that’s not what i said.
or at least, that’s not what i tried to say.
i was reacting to the idea that killing babies was the “moral of the time” for the Spartans, and that human sacrifice was the “moral of the time” for the Aztecs.
my point is that the Spartans and Aztecs didn’t pretend to act morally in those cases.
they knew it was bad, but thought it was necessary.
and i agree with you : those acts were and are obviously evil.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
At the risk of misinterpreting your position, based upon what you’ve told me so far, morality is determined by the times, the particular situation of a given society, and the collective consensus of that society. [/quote]
Bingo. Couldn’t have said it better myself. However, I would like to add that I feel some moralities are better than others at developing societies and some are even destructive. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the human sacrifice on a mass scale done by the Aztecs was a self-destructive form of ‘morality’. [/quote]
Okay, thanks for the candid response. Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to unfurl this line of thinking a bit. Great choice in bringing up the Aztecs, btw, they are my personal favorite society to use as an example in these discussions of absolute/relative morality.
But let’s stick with the Spartans for a little bit longer, as that’s what we started with. So you stated (forgive me I don’t have your post right before me so I am working from memory) that tossing those wimpy little girly-babies into the dead-baby pit was, at that time and place and society, “moral,” because it help their society to become strong, thrive, perhaps even survive. If I get off track here please reign me in.
Okay, so, Sparta was a fully functioning society with a strong incentive toward it’s own survival. I just quickly googled and answers were all over the place, but it appears the population of Ancient Sparta was anywhere between 100,000 and 400,000 people. Now I’ll put aside the fact that a large portion of whatever number this is was actually enslaved servants, and we’ll just take them as they are. So, based upon what you have said so far, Spartan’s decision to play baby frisbee with the weaker, “ungood” babies can be described as moral because of the larger interest in the strengthening and survival of the society as a whole.
Am I still okay so far?
[quote]kamui wrote:
that’s not what i said.
or at least, that’s not what i tried to say.
i was reacting to the idea that killing babies was the “moral of the time” for the Spartans, and that human sacrifice was the “moral of the time” for the Aztecs.
my point is that the Spartans and Aztecs didn’t pretend to act morally in those cases.
they knew it was bad, but thought it was necessary.
and i agree with you : those acts were and are obviously evil.
[/quote]
Okay, I misunderstood you. My apologies. We actually appear to be on the same page.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
At the risk of misinterpreting your position, based upon what you’ve told me so far, morality is determined by the times, the particular situation of a given society, and the collective consensus of that society. [/quote]
Bingo. Couldn’t have said it better myself. However, I would like to add that I feel some moralities are better than others at developing societies and some are even destructive. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the human sacrifice on a mass scale done by the Aztecs was a self-destructive form of ‘morality’. [/quote]
Okay, thanks for the candid response. Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to unfurl this line of thinking a bit. Great choice in bringing up the Aztecs, btw, they are my personal favorite society to use as an example in these discussions of absolute/relative morality.
But let’s stick with the Spartans for a little bit longer, as that’s what we started with. So you stated (forgive me I don’t have your post right before me so I am working from memory) that tossing those wimpy little girly-babies into the dead-baby pit was, at that time and place and society, “moral,” because it help their society to become strong, thrive, perhaps even survive. If I get off track here please reign me in.
Okay, so, Sparta was a fully functioning society with a strong incentive toward it’s own survival. I just quickly googled and answers were all over the place, but it appears the population of Ancient Sparta was anywhere between 100,000 and 400,000 people. Now I’ll put aside the fact that a large portion of whatever number this is was actually enslaved servants, and we’ll just take them as they are. So, based upon what you have said so far, Spartan’s decision to play baby frisbee with the weaker, “ungood” babies can be described as moral because of the larger interest in the strengthening and survival of the society as a whole.
Am I still okay so far?
[/quote]
At the moment, I trying to figure out a working definition of the word and concept of morality and whether or not I believe in it so I’m really not sure at the moment. I’ll get back to you (it may take a while).
[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?
and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]
Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I think atheism has a got a bad name - For example Im technically atheist because i dont believe in any god. But “I contend we are all atheists” is a pretty good quote, as religious folk don’t believe in every “GOD”. SO how can atheist have any more or less moral values???
Also, I HATE it when religious people cite people like stalin, hitler etc - regardless of whether they were actually atheists, nothing they did was ever done in the name of atheism, the same, sadly can not be said for religion. These people did what they did because they are evil fuckers not because they are atheist.
