This thread is about a special love…
The kind of love that can only exist between an atheist and a christian.
This love is so deep and committed that they will humor each other for hundreds of forum pages… allowing their chosen mate to argue with them using familiar yet completely irrelevant reasoning tools.
It’s really touching when you think about how much effort goes into the steady, continuous… almost rhythmic pitches of softball arguments.
[quote]florelius wrote:
This tread is a clusterfuck from hell. Whats the topic really? is it about if god exist or not? Or is it about the origins of morals and ethics? [/quote]You see a difference in these?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
This tread is a clusterfuck from hell. Whats the topic really? is it about if god exist or not? Or is it about the origins of morals and ethics? [/quote]
Don’t try to change the subject…[/quote]
then explain to me what the subject is? I have read this entire tread and no clear subject stands out.
So I would be gratefull if you pointed out for me what the topic is and I can chip in if I have any thougts
on the matter and if I dont, I want bother.
[/quote]
No. I see what you’re attempting. You’re trying to change the subject by making the subject about the subject we’re supposed to be debating in this thread. [/quote]
hehehe… I do that sometimes I guess, my bad 
But ok let me try to understand this tread:
atheists: God doesnt exist, because nobody can prove his existence!
religious: Oh we have proof, ever heard about the holy cloth in mexico that surived a bomb!
atheists: That did not happend in a controlled enviroment, blow it up again!
religious: Are you insane, Its holy and we dont want to make god mad!
atheists: So you are still without proof then!
religious: Well without god there is no morals, you are a moral relativist just like hitler and stalin!
atheists: Well we believe that morals is part of the evolution?
religious: blabla…
atheists: blabla…
This is my perception of the tread. If I have missed something, please point it out.
btw: can someone explain that theory about morals and evolution again. Is it backed up by empirical data or is it based on rational thinking?
sorry if I am being an ass, but cant help myself 
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
This tread is a clusterfuck from hell. Whats the topic really? is it about if god exist or not? Or is it about the origins of morals and ethics? [/quote]You see a difference in these?
[/quote]
Yes. If you are debating the origins of morals and ethics, the goal of the conversation is to find
out about that. If you are debating the existence of god, then the goal is to prove or disprove his existence. I see that they are familiar, and that god can be used in a debate about morals and vice versa. Still its not the same discussion. This is my opinion, not stating facts here. just saying so nobody gets all butthurt about it.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
This tread is a clusterfuck from hell. Whats the topic really? is it about if god exist or not? Or is it about the origins of morals and ethics? [/quote]
Don’t try to change the subject…[/quote]
then explain to me what the subject is? I have read this entire tread and no clear subject stands out.
So I would be gratefull if you pointed out for me what the topic is and I can chip in if I have any thougts
on the matter and if I dont, I want bother.
[/quote]
No. I see what you’re attempting. You’re trying to change the subject by making the subject about the subject we’re supposed to be debating in this thread. [/quote]
hehehe… I do that sometimes I guess, my bad
But ok let me try to understand this tread:
atheists: God doesnt exist, because nobody can prove his existence!
religious: Oh we have proof, ever heard about the holy cloth in mexico that surived a bomb!
atheists: That did not happend in a controlled enviroment, blow it up again!
religious: Are you insane, Its holy and we dont want to make god mad!
atheists: So you are still without proof then!
religious: Well without god there is no morals, you are a moral relativist just like hitler and stalin!
atheists: Well we believe that morals is part of the evolution?
religious: blabla…
atheists: blabla…
This is my perception of the tread. If I have missed something, please point it out.
btw: can someone explain that theory about morals and evolution again. Is it backed up by empirical data or is it based on rational thinking?
sorry if I am being an ass, but cant help myself
[/quote]
You can look here:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/catholic_v_protestant_robert_george_v_cornel_west?id=4108666&pageNo=14
and here:
It turns out to be a pretty well established correlative of descriptive relativism.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
This tread is a clusterfuck from hell. Whats the topic really? is it about if god exist or not? Or is it about the origins of morals and ethics? [/quote]
Don’t try to change the subject…[/quote]
then explain to me what the subject is? I have read this entire tread and no clear subject stands out.
