This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
Also, I apologize for my snappish response. It wasn't a good time for me to be reading that post.
Post by
donnymurph
Either you look for the stupidest congregations you can find, or you're lying.
Well, religion is, by definition, irrational.
Faith: (n) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
You take your experience and then proceed to apply it to the countless
millions
hundreds, possibly thousands of people that I experienced it from.
Fix'd.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well, religion is, by definition, irrational.
Faith: (n) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Irrational: (adj) not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical.
By irrational you mean non-rational.
And by religion you mean faith.
Post by
donnymurph
Yes, by religion I do mean faith.
And by irrational I mean non-rational, which both have the same definition.
Nonrational: (adj) not in accordance with the principles of logic or reason
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And by irrational I mean non-rational, which both have the same definition.
Nonrational: (adj) not in accordance with the principles of logic or reason
And that's not true.
Logic dictates that either God exists or he doesn't. One person believes he does, another believes he doesn't. Only on of the beliefs can be illogical. Therefore one of the beliefs is in accordance with logic. Therefore faith is not illogical, thus the term non-logical is used, to show that it is not against logic, but rather apart from it.
Stop arguing philosophy you obviously haven't even bothered looking into.
Post by
donnymurph
Logic dictates that either God exists or he doesn't. One person believes he does, another believes he doesn't. Only one of the beliefs can be illogical. Therefore one of the beliefs is in accordance with logic. Therefore faith is not illogical, thus the term non-logical is used, to show that it is not against logic, but rather apart from it.
/disagree
Logic is a system of reasoning. I won't bore you with the definition from some online dictionary this time. But that's what it is.
And if someone could prove through reason as to whether God exists or not, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This thread wouldn't exist. It is not logic that dictates whether God exists or not. It is
fact
. And we do not have the logic - the
system of reasoning
- to prove or disprove this fact.
Stop arguing philosophy you obviously haven't even bothered looking into.
Why? Does the fact that I choose to do other things with my time than look into this "philosophy" make my intellect and opinion inferior to yours? Am I now worthy of arguing with you?
Post by
donnymurph
Actually, before you reply, I will not read or post in this thread anymore. I'm done with this. You are a devoted Roman Catholic. I am a devoted Positive Explicit Atheist. No matter how well we argue, we will simply continue to disagree with each other. You will search for the tiniest flaws in my posts, and I in yours. And neither of us will learn anything from it because we are too hardened in our views. So I'm going to save my time and my keystrokes.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
/disagree
Logic is a system of reasoning. I won't bore you with the definition from some online dictionary this time. But that's what it is.
And if someone could prove through reason as to whether God exists or not, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This thread wouldn't exist. It is not logic that dictates whether God exists or not. It is
fact
. And we do not have the logic - the
system of reasoning
- to prove or disprove this fact.
And therefore it's non-rational.
Thank you for proving my point.
Is ice-cream contrary to math? No, it has nothing to do with math. It's non-mathematical. Are the thought processes of the brain contrary to music? No, they have nothing to do with music. They're not unmusical, they're non-musical.
Why? Does the fact that I choose to do other things with my time than look into this "philosophy" make my intellect and opinion inferior to yours? Am I now worthy of arguing with you?
It has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with you...what's the technical term? ...blabbing. You're drawing conclusions that have no relation to your premises, and you're taking core issues as assumed.
Edit:
Actually, before you reply, I will not read or post in this thread anymore. I'm done with this. You are a devoted Roman Catholic. I am a devoted Positive Explicit Atheist. No matter how well we argue, we will simply continue to disagree with each other. You will search for the tiniest flaws in my posts, and I in yours. And neither of us will learn anything from it because we are too hardened in our views. So I'm going to save my time and my keystrokes.
And this right here sums up the utter lack of understanding regarding what you're saying. This has nothing to do with my Catholic beliefs. You're bringing them up only because it gives you a nice way to escape. This entire argument is purely philosophical, logical, and semantic. Just because we're arguing about the nature of belief, doesn't make my argument a religious one.
Post by
Squishalot
Having fun, Hyper?
Post by
donnymurph
And this right here sums up the utter lack of understanding regarding what you're saying. This has nothing to do with my Catholic beliefs. You're bringing them up only because it gives you a nice way to escape. This entire argument is purely philosophical, logical, and semantic. Just because we're arguing about the nature of belief, doesn't make my argument a religious one.
Okay, I couldn't help myself, I had to come back. You're right. I wanted to escape. Why? Because I dislike arguing. It's pointless. It gets us nowhere.