One last thing - Imo religion isn’t “bad” because there is a lot of good work with sick/homeless ppl etc etc but i think too many religious ppl have had the wool pulled over there eyes. Ie just because we don’t (yet) fully understand how we got here it doesn’t mean we should just say, “fuck it, it was magic” …
Its bullshit anyway - Most people are religious because their parents force them into one religion, rather than showing them all the options and let them pick if they so choose.
[/quote]
I think you confuse the difference between doing something in the name of Christianity and atheist not condemning an action.
Christians condemned Stalin, Hitler, &c. Atheism did not. Being silent on a subject is the same as doing it yourself.[/quote]
I don’t understand what you mean? - christians codmened stalin and hitler? (who gives a F what christians have done its not like they’re judge and jury)
???Maybe atheists can separate their beliefs from a situation where as christians, clusping for anything that will attack atheism, cant.
You need to understand that atheism usually has nothing to do with a lot of the things people blame upon it.
I don’t believe in your religion, but you dont believe in, say, Hindu. SO how are we any different…
On a side note, not sure if this has been brought up but Australia actually has an atheist Prime Minister now - She is a very intelligent woman too.
[/quote]
Let me congratulate you on your intelligent PM. Who gives a fuck about what Christians have done? A lot of people, atheism in America is a direct denial of the Christian God. Kind of strange to say you do not care about something that your world view is based on being against that thing.
That’s like me saying I do not care about communism, but I am anti-communist and I will tell everyone and argue with everyone about it. But I do not give a fuck about it.[/quote]
You took it out of context mate - i said who cares that christians codemned stalin. - if you had of said, an independent body, maybe the UN, condemned stalin of his crimes due to the fact he was atheist maybe that would hold up - but saying christians said this “…” means nothing. In fact christians should be the last people to “condemn” anyone.
[/quote]
Not just Christians, but Catholics. Like that society that is headquartered in the Vatican City, that so many people love to hate. Why should Christians be the last people to condemn anyone.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
What is a scientific “truth” that would be different than just plain truth.
Oh do please indulge us on what science supports atheism and refutes religion…If you have been around, you know you cannot just leave the above statement to stand on it’s own. You made the statement, you need to prove it.[/quote]
Most science refutes religion. Stop getting your knickers in a twist, he said nothing of it refuting God.[/quote]
What religion though, when making a conclusion (even without proper premises), one should not use abritrary words.[/quote]
You know full well that there is no irrefutable evidence against the existence of a god. (hence your confidence in telling people to prove it) - But if you’re worth half your weight in the amount of times you posted here, youll know the same can be said for your side of the argument. However, YOU are the one making accusations that there is a magic man who can create universes, so the responsibility lies on you to prove it. (why would i follow a religion that has no evidence to support it, (unless i had been brainwashed into it by my parents at a young age))[/quote]
Yes, I understand that there is an assumption that needs to be assumed. Thomas Aquinas referred to it as faith.
Please, if you will, let’s not use ad hominems and appeal to emotion because I am tired of listening to them and am ready to start ignoring people. God is not magic, Catholics are not superstitious. God is not man, he is being. Plus you show your age with comments like “magic man.” And, God isn’t on stage in Vegas seven nights a week.
If we are being completely rational I suppose that with the two arguments (although I have never heard of a good argument for God not existing, usually it is to complex for a person to explain it to me without having to pick up a book to read out of) that an agnostic would be most rational. That there is no proof of God, there for I can neither say he is real or not real.
However, I present the questions:
Is it more rational to think something came from nothing, or that there was an uncreated creator who formed universe?
From my short study in cosmology, mathematically speaking it is impossible for the universe to happen by chance.
Being in the Catholic Church, no I don’t. It doesn’t scare me, it is actually pretty cool. I offer you a challenge, five pieces of science that goes against the Catholic Church.
No, I do not get the idea, sorry I am being difficult. I just am not good with inferences. Guess that is why my woman get’s upset at me so much.
Not really, I am not Catholic by chance. There is a specific reasons why I am Catholic. And, I think .333 of the world that follows the same religion is not a coincidence. I live in a heavy populated Protestant and Mormon area. Matters what part of town you are in if you will deal with the Mormons or if you’ll deal with the Protestants.