So I would be gratefull if you pointed out for me what the topic is and I can chip in if I have any thougts
on the matter and if I dont, I want bother.
[/quote]
No. I see what you’re attempting. You’re trying to change the subject by making the subject about the subject we’re supposed to be debating in this thread. [/quote]
hehehe… I do that sometimes I guess, my bad
But ok let me try to understand this tread:
atheists: God doesnt exist, because nobody can prove his existence!
religious: Oh we have proof, ever heard about the holy cloth in mexico that surived a bomb!
atheists: That did not happend in a controlled enviroment, blow it up again!
religious: Are you insane, Its holy and we dont want to make god mad!
atheists: So you are still without proof then!
religious: Well without god there is no morals, you are a moral relativist just like hitler and stalin!
atheists: Well we believe that morals is part of the evolution?
religious: blabla…
atheists: blabla…
This is my perception of the tread. If I have missed something, please point it out.
btw: can someone explain that theory about morals and evolution again. Is it backed up by empirical data or is it based on rational thinking?
sorry if I am being an ass, but cant help myself
[/quote]
You can look here:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/catholic_v_protestant_robert_george_v_cornel_west?id=4108666&pageNo=14
and here:
It turns out to be a pretty well established correlative of descriptive relativism. [/quote]
I read the wikipedia link and it was a good read, but I still have questions about it.
The wiki article did not say if it where an biological evolution or a cultural one in regards to human morality. If you know something about this, I would love to hear it.
“Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.”
–Albert Einstein
I’m just throwing it out there b/c Einstein’s like my hero.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
“Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.”
–Albert Einstein
I’m just throwing it out there b/c Einstein’s like my hero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality[/quote]
John 17:16-17: Jesus praying to the Father for His disciples,
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
“Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.”
–Albert Einstein
I’m just throwing it out there b/c Einstein’s like my hero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality[/quote]
Good qoute by einstein there fletch, but I dont think the religious guys in here are saying that the incentiv for acting moral are because we would be punished by god if we did not act moral. I understand them in this way: Since god is the creator of everything, then moral is he`s creaton and because of this; moral are absolut and are not relative to time and space and if you then dont believe in god then you cant believe in an absolut moral code ipso facto: atheism = moral relativism. This is how I understand the religious sentiment, but I can offcourse be wrong.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
This tread is a clusterfuck from hell. Whats the topic really? is it about if god exist or not? Or is it about the origins of morals and ethics? [/quote]You see a difference in these?
[/quote]
Yes. If you are debating the origins of morals and ethics, the goal of the conversation is to find
out about that. If you are debating the existence of god, then the goal is to prove or disprove his existence. I see that they are familiar, and that god can be used in a debate about morals and vice versa. Still its not the same discussion. This is my opinion, not stating facts here. just saying so nobody gets all butthurt about it. [/quote]Fair enough, but as you probably guessed I see those as the same discussion approached from a different direction.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By even defining ‘evil,’ you too are now responsible for creating/maintaing ‘evil.’ Unless you’re saying ‘evil’ exists prior and regardless of your (or Stalin’s) definition of evil. But then you’d have opened up a can of worms for yourself.[/quote]
No, it’s very simple. God created everything, including evil. Evil is His creation. Respect His creation.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Since god is the creator of everything[/quote]
But it’s right there. EVERYTHING. That includes evil.
By denouncing evil you spit in the face of His creation.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Since god is the creator of everything[/quote]
But it’s right there. EVERYTHING. That includes evil.
By denouncing evil you spit in the face of His creation.[/quote]
Is this directed at me or at Sloth?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By even defining ‘evil,’ you too are now responsible for creating/maintaing ‘evil.’ Unless you’re saying ‘evil’ exists prior and regardless of your (or Stalin’s) definition of evil. But then you’d have opened up a can of worms for yourself.[/quote]
No, it’s very simple. God created everything, including evil. Evil is His creation. Respect His creation.[/quote]
No, it isn’t. Not sure what religion you practice or what it’s theology is, but it’s not mine.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Since god is the creator of everything[/quote]
But it’s right there. EVERYTHING. That includes evil.
