence out as if it is the evidence of a universal absence, and/or also against the evidence that other people find, I think it does include choices, arguments and belief. The more you use that approach the more you are known for it and known for its expressions, just as the more you use the expression, argument or belief that there is positive evidence, you are known for that belief. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-29-2006 03:27 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Chicken or egg? The reverse is indicated. Take the aforementioned example of Confucianism. But, what religion does is add language to the sense of justice. It injects narrative and 'authority'. It tells a story about the rules and then asks us to beleive it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Let's be clear also about the complexity of the genesis of religion. There are other mental forces at work besides the justice/cooperative human trait. Another survival mechanism is the ability to understand the physical world and the need to explain events. We pick up a rock. We throw it at a bird. We kill the bird. The same logical powers we use to explain these simple cause and effect relationships can lead to belief in supernatural forces as well when other naturalistic explanations aren't available. Which is the true irony. Our 'naturalistic' urge to understand our environment ushers us to supernatural explanations. Whether a system of ethics, a form of government, or an explanation of environment; religion held families, tribes, and nations together to fend off enemies and predators. Generally good. But, then, the same is generally bad if you're on the losing side. If atheism threatened the unity of the tribe then it can be seen to be interpreted as generally bad. Without another unifying force atheism posed a threat to primitive cultures. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
LR, As for which came first ethics or religion I’m still convinced it was ethics – and by a long margin. How old is the oldest religion and does it compare with social (ethical) interactions in hominids? Of course it’s impossible to know for sure whether or not a religion of sorts existed in early hominid society but we can draw parallels from modern social animals that don’t require religion to construct primitive ethical frameworks. I think the answer is in the questions: Can ethics exist without religion and can religion exist without ethics. Essorant, “It is not absence of evidence that makes an approach or expression, "atheism" But rather treating that absence as if it is the evidence, and furthermore as if it is evidence of universal absence of God/gods just because people didn't find what they were looking for in the way they wanted it to be.” I understand what you’re saying (I think ) it goes something like this:I can’t find any evidence that god(s) exist but I’m treating the absence of evidence as evidence that they don’t actually exist and that’s wrong because my lack of evidence doesn’t mean they don’t exist it just means I haven’t got evidence that they do. Is that about right? Doesn’t that mean I’d have to allow anything and everything to exist including dragons, fairies and unicorns? Isn’t it possible that a lack of evidence strongly suggests that they don’t in fact actually exist? I’d go even further isn’t it reasonable to believe they don’t exist if proof of their existence isn’t found? What happens if you apply this to religion? I can’t find any evidence that god(s) exist but I’m treating the absence of evidence as evidence that they do actually exist and that’s wrong because my lack of evidence doesn’t mean they do exist it just means I haven’t got evidence that they don’t. There is no evidence that fairies exist and no evidence that they don’t exist, you either believe that they do or you believe that they don’t – Do you believe fairies exist? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch As long as there is a word and belief for something I believe there must be something for the word and belief. The word and belief are evidences themselves. They never weren't. Without something there, there would be no word or belief at all, therefore the word and belief are evidence. Therefore I'm sure that everything and anything we refer to exists. However, whether we refer to it perfectly or in exactly the right order is another tale. But this is where the argument of accuracy comes in. How do we determine how accurate a belief or science or saying must be? To me as long as something is strong and helps life and lifeweal, then I really don't care that much about how accurate it is, let alone disbelieve in it. Why should I? In any case though, I will never believe it is based on something that doesn't exist. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Essorant, “As long as there is a word and belief for something I believe there must be something for the word and belief.” What about this word? Nothing |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
When someone refers to "nothing" that is always in respect to something. If you have "nothing" in your glass, that is because you have nothing of of the drink you expected, not because there is nothing there, or because what you wanted is nothing. You have nothing of the drink you want, because its not currently in your glass---it is in the fridge |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Yes, only I think taking the founder on his own terms, the definition necessarily includes both. It's "both/ and", not "either/ or". Reb: quote: Point taken. But still, isn't it merely the extension of a principle which was already there? One person says "love thyself", another "love thy friends", Jesus says "love thy enemy". It's merely a restatement of the jurisdiction of the same principle. In one sense, not an original ethos at all, just more widely applied. That's why Jesus ultimately could have appeal to Gentiles as well as Jews. Because "sin" is a universal concept, in that we've all broken the divine law, whatever cultural embodiment. And what lies behind the various cultural embodiments, shows them to be variations on the same grand theme. Jesus' uniqueness lies in his solution for our problem, moreso than his desciption of the problem. But I do concede, that the camera lens of law was focused a little sharper and wider, illustrating even more, the need for his grace. quote: I don't resent the "bringing up" of Matthew 25 at all, nor any complexity that it presents us with. I was protesting a claimed dichotomy between Matthew 25 & John 3:16 rather than what it is ... a challenging synthesis. It really gets back to the mistake of pitting faith against works. In the Christian context, faith is the root, works are the fruit. More later ... Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Well that's a very clear statement on which we both agree. I never said anything different. A standard of collective behaviour would have been a necessary precursor to langauge. But I doubt there was a great gap between the development of langauge and the emergence of religion. This is an area where there is no expert concurrence though. quote: I'd say you misread me then Stephen. My statement was directed to the matter of focus. You would certainly agree that there are Christians who focus all their attention on John 3:16. quote: All invention is a process of building on prior ideas or technologies. In the context of the times Jesus made a significant leap. It wouldn't have been in anyone's mind in the Jewish community to even be concerned with the Gentiles. There was no notion that all men were brothers. You don't give the man enough credit  . Unless you want to save that credit for Paul. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Essorant- 'I think atheism inevitablly relies on theism. Without theism and the belief in God what does Atheism have to negate and contradict? To me it seems that negation and contradiction of theism is what makes it what it is to begin with. Without theism, it has nothing to naysay.' But let's say I was born to two scientist parents who taught me the big bang theory and the theory of evolution as a means for explaining existence. I never heard of God, I just accepted the scientific explanations. I would not believe in God, but I'm not trying to contradict God either- the thought simply never occured to me. I'll admit it's not a likely scenario- but for that child, learning about the Judeo-Christian god or other deities would be similar to my learning about Greek/Roman mythology. If there's already an accepted worldview present, which doesn't include God, how is it necessary that atheism be "naysaying" the idea of God or religion? I also don't think agnosticism is a wishy-washy form of atheism. If an atheist believes in a reality where no deity is present, and an agnostic believes either than it is impossible to know whether god exists or that they, personally, do not know if god exists- that is a completely different viewpoint. I have never seen adequate evidence that god exists- or does not exist- so I don't believe in god, but I don't disbelieve in god. Maybe it's lazy or indecisive, but I like to think of it as open-minded. I don't know if aliens exist, if there is life after death, how the universe came to be, or whether or not fairies exist. I'm actually comfortable with that... it's not necessarily an apathy issue, because I'm interested in religious ideas, to a point... but I don't feel it necessary to exclaim "there is a God" or "there is no God." I guess I will (or won't) find out eventually, right? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Good question Hush. If one doesn't know that God exists, then s/he can't deny that God exists. It would mean that his or her belief is free of both atheism and theism because he/she doesn't have the knowledge of God either to agree or to disagree with. Every belief has its own science. Not every belief though had or has or chooses the science of God. But every expression that chooses to express denial of God, I believe does use the science of God, in order to deny that science. There is nothing wrong with denial. But to me the science is in something and that something must exist for that science and any belief that springs thereof. The existance of the science and belief therefore to me already defeat the denial of the existance that those are in. Without the knowledge of something's existance, you can't deny its existance either. Denying the existance of something truly betrays that one has knowledge of its existance in the first place. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:So, Ess, if you tell me you believe in the Fyling Spaghetti Monster as the creator of all life and I tell you I deny its existence, that means I am accepting its existence? Or could it just mean that I think your belief is incorrect? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Christopher, You just chose to talk about it, therefore that betokens to me that you have knowledge of its existance. If it didn't exist as at least something how could you possibly have a name for it and anything at all to say about it? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: um ... Jesus? I know you'll point out that I'm not Jesus. But remember, we do have a body of propositional teaching left to us, by Jesus. And judging what faith is (based on revealed truth), and judging someone, as to whether their faith is genuine or not, are two different things. If someone says "I don't believe in anything supernatural", by their own statement, they are denying the Christian Faith, insomuch as belief in God is central to what the Christian Faith is. I'm not sitting at the bench. I'm taking someone at their own words. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I think what Christopher means, is the distinction between mere imagination, and actuality. Of course the Spaghetti monster (you guys are making me hungry) may exist in fictional or imaginative form. But as a real, living, breathing, monster, who eats people in one gulp, he doesn't exist. Existing in one sense, is not necessarily existing in another. Can you not admit this distinction? If that's what you mean by God "existing" you may not really believe in him, other than as a form of imaginative artistic fiction. Taking the Bible on it's own terms, it claims a reality of God which is in quite a different sense, than imaginative fiction. Not that it isn't just as dramatic, awe-inspiring, or fascinating, as any mythical fiction. The poetic beauty is really what first attracted C.S. Lewis to the Christian Faith. Then he found out that it was real in quite another sense, and he believed. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos I would argue that there is still no nonexistance in that equation. Things don't become nonexistant because of how imaginatively we refer to them. No matter how imaginatively or directly we refer to something we still refer to it. Whether one refers to his head as a "head" or a "spinning top", the sun as the "sun" or "heaven's candle", he is still referring to the same equally existant thing. It is no different when one refers to God differently. Whether one refers to God as "God" or as "The flying spaghetti monster", both are references to the same equally existant being, no matter how directly or imaginatively he refers to that being. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Okay, let's say that I invented "The flying Spaghetti monster" as a character in my book. My 3 year old daughter begins to believe that this "flying Spaghetti monster" is going to fly through her window and gobble her up. I know that this monster exists in one sense. But my daughter mistakenly believes that he exists in quite another sense. How would YOU correct her, Essorant? You would probably explain that the spaghetti monster in not "real", but only a fictitious character. Of course, the character is "real" in the sense of imaginative fiction ... but that's not the point. It doesn't extend beyond that fictitious form. You are still denying this distinction. When Christians say "God is real". They mean that he is real in quite a different sense than "Huckleberry Finn is real". Huckleberry Finn has no mind, no will of his own, beyond the one who writes about him, or the ones who think about him. See the difference? From a Christian standpoint, God would not cease to exist even if everyone forgot about him. This would only affect our fates in relation to him. He holds an idependent self-existent life, as he created the universe before we ever existed. If everyone forgot Huckleberry Finn, and all of Mark Twain's books were burned ... Huck would no longer exist. Those are unlikely if not impossible occurrances. But I use them to illustrate the difference you are denying. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I know that this monster exists in one sense. But my daughter mistakenly believes that he exists in quite another sense. How would YOU correct her, Essorant? " I would tell her that it is not a living thing, but represents a living thing, in an imaginary way: just like drawing may represent a human in an imaginary way, if we draw him for example with cat-whiskers, and cat-ears. It still represents a human, but confuses it on purpose with representing things we know about a cat too. " It doesn't extend beyond that fictitious form. You are still denying this distinction. " Most representations of living things, aren't living, Stephanos. Why would I expect them to be? They are representations. Just like a painting. The representation of God in the bible is not living either, in the sense of being words. Someone needed a craft, a language, to represent him. But they still represent a living being when they refer to God, and conditions in life when they refer to those. So does Huckleberry finn refer to a human. So does making anything about any living thing or anything about life, still a representation of life, however imaginary. The main distinction is that: its a representation and imaginary. not that it doesn't represent real things. But I wonder what we can refer to without some symbolic behavior and representating thing? When we use words, they represent something for us. When we use drawings they represent something for us. Even when we point at something, there seems to be some symbolic behavior, that we know that we are pointing at something, and meaning something by that. In order to express something at all, it seems we need to represent it with something. "If everyone forgot Huckleberry Finn, and all of Mark Twain's books were burned ... Huck would no longer exist. " Forgetting about something doesn't make it not exist either Stephanos. It only refers to the same thing in a different way. If we referred to a human in one way and called it "huckleberry finn" then we may refer to it in another way and call it something else. Nothing ceases to exist, it just becomes something else, thro change, whatever it it had earlier takes a new shape, and it therefore still exists. I don't believe that God brought the universe into existance. But that doesn't mean I don't believe he gave shape to it, just as humans give shape to it from a wordly standpoint and from as much as they may in their own might. If we say God brought the universe into existance that would mean that things needed to "not exist" at some earlier time which make no sense to me. But if God gave shape to things that already existed, then everything was always existant, just in different shapes, further shaped by God and growing by Nature. To me everything always exists, just not always in the same shape. If you are no longer in one shape, then you must be in another, always existing. And the "previous" shape doesn't cease to exist either, but fully becomes the new shape too. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