Generally
, I can sit back and watch two people arguing, and think to myself with regards to
both
sides of the argument, "The stupidest thing is that they are so engrossed in their own opinion that they fail to realise that the other person is correct." So both people are correct, neither are willing to accept it, and no matter how long it goes on for, nothing is achieved. It is not always the case, but it is often the case. Sit and watch any political debate and you will see what I mean. Am I saying we're both correct here? I don't know, I'm part of the argument so I can't make an objective call
It's hard to keep sight of all this when you're actually
in
the argument. So I submit. You win by default. Have a good night.
Post by
blademeld
Actually, before you reply, I will not read or post in this thread anymore.
I'm sorry, I lol'd.
Post by
xaratherus
So both people are correct
Not really, no. Only one person is correct. Both people have opinions - but just because you cannot disprove one statement and prove the other does not alter the concept that, ultimately, only one of the answers is factually accurate.
I sometimes debate theology because I find the topic entertaining. However, I don't take it beyond debate. Why? Because the moment I make a positive statement regarding my beliefs (or lack thereof), I take upon myself the burden of proof - and there's no reason to do that. Until someone can provide some semblance of credible, unambiguous evidence that a deity exists, there's not really a reason for me to ponder the topic as more than an intellectual exercise. Attributing various characteristics to a deity that removes it from the realm of falsifiable statement (i.e., a god is infinite, a god is exotemporal or exophysical) ensures that the topic can never be anything more than that.
It's when people then attempt to influence a race/society that is obviously inside time and physicality, and finite, based on their particular image of such a being, that the discussion becomes heated - and it's that very reason that it's best that law remain, as Aristotle defined it, "reason, free from passion" (i.e., secular).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
...as Aristotle defined it, "reason, free from passion" (i.e., secular).
Aristotle thought you could come to knowledge of a perfect God by reason alone, so it would be wrong to label the aim of his quote as secular as if that's something he'd say.
Having fun, Hyper?
I went to be like 3 hours late because if this :P
So both people are correct...
Pretty much what xaratherus said. The logic you're holding so dear has a spiffy little principle called "The Law of Non-contradiction" which states that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. So if we're talking about some objective reality, and two people are making contradictory claims, then at least one must be wrong.
If anyone is interested -- not that I expect anyone particularly is --Derrida (who was at best an agnostic, but probably more somewhere between an atheist and agnostic) gave a very nice summary of both Platonic and Christian negative theology (that is, speaking of God based on what he's not, because we can't speak of him as he is, being beyond being like he is) in "How to Avoid Speaking." He himself disagreed with the position, but he nevertheless understood it well enough to write about it.
Post by
xaratherus
...as Aristotle defined it, "reason, free from passion" (i.e., secular).
Aristotle thought you could come to knowledge of a perfect God by reason alone, so it would be wrong to label the aim of his quote as secular as if that's something he'd say.
Not sure that I agree with that, if I'm reading it correctly. You seem to be implying that because Aristotle was a theist, he would not (or could not) have proposed a concept of secular justice? That seems to be a non sequitur to me. A theist can have non-religious ideas (obviously - see the Big Bang theory, which was first proposed by a Catholic scholar ).
The statement - at least from the interpretations I have read - advocates justice as a concept separate from emotion. The core concept of 'faith' is based in emotion; thus, 'justice' should not be based on faith, but on reason.
Okay - so re-reading it, that interpretation seems to be bent more toward my personal opinions on the matter. However, that concept of secular justice
does
seem to be one of the bedrocks of the justice system in the United States (at least, it attempts to be).
The logic you're holding so dear has a spiffy little principle called "The Law of Non-contradiction" which states that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.
True - at least in a concept of linear and singular dimensions. But that's a whole 'nother cat in a box.
If anyone is interested -- not that I expect anyone particularly is --Derrida (who was at best an agnostic, but probably more somewhere between an atheist and agnostic)
Why not be both? I've never found them to be mutually exclusive; one is a statement of belief (or lack thereof), while the other is a proposition of knowledge.
I've read some excerpts from Derrida's work; I should probably pick up the entirety of it. I'd guess that it's probably not light reading. ;)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Not sure that I agree with that, if I'm reading it correctly. You seem to be implying that because Aristotle was a theist, he would not (or could not) have proposed a concept of secular justice? That seems to be a non sequitur to me. A theist can have non-religious ideas (obviously - see the Big Bang theory, which was first proposed by a Catholic scholar ).
The statement - at least from the interpretations I have read - advocates justice as a concept separate from emotion. The core concept of 'faith' is based in emotion; thus, 'justice' should not be based on faith, but on reason.
Okay - so re-reading it, that interpretation seems to be bent more toward my personal opinions on the matter. However, that concept of secular justice
does
seem to be one of the bedrocks of the justice system in the United States (at least, it attempts to be).
Your argument as I see it expanded:
Aristotle defined law as reason free from passion.