By denouncing evil you spit in the face of His creation.[/quote]
You’re failing. Your charge means you can’t define evil acts, or you are responsible for creating evil.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Good qoute by einstein there fletch, but I dont think the religious guys in here are saying that the incentiv for acting moral are because we would be punished by god if we did not act moral. I understand them in this way: Since god is the creator of everything, then moral is he`s creaton and because of this; moral are absolut and are not relative to time and space and if you then dont believe in god then you cant believe in an absolut moral code ipso facto: atheism = moral relativism. This is how I understand the religious sentiment, but I can offcourse be wrong. [/quote]Morality is absolute because it is a reflection of God’s very nature and is therefore as unbending as He is. Our knowledge of morality is a direct revelation of this nature stamped on and in us in the remaining though warped image of God inherited from Adam. Every single human being, except Christ is born this way and spend every waking moment and calorie (yes, I mean that literally) devising ways to convince themselves that absolutely ANYTHING except that is the truth.
Those who trust their eternal lives to the blood and resurrected life of Jesus Christ are born again out of the family of the first Adam and into the family of God. They then wind up believing all kinds of things which quite frankly are understandably preposterous nonsense to the world of unbelievers still dead in the prison of their fallen intellect. I really do know how that sounds, but I assure you that far from fomenting a spirit of haughty condescension, the first hand knowledge of God’s saving grace produces in me a desire to see His name honored and to obey him in declaring His gospel. The results are up to Him.
See, I have no problem recognizing that what I believe IS, to the unbelieving mind, idiotic. It is. I would never attempt with logic and reason to convince them of it’s truth. If human logic actually occupies the exalted status accorded it by the people in this thread for instance then their arguments are unassailable. If everything except God owes it’s existence to Him then He most assuredly is responsible for evil. That is IF human intellect is the highest court of truth. It’s fruitless to argue in their arena against such things. In that arena they (you) are correct. The whole doctrine of the incarnation is a logical disaster. I simply do not exalt human reason to the place of God.
What am I saying then? That my faith is illogical? Not exactly. I would say super and supra logical at the same time. The simple fact is, either everything is explained in the manner I’m describing or nothing is explained at all. People can wrangle forever and nothing is ever settled. Just look around. I simply lay everything I am at the Master’s feet and every last fact of existence makes perfect sense to me even while much of it makes no logical sense whatsoever. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN” Hebrews 11.
The most concrete and absolute of all the facts of reality, indeed the ones which define and govern all the others, are precisely the ones which lie wholly beyond the grasp of feeble human intellect.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Good qoute by einstein there fletch, but I dont think the religious guys in here are saying that the incentiv for acting moral are because we would be punished by god if we did not act moral. I understand them in this way: Since god is the creator of everything, then moral is he`s creaton and because of this; moral are absolut and are not relative to time and space and if you then dont believe in god then you cant believe in an absolut moral code ipso facto: atheism = moral relativism. This is how I understand the religious sentiment, but I can offcourse be wrong. [/quote]Morality is absolute because it is a reflection of God’s very nature and is therefore as unbending as He is. Our knowledge of morality is a direct revelation of this nature stamped on and in us in the remaining though warped image of God inherited from Adam. Every single human being, except Christ is born this way and spend every waking moment and calorie (yes, I mean that literally) devising ways to convince themselves that absolutely ANYTHING except that is the truth.
Those who trust their eternal lives to the blood and resurrected life of Jesus Christ are born again out of the family of the first Adam and into the family of God. They then wind up believing all kinds of things which quite frankly are understandably preposterous nonsense to the world of unbelievers still dead in the prison of their fallen intellect. I really do know how that sounds, but I assure you that far from fomenting a spirit of haughty condescension, the first hand knowledge of God’s saving grace produces in me a desire to see His name honored and to obey him in declaring His gospel. The results are up to Him.
See, I have no problem recognizing that what I believe IS, to the unbelieving mind, idiotic. It is. I would never attempt with logic and reason to convince them of it’s truth. If human logic actually occupies the exalted status accorded it by the people in this thread for instance then their arguments are unassailable. If everything except God owes it’s existence to Him then He most assuredly is responsible for evil. That is IF human intellect is the highest court of truth. It’s fruitless to argue in their arena against such things. In that arena they (you) are correct. The whole doctrine of the incarnation is a logical disaster. I simply do not exalt human reason to the place of God.