reminded me of this thread: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000111.html |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"I would tell her that it is not a living thing, but represents a living thing, in an imaginary way: just like drawing may represent a human in an imaginary way, if we draw him for example with cat-whiskers, and cat-ears. It still represents a human, but confuses it on purpose with representing things we know about a cat too.' Dude... a 3 y/o will NOT understand this. She's three years old! Not only that, I question the logic - a human with cat ears is NOT representative a living thing that is known to exist corporeally, and you know that. I think you are circumventing the issue of reality. Cats exist, humans exist, but cat-people do not exist unless on a broadway stage or some other work of the imagination. A three year old SHOULD have an imagination, but it's important to reinforce reality vs. fantasy with children. You know... so they don't watch Peter Pan and all of a sudden decide to fly out the bedroom window? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Let's see, what can I address here: 1. If everything exists (including nothing and non-existence), then existence can no longer be used with any meaning. We have to bend over backwards to come up with a different word for what we meant before we discovered that the way we were using the word was wrong. Why not call a spade a spade? Essorant is misleading the audience. 2. This reminds me of the use of 'selfish'. You can, of course, argue that any human action is selfish (Ross did it to Pheobe in Friends if I recall), but if you accept that argument, then you have to start saying things like a good kind of selfish and a bad kind of selfish. Why not reject the definition and use the word the way we've always used it? 3. I liked LR's "agnostic Christian" but I understand Stephen's concerns. Still, and while I'm not sure if LR means Christian in this sense, the basic idea is similar to my use of aetheist. I live my life as an aetheist, but I have no clue when it comes to metaphysical questions. I don't understand them. We have three or four basic premises when it comes to metaphysics: a. Consciousness created the universe. (God) b. The universe has always existed in one state or another. (aetheism) c. The universe is cyclical. (The eternal return). None of these answer the question people seem to want to know: Why? I'm pretty sure none of the above can answer that question. We choose to be satisfied by any particular answer and we shrug off the rest. 4. You can call aetheism a religion if you want to but I'm not sure why you would want to. Religion seems to make or want to make metaphysical answers the central component of people's lives. If there's any insight to aetheism, it's that metaphysical questions and answers don't matter that much to our day to day lives. Why should they? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
some valid points Brad - it's all good to explore the "deeper meaning" of something, but in everyday, "real life," we're wont to use the accepted form of a word/meaning. [This message has been edited by Christopher (02-02-2006 10:02 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Isn't that potentially the problem, though? I can only speak from personal experience, but the worst mistakes I've made in my day-to-day life, the mistakes that always cost me and others the greatest pain, could have been avoided had I the wisdom to look beyond the moment. Good decisions are easy to make in hindsight, when we're not blinded by the emotions of day-to-day life. Philosophy, religion, metaphysics, good literature, these are all attempts to find answers before we're faced with the really tough questions. Again, from my own experience, if you don't have something approaching an answer already in sight, the one you come up with in the heat of passion or anger or jealousy probably won't serve you very well. I know mine never have. The questions we ask and try to answer aren't really about some grand destination. They're about the journey, and that's always composed of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It's our day-to-day life that is always most at risk. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I question the logic - a human with cat ears is NOT representative a living thing that is known to exist corporeally, and you know that. " Hush, If we go by that approach, then it seems we should no longer accept the word HUMAN as representing, referring, meaning a living thing either, especially if what we use to point to something "real", must match in appearance! What human walks around as five letters and a sound? A snake may look and sound like an S sometimes, but doesn't make it to SNAKE. How do you say five cold letters HUMAN and the word's sound may betoken a living thing, but a drawing of a human, cannot anymore just because it includes two little cat ears and some catwhiskers? Sounds a bit lopsided. "A three year old SHOULD have an imagination, but it's important to reinforce reality vs. fantasy with children. You know... so they don't watch Peter Pan and all of a sudden decide to fly out the bedroom window?" I agree. But what I don't agree with is forcing the paranoia on people that things that they refer to don't exist or aren't real. People may understand the difference of manmade and living without being made to pretend that things that they see, hear, feel, know, remember, etc, aren't really real or existant or based on what's real and existant. On one level I don't think it makes much difference. For example "there's nothing in the cup" But on the level of treating a personal thing or belief as if it refer to "nothings" and "unrealities" it is disturbing. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
Did you hear about the dyslexic atheist? He doesn’t believe in the existence of dogs. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'But what I don't agree with is forcing the paranoia on people that things that they refer to don't exist or aren't real.' It's not paranoia. It's common sense. Spaghetti monsters don't exist on a plane of reality. They exist in the imagination. The imagination exists, but because you imagine something doesn't mean it can physically appear an be present to all of us. There is a difference. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
the question Brad, is -- Is atheism the absence of belief or the belief of absence? Most I know who profess a belief of absence label themselves as atheists. Those who profess an absence of belief tend to adopt the label 'agnostic'. Belief of absence is, well... belief. I think that's where those who want to define atheism as a religion want to hang their hat. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: But did any of your answers come from the first few lines of Genesis? LR, Does that distinction make a difference in your life? The only reason to worry about that, I think, is when someone argues the superiority of one belief or another or the superiority of a lack of belief. At the level of metaphysics I'm talking about, you just can't do that except through assertion. Why this world and not some other or no world? Even if you go for an eternal return scenario, even if you go for a multiverse, you're still stuck with that question. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: I'm agreeing with you here. That's always been the problem with egoism, all the way from Hume to Ayn Rand. lt involves a much too arbitary shift of language, based on dubious philosophy, while sweeping under the rug the insights of the past which don't happen to fit the philosophy. quote: But why are you a priori, ruling out communication of a consciousness that created the universe? And if you say you're not, what about your demands about what shape that communication should take? If the communication is not exhaustive, leaving some mystery ("the rest"), are you left unsatisfied merely because it is not exhaustive? The question just interests me, since you seem to be saying, "if I can't understand as God, I'll not believe in God". But from a scriptural point of view, this was the problem with sin from the beginning ... a desire, a need for a knowledge which puts God in dock, and we ourselves on the bench. "Eve, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God". quote: That's not exactly so. An awareness of "God" (even if and when particular expressions of it have been faulty), has been basic to humanity for a very long time. Paganism itself attests to it. The persistence of such a belief, despite the scientific age, attests to it. Therefore it's much easier to view atheism as a kind of metaphysical realization of it's own. Many other atheist thinkers have expressed it in such terms. Consider Nietzsche when he wrote: "...we philosophers and 'free spirits' feel ourselves irradiated as by a new dawn by the report that the 'old God is dead'; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, presentiment, and expectation. At last the horizon seems open once more, granting even that it is not bright; our ships can at last put out to sea in face of every danger; every hazard is again permitted to the discerner; the sea, our sea, again lies open before us; perhaps never before did such an 'open sea' exist." (from "The Joyful Wisdom"). And many other thinkers have expressed the same kind of thought, even if less animated that Fred's description. The same goes for the assertion that metaphysical insights (whether positive or negative), do not matter when it comes to day to day living. Not all atheists have shared your view. I thought that Aldous Huxley was being very transparent when he wrote the following: "I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."