| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Atheistic fundamentalism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,621 Views) | |
| Axtremus | Dec 26 2007, 05:11 AM Post #226 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Got a better method/model? ![]()
Perhaps -- but, what if "truth seeking" happens to be a prerequisite of "making [good] predictions"?
Perhaps -- but religion that sticks to "theories" are practically non-existent. When you see rules like "thou shalt not kill," "thou shalt not eat pork," "thou shalt giveth 10% of thy income to thy temple," "thou shalt kill non-believers," "thou shalt chop off the hand of a thief" -- and I note that the existence of such rules happen to be the rule rather than the exception among religions -- it tells you that religions are designed to tell people how to live, not "merely" to make them feel spiritually satisfied.
Suppose that is, "Truth [seeking]" is in what domain, then? Philosophy? Religion? How confident are you that Socrates or Siddhartha Gautama can figure out quantum gravity by thinking/meditating about it?
|
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Dec 26 2007, 05:14 AM Post #227 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
There is eternal supply of good beer and great sex in the afterlife. Now be happy already, damn it!
|
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Dec 26 2007, 05:26 AM Post #228 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I don't really disagree with the rest of your post, but on this, I offer two questions: 1. How do you figure that a "heart" is necessary for "wisdom"? Can you think of any brain-dead patient with a healthy beating heart who still has "wisdom"? Can you think of patients suffering heart problems who still exhibit signs of "wisdom"? 2. How do you figure that the soul needs to be fed in the first place, and for what?
|
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 26 2007, 05:28 AM Post #229 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
"Cure the soul by means of the senses, and the senses by means of the soul." Sorry, I have nothing substantial to offer, but that's the first thing I thought of.
|
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Dec 26 2007, 05:39 AM Post #230 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I did not mean to suggest that you need to use a "scientific" method to pick an answer out of {A1, A2, A3, ...} etc., just "any method" -- how would you choose that method? If your answer is arbitrary (e.g., "just go with your heart/gut," "pray,"), then, OK.
|
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Dec 26 2007, 05:46 AM Post #231 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
(Yes, I'm aware of Godel's Incompleteness theorem.) That may be, but science/logic/math can identify/quantify/estimate to what extent it is incomplete (i.e. "knows what it doesn't know"). [Faith-based] Religions make no effort to identify their limits or incompleteness. If anything, they claim that they have "all" the answers (i.e. "doesn't know what it doesn't know"). Do you not consider this distinction significant? |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Dec 26 2007, 05:48 AM Post #232 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I think irrespective of one's ideas about the likelyhood of a personal God there is a great deal to agree with in these messages. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 05:54 AM Post #233 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It would be a distinction if it were true, Ax, but it's not true. Christianity makes no claim to having all the answers, only those pertaining to life and godliness. The Bible says specifically that human knowledge is incomplete, and makes many statements regarding the finite nature of man's understanding. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 26 2007, 06:22 AM Post #234 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Diva - First, a Merry Christmas to you!! However, you say: "The Bible says specifically that human knowledge is incomplete, and makes many statements regarding the finite nature of man's understanding." But it does (like the Koran, and the Book of Mormon, etc.) make claims to have special revealed access to a being of infinite and complete knowledge, an access that people who do not read the Special Book do not have. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Dec 26 2007, 06:25 AM Post #235 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
ivorythumper -- I would appreciate it if you can point me to specific passages in the scripture or in seminal Catholic/Vatican writings that acknowledge the incompleteness of the Catholic faith. ![]() In the mean time, for you "such as" question, see, for examples: 1. Revelation 22:18-19 2. Koran 6.34, 6.115, 10.15 Also, Book of Mormon -- the gold leaves are buried and hidden from men, so by such arrangement, none can revise it.
|
![]() |
|
| Larry | Dec 26 2007, 06:30 AM Post #236 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
That's a rather twisted view of it, don't you think Jeffrey? The purpose of the book is to give you that access. Should we assume that science (your god) is only accessible to those who study physics? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 26 2007, 06:43 AM Post #237 |
|
Senior Carp
|
The Wiki article is sort of correct, but not well explained. Moral realism is the view that ethical judgments are true or false (and not, for example, simply a relativistic expression of society's majority opinion, or our emotions, our our self-interest). You are a moral realist, since you think some moral judgments are true or false (on abortion, murder, lying etc.) The anthropologist M. Mead would disagree with you (and me) claiming that moral judgments are simply an expression of a culture, and are not universally true. The philosopher A.J. Ayer would disagree and say that moral judgments are simply the expression of the speaker's feelings and emotions, which do not have a truth-value, but are simply expressions. If one thinks that moral judgments are true or false, then one must explain what makes them true or false (and not just feelings, or cultural values). Three historically popular answers include: reason (Kant), human flourishing (Aristotle, Mill), or Divine Commands (Calvin, Descartes). There may be others, this list is not logically exhaustive, just a quickie summary of past thought. Ethical Naturalism is the view that moral claims are true or false, and that what makes them true or false are empirically-observable facts about human flourishing. Ethical Naturalist views are thus a subset of Moral Realist viewpoints. I would suspect that Aquinas is some sort of Ethical Naturalist, but I have not read him carefully enough or recently enough to counter a different interpretation with much confidence. But your objections above are thus to Ethical Naturalism, not Moral Realism as a whole (since you yourself think that moral claims have a truth-value, and are not just personal opinion). You raise several objections to Ethical Naturalism (how to observe moral facts, the argument from disagreement, whether moral absolutes can be justified within a naturalist framework), but here I am simply spelling out the definitions in meta-ethics. |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 08:07 AM Post #238 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ax, the Revelation passage, obvious in its context, is a warning that nothing be added to or subtracted from the prophecy given to, and recorded by, John in the book of Revelation. It clearly does not refer to any completeness of knowledge in the book of Revelation itself, or in the completed canon of Scripture. It is saying "the stuff that is written on these particular pages is complete and perfect concerning the things about which it speaks, don't monkey around with it"...there is no implication at all of completeness or perfection with regard to any other subject. While I'm no Islamic scholar, I do know enough about their thinking to know that they readily accept abrogation in the Hadith. Jeffrey, THANKS! and good to see you. Yes, the Bible does claim to give man access to an infinite and omniscient God. It never claims that man has the capacity, through that access, to become infinitely knowledgable himself. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 26 2007, 09:42 AM Post #239 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