What am I saying then? That my faith is illogical? Not exactly. I would say super and supra logical at the same time. The simple fact is, either everything is explained in the manner I’m describing or nothing is explained at all. People can wrangle forever and nothing is ever settled. Just look around. I simply lay everything I am at the Master’s feet and every last fact of existence makes perfect sense to me even while much of it makes no logical sense whatsoever. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN” Hebrews 11.
The most concrete and absolute of all the facts of reality, indeed the ones which define and govern all the others, are precisely the ones which lie wholly beyond the grasp of feeble human intellect.
[/quote]
I will make a respons later tiribulus, but most go and have my exam now so dont have time right now. btw: my exam is on the subject of the norwegian middleage curch.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.
My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.
Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.
Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.
You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]
Ugh…I guess you don’t get it, yet. Not everything is repeatable. And, as Catholics not everything is true because “science” can prove it. We’re not skeptics, we’ll take something as truth because there are witnesses.[/quote]
Believing in something on hearsay, without the ability to repeat or scientifically confirm the claim, is tantamount to wishful thinking. This is why there are so many different religions, because nobody provides actual proof for their claims. [/quote]
How does the Catholic Church not provided actual proof?[/quote]
Its core claims are not subject to scientific inquiry, and those claims that actually could be tested (like the claim that the tilma is divinely protected) are refused scientific access.
[/quote]
What core claims are you referring to?
And, what specific claims are you referring to when it comes to the Tilma? (It matters, based on what you think the specific claim is and how you would go about testing it).
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, you’re confusing definition with causality. The issue is not with your god defining evil, but with your god creating the universe and everything contained within it, good and evil both.
It’s a copout to say god created everyone with free will, because it ignores that little something that causes someone to choose good vs. evil. Whatever you want to call that little something, willpower, conscience, soul, etc., your god created that too. Hence, your god is ultimately responsible for the evil choices that people make. How could it logically be otherwise?[/quote]
Do you really find Tirib’s assertion that God has created us without free will any better? If God wanted us to love him, how could we if he didn’t allow his creation the option not to.[/quote]
Truth doesn’t depend on what I “find better”, I’m just pointing out the logical inconsistency. Any theory that posits a prime mover definitionally makes free will impossible. Think about it. What is the ultimate cause for a person’s choice to do evil? Whether it’s a bad soul, or a sickly conscience or whatever, that something was ultimately created by the hypothetical prime mover.[/quote]
Are you saying something that is omnipotent can’t make freewill? If God can make sons of Abraham from rocks, he can make free will.[/quote]
As you admitted earlier, omnipotence still doesn’t allow for the logically impossible to exist. Just as god can’t create something too heavy for him to pick up, god can’t create free will and simultaneously be the prime mover. If he created the universe, he is ultimately accountable for the universe and everything contained within it.
[/quote]
How is being the Prime Mover and free will contradictory? You may have explained this earlier, but I didn’t not see it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is the justice in creating good souls that choose right and are blessed for it, and evil souls that choose wrong and are punished for it?[/quote]
Don’t know. That’s not my theology/faith. You’ll have to find and talk to them (whatever adherents practice such a faith).[/quote]
You suffer from the same logical fallacy, because you assert a prime mover while insisting on the existence of free will. So answer the question: what quality of a person causes them to choose evil or good?[/quote]
Their free will. [/quote]
That’s not what I asked.
Free will is the free exercise of will.
But what causes the will itself? Where does the will come from?[/quote]
The will created by God, he gave us the ability to exercise His will, or to choose our will.[/quote]
So why did god give some people the will to exercise his will, while he gave others the will to follow their own will instead?
[/quote]
I’m not sure, you’ll have to ask someone that believes that. Neither I personally nor the Church believes that.
Everyone has the will to follow God’s will, but because of concupiscence we have a difficult time because of our fallen nature to respect that will, and instead follow our own. If you sincerely wanted to be in communion with God, you could. Some people are such skeptics that I do not think they could possibly do it, but all is possible nevertheless.