(from "Ends and Means") So at least some atheists ... probably more than some, have seen this essentially negative metaphyscial assertion, as something which can positively be acted upon. In that sense, if it is not a 'religion' per se, it is at least a religious type of belief, a kind of metanarrative which may give a more comfortable latitude, to determine one's own ethical choices, without the bothersome questions of sin or righteousness. Admittedly, Nietzsche and Huxley aren't much like your description of atheism. But even you Brad, do not stop at a personal agnosticism, in most of your posts, though I see you try to hold that tone. Your assertion that metaphysical claims are ultimately irrelevant to life, is itself a metaphysical assertion that you obviously feel frees people from some kind of misconception, or illusion, about reality. It doesn't matter that you are not overtly passionate about spreading that kind of knowledge, you nonetheless hold a stoic consistency about it, and offer plenty of reasoning toward that end. You repudiate anyone saying any world-view is "superior" to another, but basically imply that those like Ron, myself, Jim, are believing in something that is meaningless and irrelevant to daily life. I'm not insulted at that, as much as I am interested in the fact that you tend to camoflage the fact, that what you are doing is claiming to know a metaphysical, universal, truth, albeit a naturalistic one. I would tend to say you are mistaken in your assertion, rather that chiding you from doing what is more compatible with my world-view ... namely saying, "I'm right about this, and this is why I think so." Ron: quote: Ron, I really agree with you. But three out of the four you mentioned, aren't necessarily religious in any sense, yet they still attempt to "find answers" beyond the short-term. Brad is essentially asking, if this tendency can be found in a naturalistic schema, why is the Christian faith necessary, or better? Why accept anything beyond space-time, to find such answers? (I'm of course putting questions in Brad's mouth, but I'm interested in how you would answer this). I'll reserve my answer for later. Essorant: quote: I think Hush has got you there Ess ... I would call someone who believes in a 'Spaghetti Monster' paranoid, not the person who insists that it isn't real. The last time I heard someone seriously saying something like that, they were in 4-point restraints. Stephen |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think that distinction makes a significant difference in my life and yours Brad because we don't live in a vacuum. We interact with followers of various religions at every turn. We're left with two choices. Play along. Communicate clearly. In polite conversation, or professional discourse the question rarely comes up. Understanding who we are when it does come up is important. It matters to me because it matters to Stephan(s), Jim(s) et al. Not as a matter of superiority of one position over another but as a matter of definition. They want to know what we're going to do in the heat of passion or anger or jealousy. quote: Because there can only be this world. For us. There is a supposition in this question that we could, somehow, transport our conciousness across different platforms. The eternal soul proposition. But, if we were different creatures with different appendages and ate different foods in different gravity we wouldn't think the same. If we had six fingers on each hand we wouldn't even be using a base 10 numbering system. Tiny changes in climate, food supply, etc. contribute to huge differences in culture right here on Terra Firma -- imagine how alien we would be if we were aliens. It's not an unanswerable question in my mind. I'm me because I can't be anybody else -- but I can imagine a different me that I can aspire to and I can take action to move myself toward goals. Creationists want to ask the question why the solar system lines up so perfectly to support life and our ecosystem -- it's really the same question -- and the same answer -- it's this way because it happened this way. More later (maybe) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, you tagged my post at the end. I just didn't want y'all to miss my long post. I worked too hard on it.  and what do you mean "maybe" ... yeah right. enjoying the thread, and the spaghetti. Wait a minute .... which is which? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
In the spirit of the philosopher-bard's love of music, I give you this link ... http://www.donalder.com/vidclips.html Of interest is "DR DR studio version", and "Marshal's Lanai". I'm a guitar player. And this guy makes me want to burn, crush, destroy, explode my instrument, and never pick it up again. (just kidding- but a bit of jealousy does come to mind) Enjoy, Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
There are a lot of possible roads to take with this thread, most of which don’t travel too close to the original post – but that’s a good thing, conversations and discussions normally meander and almost always end up in more interesting places. We started with the question of whether atheism was generally good, then meandered into the definition of religion and on to whether disbelief was evidence of non-existence. We visited briefly the outposts of the evolution of ethics and the realm of the spaghetti monster and I have to say I’m looking forward to the next destination. To help me get to where I want to go I need a little help, especially from the religious among you. How would you define Agnosticism? I know the standard, can’t know\don’t know definition but I’ve never truly understood it when looked at from a religious adherents perspective. If being religious equates to believing and following a god and atheism is the disbelief in god where’s the room for agnosticism? Surely there can be only one alternative to being religious, or is agnosticism simply a socially acceptable label for what is, essentially, atheism? I’m not really interested at this point the advantages of belief over disbelief or opinions as to why one is better than the other, I’m trying to understand how one group perceives the other – whether Christians view atheists as intrinsically bad, mad and immoral and, if agnosticism is a separate set of non-believers, whether they are viewed differently. btw - Thanks for the journey so far. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush "It's not paranoia. It's common sense" You mean that same common sense that says its "morning" at 1:00 o clock at night, when pitch darkness is over the land and the sun is no where to be seen? And says earth can't be flat anymore because it is round too? Sorry, but I don't ride on that road. I'm not so fond of certain differences that I am willing to make them out to be the only tokens of reality and existance. To me every thing is a token of reality and existance. And no token exists more than any other token. My thoughts exist just as much as your thoughts, and both of our thoughts exist just as much as the ground under our feet. They are very different indeed, but those differences are not an inequality of existance. Differences don't detach us from existance, but rather, they make us more aware of it. If someone won't accept the existance of something just because it is severely different from something else, to me that is folly. "Spaghetti monsters don't exist on a plane of reality." I continue my disagreement. Every plane is a plane of reality. Think about it this way: you go into a house with many different mirrors. Each mirror is shaped/bent differently. You are reflected differently in each mirror according to how the mirror is shaped or bent. Do the mirrors no longer reflect an existant thing--you--because you show up very altered in the reflections? If a particular reflection that you may only refer to when you are there and acknowledge it, does not exist, and, then how can you exist (since it is dependant your presence)? The differences in those mirrors to me are not "seperations" from existance or reality, but rather variations of reflecting the same thing--YOU. Perhaps didn't mean for yourself to show up in that "warped" way, but your still reflected in every one of them. Even the one that makes your arms and legs look like spaghetti Mirrors are manhandled, made to reflect ourselves. But just like drawings, they may be warped and thereby warp expression of the reflection of everything and anything real. However the reflection is still always a real thing, and is still of a real thing. Think about something more spiritual, such as the wind. We often use something more physical and therefore, willfully use inaccuracy. Inevitablly we feel we must use canvas or some other solid surface to paint something that shall convey presence of wind in our painting. But wind is not a solid surface nor is it man's paint . Nor is wind made of lines or arrows that weather men may use. Nor does wind show up with a human body as it is represented often in art.We often use things created that are very unlike things we represent, to represent things, while at the same time we may use things that are much more like them, and both whether artfully unlike or artfully like, still are, and represent, real and existant things. Art would not be art anymore if we could by our own hands completly duplicate with perfection something that we are trying to represent or refer too. Every difference is a variation of the same thing: the universe. God gives Godmade, Nature gives natural, and man gives manmade differences to the universe, but the universe and each thing in the universe still remains wholly existant, just not always in the same shape. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-05-2006 10:45 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: You're right that from a Christian perspective, agnosticism differs very little from atheism. And even among atheists, and agnostics, the differences are subtle. I would say that atheism is the more settled form of agnosticism, where the mould has set. If "agnosticism" is simply a place of indecision, then the pottery has not necessarily been fired in the kiln. This means in essense, "I don't know". That is soft agnosticism. Hard agnosticism, takes on a more absolute tone. It is much more ambitious in the sense that it says "I can't know, and no one else can either". At that point, agnosticism becomes essentially the same as absolute atheism ... positions which do not comport with relativistic thinking, since they make metaphysical claims far beyond the self. Then there is the "between" category. Some try and reside here, philosophically. They don't want to just say, "I don't know". But nor do they want to come across as dogmatically sure. It's funny that they can be just as "sure" as anyone else, but can retain a metaphyscial dogma of uncertainty. Their dogmatically negative epistemology, protects them from seeming overly pedagogical. So at some times they adopt the approach of the former, and at other times the latter. Then there's the "Question doesn't matter" type of agnostic. But again, why should that extend beyond, "doesn't matter to me", unless we want to take an absolutist position? Autobiographically, the question has mattered to most of humanity, throughout history. As far as whether Christians view agnostics and atheists as "bad" or "rebellious", it's not that simple. Christians view the entire human race, as infected with a principle called "sin". And sin, by it's origin, has a rebellious factor. So the Christian, while being careful not to constantly accuse people of intended evil or rebellion (this is not the case), should still raise the possiblity of sin being a persuading element. The question of whether God exists, is not an altogether neutral question. It seems that even atheists from time to time (like Huxley) admit so. From a Theistic perspective, anything that would maintain the separation of God from his people, is necessarily evil, even if "reason" or "rationality" is the given as the cause. C.S. Lewis once wrote: "If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of Faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth." (from "Christian Reflections") And I have found, in my own life, temptations to disbelieve rarely stem from rationality, but from the kinds of things that Lewis has described. I suspect that may be true for many. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I mean maybe Stephan because I'm a musician too and I'm supposed to be working on a new CD... whenever I take a break I come in and look for a thread or two I might follow and do some good with. After 30 years of playing though I'm long past the point of jealousy over what someone else can do. I just recognize that I do what I do and they do what they do and enjoy it all. I've been setting the intonation on my acoustics (whittling new saddles out of bone and compensating them) for the last couple of days -- and setting up my new 51 which is half fat Strat and half Tele, and all tone -- I've actually never had a guitar that I liked this much (and it's just a Squier).. Think I'll buy one in vintage blonde too before they stop making them. anyway -- I digress... Your paradigm, again, presents you with false choices. An agnostic is not a fence sitter -- this is often a mistaken idea about political moderates too because idealogues think there can only be two ways. What's more important than saying 'I don't know' or 'I can't know' is expressing what I do and don't know. I do know that the Christian/Hebrew Bible is not a literal document. Certainly there are parts which can point to actual historical places, people, events -- but, if I wrote a fictional story about Superbowl XL it would certainly contain real people, places, and events -- but that wouldn't make it 'true'. That, would not, however prevent it from containing 'truth'. I don't believe in supernatural forces, entities because , being me, I have no known way of detecting them except by natural means. In other words, if I was to happen to see a supernatural event -- it would have to manifest itself in a way that could be percieved by this corporeal being. If Jesus is actually who Christians say he is -- then I'm certain he doesn't want me to lie and hedge my life with Pascal's wager. I, too, as an agnostic believe that humans are in a state of 'sin' in the Hebrew sense -- that is, not being seperated from God but in the knowledge of the difference between what we are and a percieved, more desireable state. We can imagine that we can be better. Spong talks of Christpower as a catalyst to propel us beyond that state and move us toward our better perception of ourselves -- actually he speaks of it more elaborately than that -- and I liken that a bit to the Pascal Journey -- but I don't think we have to talk metaphysics to be able to do that. anyway -- back to work.... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Doubt, I believe, is Universal, a necessary reflection of free will. Even Jesus, in order to be human, had to suffer the pangs of doubt. The difference between a believer, an agnostic and an atheist is one of degree, not of kind. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But if faith isn't also universal, then there has to a distinction somewhere. What's the difference between settled unbelief (apostasy) and transitory doubt? From a Christian standpoint, that distiction, if not to be used as a whip, is at least present in the text and worthy of our attention. Peter and Judas both "denied" the Lord, but there was a marked difference between them ... though superficially they mirrored each other in many ways. more later, Stephen. LR, what did you think of Alder's playing? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If I deny the existence of settled faith in this life, Stephen, why should I admit to the existence of settled unbelief? LOL. You edited your post, Stephen, after I had already quoted your original words. That's okay, though. I'll just use the new quote to make the same point. quote: Perspective. Until one gains the perspective of sitting on the far side of final death, everything is transitory and nothing is settled. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
“Doubt, I believe, is Universal, a necessary reflection of free will. Even Jesus, in order to be human, had to suffer the pangs of doubt. The difference between a believer, an agnostic and an atheist is one of degree, not of kind.” Doesn’t that just make us all atheists (at some point) but some being more atheist than others? So what is the ideal point on the scale from ultimate believer (Jesus?) to staunch atheist or are all positions equally ideal? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Both Al and Fred views, at least here, strike me as adolescent. A kind of young Tom Cruise dancing in his underwear kind of freedom. But as in Nemo when the fish finally escape the dentist's office but are still stuck in plastic bags, you still have to answer the question, "Now what?" And that question is not easy whether you're an aetheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or whatever. quote: No kidding. quote: I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean here, but I would argue that it's more empirical or statistical than metaphysical. On the other hand, if you buy into a metaphysical schema, my point makes no sense. quote: Stoic? That's gotta be a first. quote: It's not my intent to comouflage, I am hesitant -- though I do say it -- to say, "It doesn't matter," if only because I think it inhibits conversation. I think conversation, the process itself, even if it doesn't lead to agreement or concensus, even if no answers are found, is a good thing. It tends to humanize the other and at the very least puts off the killing for a day or two. I'm intrigued by the question itself I guess. I find it mildly amusing that a few here have stated they'll find out which position is right after they die. An aetheist will never know if he or she is right because death means you aren't there. A theist will never know if he or she is wrong for the exact same reason. The former can only be shown that he or she is wrong, the latter that he or she is right. Can't help but think that makes religion the slightly more attractive of the two. But here you go: I'm right. It doesn't matter. Why? Because insanity runs in both houses. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