Fill my boots, I’m not sure what this means. And, I didn’t know this was an opinion thing, I thought we brought logic and fact to the table. Oh well.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Libraries have fiction and non-fiction bud. try to jump off your pedestal before you call people shorties or son.[/quote]
Libraries do not denote fiction or non-fiction. When I refer to libraries full of proof, I am not talking about actual libraries, I am making a figure of speech in the fact that we have large quantities of proof.
To what possibilities?
Heaven has two definitions “where God is and will always be” and “everything we see in the sky above us.” If we look at where God is, “God is everywhere.” If one is separated from God he is in Hell, and “Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments.” However, the Church has not made a comment on where these two places, Heaven could be everywhere or be in a certain abode with limits. Hell can be in the Earth, they do not know yet. So nothing has been said on the subject of where they are.
Why did God make them? Well, one is for Satan and his minions, as well as those who freely choose not to be in Heaven. Heaven is for those who have chosen to be with God and are just.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]
Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]
Theology is not a science.[/quote]
Um, yes it is.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.
[/quote]
It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]
Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.
And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.
[/quote]
You’re just made because the tooth fairy has more powers than you in real life. I don’t see you convincing young children to put their teeth underneath their pillows.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Be careful, you know what Oscar Wilde said about telling people the truth…
[/quote]
Let’s ask the puritans who persecuted him.[/quote]
Sits in the Catholic corner Hi Mak, how you doing?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.
[/quote]
It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]
Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.
And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.
[/quote]
So you concede that the Uncaused-cause does in fact exist?
If the tooth fairy has the ability to create and cause, then yes. As far as I know the tooth fairy deals with putting money under pillow for teeth though.
I never said ‘he’ was an anthropomorphic entity. [/quote]
I do not concede that.
One simply cannot build argument on the notion that everything has a cause and then introduce an uncaused cause.
That is just postulating a premise without whitout which the whole argument would fall flat on its face.
I would point him towards Summa Theologica where TA gives you five arguments of God all finishing in the uncaused-causer.
[/quote]
Go look it up…There is tons of stuff about it. Don’t take my word on it.
Second, it’s not a premise it’s a conclusion, to a very clean linear argument. Why can you not come to the conclusion of an uncaused-causer? Make perfect sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than utter nothingness begetting all existence. ← That is far more absurd. A nothing cannot make a something, because nothing isn’t. What isn’t cannot make what is, it’s simply not logical.
People have tried to refute it for centuries and no one has been successful. So good luck.[/quote]
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
(hopefully i can articulate this right)
The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.
Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?
Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.
[/quote]
So, what you are saying is, you have faith that science will eventually prove that something came from nothing? But in the meantime all the theists who have faith (blind faith, mind you) that that “something” had to have been caused by a first mover, are both ignorant and stupid.
You want to read the above again and tell me where I got off the tracks, or is this, indeed, what you are saying?
[/quote]
Not quite - So there are two theories right, religious theory and scientific theory to how universes were made.
At the moment science has its theories, but cannot irrefutably prove them. (but imo they are getting closer to understanding our world and therefore must be closer to proving their theories.) There are some methods like dating the age of rocks (carbon dating?) that have thrown some religious theories out the window, ie when the earth was created. So its a just matter a time for us to understand the world around us.
[/quote]
Um…okay. You keep bringing this up, but I keep pointing to the fact that the CC doesn’t disagree with science on this. And it does not disturb the theory of how or when the earth was created.
The Catholic Church hires probably more scientists than any other group. And, the other religions I am not sure. You should stop painting with broad strokes.
I feel that morality is a word that describes an evolutionary construct and is considered a tier above ethics, politics, and economics because it is a more universal concept. As such, morality tends to be much more static throughout time and different cultures even if a society chooses not to act on their morality.
There are some that lack this evolutionary construct and end often end up in prisons and such places and the only reason they are aware of it is because they have been told about it over and over again.
I would also like to add that I believe morality is a huge reason humans have been as successful as a species up to this point.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Is that supposed to be a Catholic Priest?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
evolutionary construct[/quote]
Likely not.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
At the risk of misinterpreting your position, based upon what you’ve told me so far, morality is determined by the times, the particular situation of a given society, and the collective consensus of that society. [/quote]
Bingo. Couldn’t have said it better myself. However, I would like to add that I feel some moralities are better than others at developing societies and some are even destructive. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the human sacrifice on a mass scale done by the Aztecs was a self-destructive form of ‘morality’. [/quote]
Okay, thanks for the candid response. Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to unfurl this line of thinking a bit. Great choice in bringing up the Aztecs, btw, they are my personal favorite society to use as an example in these discussions of absolute/relative morality.