1. Corinthians 13:12 Summa Theologiae 1a2ae:1-5 Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 18 Nov. 1965, art. 8
I cannot speak for Islam or Mormonism. However, as for the Apocalypse: "For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book." In what sense do you see that as making your point? It is speaking of specifically the prophecies in this book (profeteias tou bibliou). "This book" can only be anachronistically considered the whole bible or even the NT since NT was not formally assembled into a standard and definitive canon much later. If you read the history of theology you will see quite a bit of growth of understanding -- even recently with John Paul IIs theology of the body, the proper role of the laity in the Mass and in the world in the 20th cent, the relations of the Church to the world in Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II). I don't know where you get this idea of Christianity as static. Apostolic Christianity is not based on texts, though I suppose you can see biblical fundamentalism as such. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 26 2007, 09:50 AM Post #240 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Actually it says quite the opposite, Rom 1 points out that God has revealed himself primarily in what has been created. It takes no special book -- it does not even take literacy. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 10:31 AM Post #241 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
IT, I'm just clarifying, since we have our theological differences but for all intents and purposes play for the same team. Yes, Biblical Christianity is certainly based on the text, but fundamentalists, while believing Scripture to be sufficient, never teach (to my knowledge, finite as it is) that the Bible speaks to all subjects with completeness, only that Scripture is completely sufficient in all manners pertaining to life and godliness through our knowledge of Him. With respect to Romans 1, if by "primarily" you mean "originally," we agree. If you mean "mainly," I'll disagree with the idea of the primacy of general revelation over Scripture. I believe that Romans teaches that general revelation leaves man without excuse with regard to his knowledge of the existence of God. (in other words, I don't believe in atheists, I think all men know God exists, some choose to deny what God says they know, some very noisily) I believe God gave specific revelation in Scripture in order to explain the evidence He created in specific terms and bring man to knowledge of his need for reconciliation with the God he knows is there, whether he is willing to admit it or not. Without the revealed Word, God's attributes are still plainly visible in Creation, but the specifics of His plan for fellowship with His children is not evident therein. Which, I think is probably pretty much the same thing you think, again, I just want to clarify. |
![]() |
|
| sue | Dec 26 2007, 10:48 AM Post #242 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
How interesting. Bizarre, but interesting. Explains a lot, though, thanks. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 26 2007, 10:54 AM Post #243 |
|
MAMIL
|
That's OK, we still believe in you. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 11:01 AM Post #244 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I didn't invent it, that's what it says :lol: John...I enjoy you all immensely, but I could not care less what anyone thinks of me. The issue for me is what a person thinks of Christ. Because I think that's the issue for all of us, I say what I think when the occasion presents itself. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 26 2007, 11:04 AM Post #245 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I didn't think Ax was asking about completeness of all knowledge but it seems he was assuming some sort of static Christianity with the misunderstanding that it was based on words in a book. Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead us into the fullness of truth, implying that we do not have the fullness of all truth and that human development and spiritual/theological insight is a continuing process. As for mainly vs originally, I do think God has revealed himself *primarily* through creation -- first and mainly -- and necessary but not sufficient. Revelation is necessary to know any particularities in terms of specificity, but the bottom line is that God has created us with a conscience that is the prime agent of the moral life (how to live a morally good life and to be naturally happy, which is certainly part of his plan). The ancient Greeks, with their virtue ethics, got a long way in understanding the well lived human life (eudaimonia) -- which some Christians see as insufficient for salvation, and other Christians (rightly in my estimation) reserve the final disposition of the soul to God alone with the understanding that people who do the best they can with what they have -- whether technically *Christian* or not -- still rely on grace and mercy and God's desire that all people experience his love eternally. Again, I was addressing Jeff's point. I don't know what he means by "special revealed access" since anyone can pray and have the exact same access to God as anyone else. You needn't be a baptized believer to have a love relationship with God, or to pray and experience God's grace. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 11:08 AM Post #246 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Just for those who may not be familiar with the passage that IT referenced: Romans 1:18-22 8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Dec 26 2007, 11:09 AM Post #247 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Diva: " I don't believe in atheists, I think all men know God exists, some choose to deny what God says they know, some very noisily" Interesting. I was about to say that I don't believe anyone is really a theist. I think all people know God does not exist, but some choose to deny what they really know deep inside, sometimes very noisily. Curious. |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 11:12 AM Post #248 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
yes, but I said it first :lol: |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 26 2007, 11:13 AM Post #249 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Do you think Paul is referring to a specific group of people, or to people who generally don't believe in God? It seems to me the former, and cannot be applied to all who do not believe in God. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| DivaDeb | Dec 26 2007, 11:22 AM Post #250 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
These verses declare that knowledge concerning God is available to all. Because this knowledge from general revelation is seen in the created world, it is accessible to the entire human race, and is not soteriological (dealing with salvation effected by Christ) The witness to God in nature is so clear and so constant that ignoring it is indefensible in His eyes. Their condemnation is based not on their rejecting Christ of whom they have not heard, but on their sinning against the light they have in them (that He put there). |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











6:29 AM Jul 11