God's, Nature's, or Man's creations Aren't uniquer variations To this Universe, I say, than: God Almighty, Nature, and Man. God is the Universe's head Nature the body of the whole, And Man a toe, swollen and red; Thus goes the Universe's Soul. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-05-2006 12:55 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I think I've always said that... (although -- search seems to be truncating its results as I've apparently only even used the word agnostic seven times in 7 years? something is wrong Ron... ) I enjoyed the Dr. Dr. vid Stephen... I have a mini-jumbo cutaway similar to his, but I don't do exactly that kind of work. While it looks and sounds really complex I think it's probably really as easy as he makes it look -- at least for experienced player who wanted to do it... so.. do it! http://www.squierguitars.com/products/search.php?partno=0325100503 That's my latest acquisition... I wouldn't reccomend it though unless someone knows how to dress frets and set up a guitar -- Squier doesn't exactly 'finish' thier products.. but still, even at the price if you took it to a luthier and had it properly adjusted it would be well worth the bucks. I'd also reccomend changing the saddles, the 'vintage' style Strat saddles are string breakers. I'll probably just pull the hard tail and pop a Bigsby on it. I use it for all my SRV type blues work... picking up my Strat and Muddy Waters style Tele less and less. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, Tom cruise in his underwear? Nemo? Pop-culture provides a ceaseless supply of analogies for us philosopher-types, does it not?  quote: No argument here. I just don't think it's the only question that matters. quote: Well, my metaphysical belief (what's behind it, actually) puts off my killing you, indefinitely. So you can relax. In fact, I'm even supposed to do my best to love you. But you're right. Conversation is good. quote: But Brad, we didn't do that. It's not sophistry. It's really the way the question pans out. You can say that people shouldn't wish for resolution, or wish to live on, but from my world-view those desires are basic and proper. You're right in saying that it makes religion more attractive. But Christians have always believed that the truth, (though not a walk in the park), is intrinsically more attractive than it's alternatives. quote: But there is a promise that it will reside, as a permanent resident, in only one. Ron: quote: Are you saying no one can know whether or not they are a saint? There is a healthy agnosticism, that helps us to doubt false foundations ... but there is also an unhealthy agnosticism that helps us to take nothing for sure. Maybe philosophy has led you to believe (or disbelieve) as you do. Maybe you're just trying to be humble. But since when does humility have the right to deny distinctions, just because it doesn't want to flaunt them? There are some pretty amazing lines drawn in scripture between things like regeneration and depravity, light and darkness, Christ and Belial, election and damnation. You can say they are only for God, and from God. But then why did he speak them to us at all, on this side of the grave? If not to make us proud, smug, or insensitive to subtleties ... much less to make us agnostics, I would say. To say our that our judgements are questionable about what the differences are, is one thing. That would alert one to caution and care. To say that there are no fundamental differences, only a gradient, is quite another. But then again, I may be misunderstanding you. But I think you need to clarify. Even Grinch is wondering, if the difference is only in degree, what determines what is ideal? Surely, as a Christian, you wouldn't recommend atheism would you? LR, thanks for the link. I have an Ernie Ball Music Man Silhouette. But I'm thinking about getting another guitar, more vintage sounding. I may look into this. I have a friend who is very talented at setting up guitars. And like you said, he told me that factory guitars never come ready to play off the shelf. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (02-07-2006 02:57 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephanos, “But then again, I may be misunderstanding you. But I think you need to clarify. Even Grinch is wondering, if the difference is only in degree, what determines what is ideal? Surely, as a Christian, you wouldn't recommend atheism would you?” Actually my question was sort of rhetorical, I know the answer I was just hoping someone else would post it. The ideal is wherever you happen to be on the scale or where you’re hoping to get. In this respect Christians and Atheists are clearly animals of a different ilk. If the far left of the scale is Jesus and the far right is a hard atheist and the increments between are clearly defined then everyone will be able to point to where they are. Atheists would see a move to the left as a bad move and a move to the right slightly less bad but still not ideal. Christians however will always aspire to be further left on a graduated scale, and each increment in that direction would be seen as better or more good than any move to the right. In fact any move to the right would be seen as a downhill slide away from good. Of course this scale of relative goodness has it’s problems, the first one being that both Atheists and Christians can be equally as good, that was what I found interesting in the statement by my Christian friend that sparked this thread. A much bigger problem however arises when good people on the religious scale do increasingly bad things the further left they go (though presumably this stops when they reach the far left). When this happens you end up with seemingly devoutly religious people, those that never miss Church or the Mosque on Sunday or Friday, strapping fifteen pounds of Semtex to their chest and taking out two city blocks in the name of their God. At that point the Atheist glances down the scale to the left and what he sees confirms his disbelief and the people at the bombers Church or Mosque release a press statement saying, “He wasn’t really a true Christian\Mulim” If the bomber had continued on his merry religious way without strapping on the explosives would he have been considered a good Christian\Moslem? Is he defined as non-religious (bad) because of the act or is he just a bad Christian\Muslim waiting to be defined by his action. If we switch the scenario and a radical or hard atheist prints some blasphemous pictures in a Danish magazine the Atheists to his left look right and their suspicions of badness are confirmed. The Christians too look right and have their suspicions confirmed and the atheist publisher's friends admit he was a really hard Atheist (and take two paces to the left if they have any sense ). |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, You've pointed out a fundamental difference between Believers and Atheists, and that's a start. I agree with you, that the difference is fundamental. You also state that goals indicate the difference between the two. Yes, I suppose. But the "goal" of an atheist, is usually something which comports more with the Christian worldview. (Reb is an example ... whose goal is to be "Christian" without what he deems unnecessary beliefs). I can't imagine an atheist wanting to be a bad person. It's just that an atheist's moral goal must be an arbitrary construct, since nature itself is silent when it comes to morals. It is more like a preference, than anything. But to me, that defies the "oughtness" of morality, which is so very central to it's definition. To the Christian, moral character is teleological. It is what we were meant to be, according to God's own character. Of course another difference too, would be that the Christian's ultimate goal is not to be goodly, but godly. It is goodness, but more than that, god-likeness. And that can't be done apart from the miraculous, and the free gift of grace. In addition to that, you pointed out the problem of hypocrisy. The difference between profession, and action. I guess that will always present somewhat of a problem. But the individual need not be concerned with specks in his brother's eyes, when he has a plank in his own. If we are all individually accountable to God, hypocrites only serve as warnings to ourselves. They also illustrate and underscore God's standard all over again. Raph once brought up Roman Catholic child molesters as a reason to doubt the faith. I told him that it was obvious to me, that he was assuming the absolute moral framework of that very faith in order to condemn those priests. Deviation from a