Reason free from passion is secular.
Therefore, Aristotle was in favor of secular law.
My rebuttal (against your second premise):
Aristotle thought reason free from passion could arrive at God's existence
God's existence is not secular matter
Therefore, for Aristotle reason free from passion is not secular.
True - at least in a concept of linear and singular dimensions.
Hence "in the same respect."
Why not be both? I've never found them to be mutually exclusive; one is a statement of belief (or lack thereof), while the other is a proposition of knowledge.
If you know anything about the history of Philosophy, especially the history of modern and contemporary Philosophy, you know that labeling philosophers according to more recent understandings of the labels is deceptive and misleading.
He was not a atheist, and his writings seem to point to a less than agnostic view of God.
Post by
xaratherus
If you know anything about the history of Philosophy, especially the history of modern and contemporary Philosophy, you know that labeling philosophers according to more recent understandings of the labels is deceptive and misleading.
True. That actually holds true, in general - regardless of when the person lived or when the label was defined (or redefined). Labels are gross generalizations that typically bear only passing resemblance to a multi-faceted personality. It's like the people that blame atheism for the atrocities committed by Stalin (who was an atheist), or that blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Crusades - it's a false generalization in an attempt to vilify.
I checked out a recording of Derrida. He has interesting definitions of 'atheist' and 'believer'. Probably far too deep for me to delve-into on a Monday morning.
Out of curiosity, HSR, what is your definition of 'atheist' and 'theist'?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Out of curiosity, HSR, what is your definition of 'atheist' and 'theist'?
An atheist is someone who denies (to one degree or another) the existence of God (whether that denial is reason-based or faith-based I believe is irrelevant). A theist is someone who affirms (to one degree or another) the existence of God (whether that affirmation is reason-based or faith-based I believe is irrelevant).
Post by
xaratherus
Out of curiosity, HSR, what is your definition of 'atheist' and 'theist'?
An atheist is someone who denies (to one degree or another) the existence of God (whether that denial is reason-based or faith-based I believe is irrelevant). A theist is someone who affirms (to one degree or another) the existence of God (whether that affirmation is reason-based or faith-based I believe is irrelevant).
Does this definition not presuppose the existence of only a single deity? Are you using 'God' in the sense of a deity in general, or specifically the Christian deity?
It seems like the definition falls prey to the same problems as Pascal's wager - the inherent assumption of monotheism as the only possibility.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Does this definition not presuppose the existence of only a single deity? Are you using 'God' in the sense of a deity in general, or specifically the Christian deity?
It seems like the definition falls prey to the same problems as Pascal's wager - the inherent assumption of monotheism as the only possibility.
God, as I define and use the term both here and elsewhere, must exist as a single entity, because any other "God" would be equivalent to an imperfection.
I use "god" uncapitalized if I want to signify any being that is worshiped for whatever reason.
Descartes falls into the same "problem" you're saying I do when he jumps from the existence of God to the existence of a good God who could not deceive him. It's not a problem though, if you understand what is meant by God and what it means to be infinitely perfect.
If you want to know what I mean by God, you can pretty much take Anselm and Descartes' definitions that they use in their ontological arguments: "that than which nothing greater can be thought." Unlike them though, I don't believe that an essential definition. But taking it back to above, I can think of something greater than a "God" who has to share with another "God": a God who transcends both to the point of being so perfect that no other being can match it.
Post by
xaratherus
Does this definition not presuppose the existence of only a single deity? Are you using 'God' in the sense of a deity in general, or specifically the Christian deity?
It seems like the definition falls prey to the same problems as Pascal's wager - the inherent assumption of monotheism as the only possibility.
God, as I define and use the term both here and elsewhere, must exist as a single entity, because any other "God" would be equivalent to an imperfection.
I use "god" uncapitalized if I want to signify any being that is worshiped for whatever reason.
Descartes falls into the same "problem" you're saying I do when he jumps from the existence of God to the existence of a good God who could not deceive him. It's not a problem though, if you understand what is meant by God and what it means to be infinitely perfect.
If you want to know what I mean by God, you can pretty much take Anselm and Descartes' definitions that they use in their ontological arguments: "that than which nothing greater can be thought." Unlike them though, I don't believe that an essential definition. But taking it back to above, I can think of something greater than a "God" who has to share with another "God": a God who transcends both to the point of being so perfect that no other being can match it.
I understand the concept. I don't necessarily agree with it - or perhaps it's better to say that I don't personally see a need for it - but I understand it.
As I know you've identified yourself as a Roman Catholic elsewhere, let me pose another question: Would it be safe to say that the appearance of inconsistencies in the Bible then derive primarily from an attempt by a finite consciousness to define the attributes of an infinite perfection?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.