But let’s stick with the Spartans for a little bit longer, as that’s what we started with. So you stated (forgive me I don’t have your post right before me so I am working from memory) that tossing those wimpy little girly-babies into the dead-baby pit was, at that time and place and society, “moral,” because it help their society to become strong, thrive, perhaps even survive. If I get off track here please reign me in.
Okay, so, Sparta was a fully functioning society with a strong incentive toward it’s own survival. I just quickly googled and answers were all over the place, but it appears the population of Ancient Sparta was anywhere between 100,000 and 400,000 people. Now I’ll put aside the fact that a large portion of whatever number this is was actually enslaved servants, and we’ll just take them as they are. So, based upon what you have said so far, Spartan’s decision to play baby frisbee with the weaker, “ungood” babies can be described as moral because of the larger interest in the strengthening and survival of the society as a whole.
Am I still okay so far?
[/quote]
Now that I have made a working definition of morality, I would say it was not moral but it was effective at making their society. Essentially, the ends justified the means.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]
If you believe this, why is it difficult to believe that everything in the universe has simply always been here and needs no maker?
Also, if you think theology is a science, you really should stop debating these issues. Theology can’t be a science, as it is impossible to ascertain proof, cause, and effect on theological issues. This isn’t a value judgement, simply two states of being.
I understand that many, such as Aquinas, have babbled on incoherently trying to mash theological discussion into a rational context, but they’ve failed pretty heartily. It’s laudable that they tried to make the leap from religious dogma to rational thought and realism, but unfortunately they weren’t able to quite get there.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
(hopefully i can articulate this right)
The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.
Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?
Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.
[/quote]
So, what you are saying is, you have faith that science will eventually prove that something came from nothing? But in the meantime all the theists who have faith (blind faith, mind you) that that “something” had to have been caused by a first mover, are both ignorant and stupid.
You want to read the above again and tell me where I got off the tracks, or is this, indeed, what you are saying?
[/quote]
Not quite - So there are two theories right, religious theory and scientific theory to how universes were made.
At the moment science has its theories, but cannot irrefutably prove them. (but imo they are getting closer to understanding our world and therefore must be closer to proving their theories.) There are some methods like dating the age of rocks (carbon dating?) that have thrown some religious theories out the window, ie when the earth was created. So its a just matter a time for us to understand the world around us.
On the other hand, religion has its theories, but are not, and will probably never be able to prove them. Thus, religion is stagnant, they will never be able to PROVE their claims. (unless a scientist figures something out for them)
So there lies the stupidity, imo, in blind faith. When we are talking about creation of earth, science, universes etc etc there is no other truth than a scientific truth. logic, morality etc shouldnt even be discussed.
[/quote]
Your blanket statement involving your “us” (science) against their “them” (religion) betrays the silliness of everything you are saying.
It is not the job of religions to “prove” anything. Indeed, my particular religion has no problem leaving the issues of science to the scientists. You won’t find me arguing against the world being billions of years old, or that the present species inhabiting Earth today do appear to have evolved somehow or another from prior creatures.
There are other religions who possess certain beliefs which may or may not be in opposition to the conclusions of scientific thought. However, there is no bogeyman called “Religion,” who is the Lex Luthor to science’s Superman.
Religion is about one’s relationship with God. It is essentially metaphysical.
Science is about figuring out the physical and how it works. Neither is necessarily incompatible, but it is not “religion’s” job to figure out how we got here. Just as it is not science’s job to figure out why.
To conflate the two and act as if you are making some sort of fair comparison is nothing more than a straw man. If you disagree with something, then pick something specific. And if you say “God,” then you had better be careful, as you have already admitted that your “scientific” knowledge of His existence (or not) is just as faith based as any street-corner preacher.
[/quote]
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]
If you believe this, why is it difficult to believe that everything in the universe has simply always been here and needs no maker?
[/quote]
Because no one has presented a logic argument that everything in the universe has simply always been here. As well, because there is death.
I answer that, Sacred doctrine (or Theology) is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God. - (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars Q.1, Article 2)
[quote]
I understand that many, such as Aquinas, have babbled on incoherently trying to mash theological discussion into a rational context, but they’ve failed pretty heartily. It’s laudable that they tried to make the leap from religious dogma to rational thought and realism, but unfortunately they weren’t able to quite get there.[/quote]
I am glad you have an opinion, but maybe you should attempt to be like Aquinas and actually make an argument instead of stating opinions.