standard, and the moral indignation that follows, only ends up praising the standard. It should not help us doubt it, only those who transgressed it. But it's fallen human nature to take comfort, by comparison, in the wrongs of others. It's easier to speed when someone else gets pulled over, we suppose. And I guess that unbelief and blasphemy are sins which get excused in our minds, whenever the religious fail. Lastly, you've raised the question of what the fundamental teaching of Christianity versus Islam is. Is Islam, by its very own teachings, a fundamentally peaceful religion, or a bellicose ideology? I have a copy of the Koran, where there are admonitions to convert the heathen, but upon failure to do so, it is godly to put them to the sword. If the Old Testament of the Bible seems similar to this (It's really not that similar, though divine justice is expressed through warfare), the New Testament teaches a totally different ethic than this. My point? When Christians kill, it's much easier to point out that they are veering from the standard left by their own founder. When Muslims kill, it's harder to say they aren't good muslims. Yes you can say that they aren't being good. But, contextually, taking the teaching of the Koran seriously, can we say they are not being good Muslims? Is Jihad portrayed as godly in the Koran or isn't it? I have not explored this question to the full, but it's at least worthy of asking. Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
“But the individual need not be concerned with specks in his brother's eyes, when he has a plank in his own. If we are all individually accountable to God, hypocrites only serve as warnings to ourselves.” Even if religion was the cause we should ignore it, let god judge transgressors it’s not our problem, we should just concentrate on being more religious. I know you didn’t mean it that way Stephanos but from my side of the agnostic fence that’s exactly what it sounds like. Are Muslims as peaceful (good) as Christians? I think it depends on your perspective, are you looking left from Jesus or right from Allah? From my perspective I’d have to say they look pretty similar. Their texts may be different, but I think that’s just an imbalance in theological consequences due to cultural differences, the real acid test is in their actions. Only religion makes good men do bad things. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: What do you mean by religion being the cause? I assume you mean the teachings of any particular religion, persuading overzealous devotees to do violence. That's why I address the fundamental difference between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Mohammed. As far as what I meant by focusing on the plank in our own eye ... I mean that the truth of any proposition (religious or otherwise) should not be judged according to someone's behavior. If behavior is such a factor, your atheism is just as tenous as anything. Many avowed atheists (particularly communist leaders, who accepted a Marxist view of reality) have blood on their hands. quote: In light of recent world events in the U.S., France, and Denmark ... are you serious? I personally think you've been listening to a kind of rhetoric out there that lumps all religious fundamentalism into one pot. I'm not saying that professing "christians" have never done violence, but the difference in frequencey and severity should be noted. Beyond that, I'm just saying that the difference in dogma should be noted too. A violent Christian, does his violence, only as he departs from the teachings of his Lord. He is among the 5 virgins who get shut out of the Kingdom of God. A violent Muslim, in the right context, affirms the teaching of Mohammed concerning Jihad. He gets 72 virgins and many servants in paradise, for killing the infidels. quote: Well, the "cultural differences" explanation that you hold, should not be a barrier for you, since everything comes from culture, in your secular view of reality. So, even granting the source, you do note a fundamental difference. And that was my point. As far as actions being the "real acid test", I never said otherwise. In this we agree. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I would rather say ... Only bad religion makes good men do bad things. And even good religion, cannot make bad men good, if they are persistent in doing evil, and use religion as a cloak. Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
“As far as actions being the "real acid test", I never said otherwise. In this we agree.” So as long as we’re good our religious beliefs don’t matter, a good Muslim is equal to a good Christian who’s exactly on par with a good Atheist. Superb, we really do agree. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Maybe I spoke too soon. Many avowed atheists (particularly communist leaders, who accepted a Marxist view of reality) have blood on their hands. Yep, guilty as charged but we’ve already been through this, atheists admit that atheists do bad things, now how many true Christians\Muslims have blood on their hands? In light of recent world events in the U.S., France, and Denmark ... are you serious? Yes, the clue is in the term ‘in light of recent events’ if you use ‘in light of previous events’ the potential for barbarity on both sides looks roughly equal. You say Crusade they say Jihad (which is better on a good\bad scale btw) Beyond that, I'm just saying that the difference in dogma should be noted too. A violent Christian, does his violence, only as he departs from the teachings of his Lord. He is among the 5 virgins who get shut out of the Kingdom of God. A violent Muslim, in the right context, affirms the teaching of Mohammed concerning Jihad. He gets 72 virgins and many servants in paradise, for killing the infidels. So Christians are better than Muslims? Or is it that bad Christians are better than bad Muslims? What happened to all good people being equally good? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I don't think we're quite on the same page yet. I wouldn't necessarily term being 'Christian' without unnecessary beliefs a goal. Here, in the 'Virus of the Mind' thread; /pip/Forum8/HTML/000482.html I discussed religion as an operating system and that's more or less the same point I'm trying to make here about Agnostic Christian (or Agnostic Jew). And I don't think nature is silent about morals. When I was talking about being a cooperative species and the means to determine who is or isn't cooperating and the the need for 'justice' -- that's the natural trait that leads to what our ideas of morality are. Certainly there may be arbitrary cultural traditions that become adopted as morals -- such as rioting in the streets to protest your prophet being depicted as violent (boy that really showed them didn't it?) or views regarding food, medicine, homosexuality -- but they all come back to some basic notions of good an evil. Good -- preservation of life (human). Evil -- destruction of life (human). While it doesn't really matter to the trees whether we kill each other or are eaten in the ocean by a killer whale -- it matters to us. It is OUR nature. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: That's not what I said. I was merely agreeing that actions are the real acid test, as to whether faith is real. (The Bible also tells us that 'faith without works is dead'). Remember, you were, at the point that I said what I did, discussing Muslims and Christians, whom both profess faith in God. quote: I'm not sure. But the Christians who do have blood on their hands, have acted hypocritically. The Muslims, I feel, may have been acting more in accordance with their professed beliefs, as expressed in the Koran. (I'm still not wholly sure on that question though ... I've got some more reading to do). Still, my point is, while I think moral consistency matters (especially to those who are not), it is not a valid way to judge whether or not religious propositions are true, especially when those who are culpable are denying those very propositions by their actions. (Christians). I for one, have not lacked the privilege of having good Christian examples in my life, to counter the bad examples. So I don't know how I would have reacted if I only had poor examples to observe. Often personal offense will lead to irrational conclusions. I do sympathize with those who reject Christ, out of offenses caused by religious people. quote: I certainly can't defend the crusades, nor will I try. Though it is debatable as to which religious history, in totality, is more bellicose, Christians do (by the very teachings of Christ) have a higher standard, and therefore a higher accountability to God and men. quote: My statement was that Christianity (individuals must be considered individually), when believed and practiced, is better than Isalm, when believed and practiced. LR: quote: But you are reconfiguring Christian belief into your own schematic. Operating systems are not true or false, in any real way. They are tools to achieve a desired end. The Christian core-beliefs have this funny insistence that they are true, not merely means to an end. So those beliefs, to you, must be "unnecessary", if their veracity is not essential to your view on the proper function of religion. Yes, I know you'll reply by saying that you still find some "truth" in the Christian tradition. But not in the same sense as orthodox Christians do. Scripture minus miracles equals an ethical philosophy, not a religion. Again, that's not how Einstein appeared to use the term "Agnostic Jew". He is Jewish ethnically speaking, not religiously speaking. Unless you can show otherwise. His Moses was Spinoza. His ethnicity and geneology qualify him as Jewish. Your ethics do not qualify you as a Christian, on Christianity's terms. Though I do concede that your ethic about loving your enemies is "Christian" in a descriptive, adjective sense of the word.quote: But aren't you begging the question? From a Christian standpoint, moral sense is given by God. At least you recognize the homogeneous nature of morals in societies ... I don't have to argue that point with you like others who insist that we're all so different in that regard. Man is created in the imago dei, the image of God, therefore a moral awareness is part of who we are, as his unique creation. When you say that "nature" is not silent about morality, you are referring to humans alone. But that's what is in question. In an atheistic paradigm are human morals simply arbitrary, or do they represent a real distinction between right and wrong, good and evil? Yes we make the distinction, but you can't get "ought" from "is". Your consensus view of morality is also flawed, in that the mob may be immoral too, if society grows increasingly immoral, what happens? Do morals merely shift? You say, that it has never happened in a totalistic way. And you may be right about that (by God's grace). But there's no logical reason why it couldn't. If it did, would you have any recourse? Would you simply acquiesce to the will of society? If morals are merely a head count, then that is counter-intuitive to our common understanding of what morality is. If you say no. I want to know why. Would it be in the hope of regaining the majority? If that's the case, you're holding a moral standard despite consensus, or projecting your moral choice into a more prospective future of communal support. If you do the former, you are recognizing a law higher than society, or admitting complete arbitrariness. If you do that latter, then we're back to "might makes right". Stephen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephanos, quote: Are all people equally as good if they do equally good things? Or are you saying that a particular religious belief raises one above the others. quote: This seems to suggest that it’s better to be Christian than it is to be Muslim (and presumably Atheist) regardless of whether your actions are good or bad. I can understand that, you’re sat on the scale looking downhill at everybody to your right. Are Muslims who do good things doing them in spite of their religion whereas Christians who do good are acting in line with their religion? Are Christians generally more likely to be good than Muslims or Atheists or are all equally likely? quote: Now you are sure – true believers aren’t true believers if they do bad things, true believers can’t have blood on their hands. quote: Your standards don’t matter actions are the real acid test and a blow by blow account of each sides barbarity isn’t necessary to prove that they are equally capable of barbarous acts in the name of religion. It’s easy to extrapolate from that and say that religion is the cause of such acts; fortunately we have a control group who aren’t religious – Atheists. We could add weight to our argument that religion increases the chance of such acts if we can prove that Atheists are less likely to commit them. Here’s the rub though, religious people tend to deny that the perpetrators were truly religious. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: I'm sure you know that, as a Christian, I believe that Righteousness before God is only obtained through Jesus Christ. This kind of "goodness" is a passive, legal kind of Righteousness (for lack of better terms), in the sense that it doesn't come from Christians themselves, but from Christ. If this is so, then no amount of "good deeds" can commend any before God as righteous. Because all of us have sin in our very deepest nature. But in addition to this passive righteousness, there is the fact that true faith in Christ produces a better more virtuous life, in the here and now. This is not a goodness that obtains salvation, but a goodness which is an outflow of gratitude and reverence to God who has given salvation freely. This is where faith demostrates works. That doesn't make a mere belief, the source of a more virtuous life, but rather the object of that belief, the person of Christ. I have to make that distinction because, admittedly, if it were only a group of people claiming to be "better" because of a mere intellectual belief, that would be unwarranted arrogance. But the belief in Christ, as a personal savior, entails another person's righteousness. And with that comes the awareness of one's own sinfulness. There is a real brokenness and humility that inevitably comes with being a Christian, that should leave no room for personal pride and arrogance. I know what I am without him, and it's all right there ready to overwhelm me, whenever I would stray. Of course, the difficulty with speaking to a non-believer like yourself, is that it's hard for you to even imagine that my relationship with Christ is anything more than an intellectual belief. If you think I'm duped, you can't even grant me that, theoretically. So our precommitments color our judgements. I can only describe these things to you, and listen to you in turn. Of course, I believe that there is a part of you which in some way, or at sometime has acknowledged God. And believing that God himself, must ultimately reveal this truth in full (in his own time), I do not feel that I must rely on my own persuasions to convince you. But I said all of this to say, the precommitments of belief (either way) brings the believer and unbeliever to an impasse. I guess my only advantage is that I believe God to be on both sides of the chasm. quote: I'm not sure that true believers can't have blood on their hands. I'm not the judge. But I do believe that true believers will not continue habitually and unchangingly in those kinds of behaviors. The Bible tells us that determined, unrepentant, habitual sin, is a proof of one's "faith" being unreal, and unsaving in nature. Profession of belief in Christ, is not enough, that's for sure. My priority of concern for that application, as the safest approach spirtually, is myself. I do want to always make sure I'm right, in my own spirit, with God ... lest I go correcting others in hypocritical kind of way. quote: I don't know if you fully understand my position here. I believe that cause of evil actions, is the indwelling sinful nature of us all. Atheists and religious alike have this problem. But from a Christian standpoint, atheism and false religious doctrine aggravate and perpetuate the problem. This would explain why atheists are not less likely to commit atrocities. Atheism, like false-religion, involves wrong assumptions which may lead to the encouragement of such behavior. Now here's a difficulty I admit: even true doctrine, which repudiates these kinds of actions, is not a guarantee to good behavior. That is the "law" aspect of Christianity. Much of it may be believed, without any kind of moral transformation, without any real commitment to follow and do what is right. There ARE false believers. If this clouds the issue, then other landmarks must be observed. But, alas, even the truth may be held insincerely. Now, do I think someone is more likely to live a morally upright life, if they know and believe the truth? Of course I do. All of this, leads me to believe that: 1) The Fall of Man is reality, and religious and irreligious alike suffer the malady of sin. 2) Even people who believe wrong doctrines, do "good". Being made in the image of God, they retain a desire for "goodness", and a capcity for common goodwill toward their fellows. 3) Knowing true doctrine intellectually is no guarantee to spiritual transformation, and a morally upright life. Though such knowledge is important, there is more to it. 4) True doctrine is a help toward spiritual transformation, salvation, and a morally upright life. More later, Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
I think a good question would be this: How many Christians would still keep their faith if they were not promised an afterlife for obeying their Lord? hmmmm... the second question would be how many Christians would honestly answer that question? "If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
JCP, But can't that question be adjusted for almost anything in life? How many would do anything they're doing - including sitting in front of the computer right now - if they didn't get some sort of relief or satisfaction out of it? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
